Senate
30 November 1932

13^th Parliament · 1^st Session

NEW BUSINESSAFTER 10.30 P.M
PAPERS
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN-MADE GOODS
QUESTION
- UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
PORT AUGUSTA TO KALGOORLIE RAILWAY
- Freight Concessions
QUESTION
- WOOL INQUIRY COMMITTEE
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE REGULATIONS
SUGAR AGREEMENT BILL
- Second Reading
WAR SERVICE HOMES AGREEMENT BILL
- Second Reading
SUGAR AGREEMENT BILL
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
AMBITIONS IN POLITICS
- Task for Mr. Lyons

The President (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3028

NEW BUSINESSAFTER 10.30 P.M

Motion (by Senator Sir George Pearce) - by leave - agreed to -

That Standing Order No. 68 be suspended up to and including the 3rd December to enable new business to be taken after 10.30 p.m.

page 3028

PAPERS

The following papers were presented: -

Munitions Supply Board - Report for period 1st July, 1929, to 30th June, 1931, together with Report of Commonwealth Government- Clothing Factory for the year ended 30th June, 1931.

Superannuation Act - Tenth Annual Report of the Superannuation Board for the year ended 30th June, 1932.

page 3028

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN-MADE GOODS

Senator DUNN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Leader of the Senate read the overseas press cable news in the Canberra Times of this date to the effect that leading newspapers in London are appealing to the people of Great Britain not to buy goods manufactured in the United States of America? Are the right honorable gentleman and his colleagues, Senators McLachlan and Greene willing to appeal in this chamber, and also in the Cabinet room, to the people of Australia to buy only Australianmade goods?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I have seen the statement referred to, and againI remind the honorable gentleman that it is not usual to disclose govern ment policy in answer to questions.

page 3028

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Senator DUNN:

– Is the Leader of the

Senate aware that Mr. Jardine, the captain of the English cricket team now visiting Australia, when speaking recently over the air at one of the Sydney B-class wireless stations, appealed to listeners to make monetary donations for Christmas dinners for unemployed Australian returned sailors and soldiers and their dependants? If so, will the Government now reverse its policy and make available the sum of £1,000,000 for Christmas relief for the unemployed in Australia?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The honorable senator has been informed, on several occasions, that the Government is making available through Commonwealth and State channels more than £1,000,000 for the relief of unemployment.

page 3029

PORT AUGUSTA TO KALGOORLIE RAILWAY

Freight Concessions

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE Information is being obtained, and will be furnished as soon as possible to Senator E. B. Johnston with reference to freight concessions on the Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie railway.

page 3029

QUESTION

WOOL INQUIRY COMMITTEE

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA

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

When will honorable senators have an opportunity of discussing the very lengthy and intricate report by the Commonwealth Wool Inquiry Committee?
What notice, if any, does the Government intend to take of this report?
Will the Government undertake not to in any way interfere with the wool industry of Australia until the report has been carefully investigated and discussed by Parliament?
Will the Government appoint a subcommittee of five, consisting of three members of the House of Representatives and two members of the Senate, to investigate the report and report upon same to the Ministry?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The right honorable the Prime Minister has supplied the following answers: - -

It is hoped that it may be possible to provide an opportunity before the Senate rises, if business so permits.
The Government lias already taken action, as far as the financial position will allow, to reduce land tax, and it will shortly take steps,, with, it is hoped, the co-operation of the States, to convene a conference of all interests concerned with a view to ascertaining to what extent joint action may be possible in the direction of implementing the other recommendations contained in the report.
The Government has no intention of interfering in any way with the wool industry except at the express request of the industry itself.
See answer to 2. In the circumstances therein indicated, it is not thought that any useful purpose would be served at present by the adoption of the honorable senator’s proposal.

page 3029

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE REGULATIONS

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether ho has received a letter dated 23ru November, from the Queensland branches of the combined Public Service organizations, appealing for some measure of relief from th<recent wage cuts; if so, what decision has been reached upon the matter?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer: -

An opportunity has not yet presented itself for considering the representations referred to, but the honorable senator will be advised in regard to the matter as soon as possible.

page 3029

SUGAR AGREEMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 29th November (vide page 2974), on motion by Senator Greene -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

– Prior to the adjournment last evening, in the few preliminary observations which I was able to make, I referred to. the unfortunate position of the sugar industry. Owing to its remoteness from the principal centres of population, and also because sugar is produced chiefly in one State, the industry is more vulnerable to attack that it would be if it were carried on in several States. For some unexplained reason the production of sugar in many countries outside Australia has always been more subject to attack than any other industry. About three-quarters of a century ago Disraeli said of it - “ Strange that a manufacture which charms infancy and soothes old age should so frequently occasion political disaster.”1’ Ever since federation the industry in Australia has been so often called upon to meet attacks from various quarters that there might be applied to it the words spoken of those engaged in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem - they have been working with a trowel in one hand and a sword in the other. I suppose we may congratulate ourselves that, in spite of the strength of enemy forces arrayed against us, we have been fairly successful, and that the people now recognize, through their governments, our claim for sympathetic consideration. . So far as the industry itself is concerned, the head and front of its offending has been the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. But why this should Ite so I am at a loss to understand. Possibly it is because a certain type of mind cannot view, with equanimity, success in others. We have been told, that dogs do ‘’ bay the moon “. That appears to explain the attitude of some people towards the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. I was a member of a royal commission which made a most exhaustive investigation into every branch of the industry about twenty years ago, and as a result of that inquiry which was, in a large measure, directed against the operations of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, I wrote the following in my minority report: -

The evidence reveals that the Colonial Sugar Helming Company occupies a commanding position in the industry, secured by steadily pursuing, for a long course of years, a policy which has won for it the confidence and good will of practically the whole of those with whom it has had business dealings. There is nothing to indicate that any of the company’s transactions have been in the slightest degree of a predatory character. Amicable relations subsist between the company on the one hand, and the manufacturers of raw sugar and the purchasers of refined on the other. That the company earns large profits both within and without the Commonwealth, appears to be entirely due to the volume of its business, the command of - adequate capital, the complete utilization of by-products, thorough organization, able administration, and high efficiency in every department.

What I then stated has not since been successfully challenged ‘from any quarter. I remember some years ago hearing a free lance journalist say that whenever he was hardpressed for a “ fiver all he had to do was to send to one of the newspapers one of his diatribes against the ‘Colonial Sugar Refining Company. ‘ These ebullitions have not appeared so frequently of late because the columns of our reputable newspapers are not, I believe, so open for the publication of misrepresentation and vilification of one of ‘ the most successful industrial and commercial concerns in the Commonwealth. One reason why so many attacks have been made against the company is that it has not been its policy to make reply to them. But that policy has been departed from to a slight extent of late, and I commend to honorable senators an article appearing in Current Problems of a recent date, and written by P. H. Goldfinch, General Manager of the Company. In that article he makes a passing reference to the way in which the Company has become possessed in recent years of its large funds. He says that during the early post-war years, the Company sold its Fiji sugar on the world’s markets, and got world prices. How high those were may be indicated by reminding honorable senators that in 1920, Great Britain paid to sugar producers in Mauritius £90 a ton for 200,000 tons, representing a payment of £18,000,000. As a consequence of those high prices, millions of money poured into the countries, such as Cuba and Java, which were producing sugar for the world’s markets. During the war, there was a distinct shortage of sugar in the world. Beet sugar production in Europe was greatly reduced in volume, and, to supply the deficiency thus created, every effort was made in cane-sugar countries such as Java, Cuba, Hawaii and Porto’ Rico, to produce to the utmost extent. Consequently, during the war years, there was a very great increase in the production of cane sugar, and an increase occurred in Australia to some extent. It was said by Senator Colebatch yesterday that the production of sugar in Queensland was very low in 1920, when an arrangement was made between the industry and the GovGovernment of the Commonwealth to increase the price to £30 6s. 8d. a ton. In 1917, the quantity produced in Australia was 324,260 tons. The estimate for 1918 was 3«5,000 tons, but then two most devastating cyclones, followed by floods and droughts, took place in Queensland, and instead of the anticipated 365,000 tons, only 209,000 tons were produced. During the war, and particularly in the later years of it, the industry was carried on in Australia under very great difficulties, partly climatic, but largely owing to labour difficulties. Practically all the farmers’ sons eligible for war service were at the war, and so were the best of the wageearners. There was a distinct shortage of efficient labour, and the best the industry could do was to mark time. A great many of our growers, and many of our millers, too, carried on at considerable loss, but having made arrangements with the Government t.o supply sugar at £21 a ton, we stood by the agreement, and did our best to give effect to it.

I make no complaint against the action of the present Federal Government in asking for a review of the agreement entered into between the Government of Queensland, on behalf of the sugar producers in that State, and the Commonwealth. Yet it was most unfortunate, I think, that the announcement was made in such regrettable terms. When we sat in conference with Senator McLachlan in Brisbane, and later, with the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) in Canberra, we were met in a very fair and reasonable way. After considering debits and credits in connexion with the proposed alteration of the price, we agreed to accept a reduction of ½d. per lb., on the condition that that price was fixed for a term beyond that for which the price was to run under the previous agreement. Of course, when an agreement is entered into, one cannot expect all the advantages to be on one side. This agreement involves a loss to the industry of £1,300,000 a year, and how that loss is to be met I do not know. But it was impressed upon us that, in view of the unfortunate position of some of the other big primary producing industries, we should., as far as possible, fall into line with them. Senator McLachlan, in Brisbane, assembled the representatives of the industry as a hen gathers her chickens, yet, at the same time he rifled the pockets of the industry to the extent of £1,300,000. So urbane was he, so persuasive, so exhortative, that I cannot help thinking what a great ecclesiastic was lost to the church when Senator McLachlan decided to study the law instead of the prophets. After our prolonged conference with the Prime Minister, I had a better opinion of him than I had previously held.

I shall refer to the nature of some of the propaganda which has been published in opposition to the sugar industry. I have before me an article which appeared in the Melbourne Herald a few years ago. It .has what is called a banner heading going almost across the page, and in it are some extraordinary statements.

Senator Payne:

– “What is the heading ?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– “ Millions from your sugar basin “. I shall show how these millions were calculated by Mr. J. M. Fowler, whom we recollect as a former member of this Parliament. In the course of the article referred to, he stated -

We were astonished at the relations between the Commonwealth Government and the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, relations which permitted arrangements which paid over to that company over £2,000,000 a year for management alone, and over a third as much in addition for distribution.

That remarkable article elicited a reply from Mr. Ling, an ex-officer of the Commonwealth Audit Department, in the course of which he said -

Sir,

Surely Mr. J. M. Fowler is wrong in affirming that the Commonwealth Government paid to the Colonial Sugar Refining Company £2,000,000 per annum as a management charge and over a third as much in addition for distribution or selling charge. As the Commonwealth Government allowed £1 per ton of refined sugar as a capital and management charge and 7s. per ton of refined sugar as a selling charge, Mr. Fowler’s . figures would require two millions of tons of sugar to be refined annually, which is obviously absurd. Speaking from memory, the tonnage refined in Mr. Fowler’s time was somewhere about 250,000 tons by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, and 20,000 tons by the Millaquin Company. Further, his wish to know the cost of refining sugar could easily have been gratified by referring to the Commonwealth Auditor’s reports. The Colonial Sugar Henning Company was allowed the actual cost of refining, provided it did not exceed a specific amount per ton. I hare “ vouched “ every debit to refining costs, leading to much controversy as to the admission or rejection of certain debits. I believe I gave this fact in evidence before Mr. Fowler’s committee. I am in no way financially interested in the sugar industry (I wish I” wore), only as a consumer. I merely desire to point out what appear to be errors in Mr. Fowler’s article. . It’s pleasant, sure, to see Mr. Fowler in print again.

Yours &c,

Ex-Commonwealth Audtior

Ascot Vale, 13th August, .1930.

Senator Guthrie:

– He wished that he were a shareholder, because the profits were so great.

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator CRAWFORD:

– During the war, and for some time afterwards, the production and distribution of sugar was directly controlled by the Commonwealth Government, and almost £100 a ton was paid for some consignments. I. believe that the average price paid for the sugar purchased abroad was something over £70 a ton. The whole of the facts are contained in the Commonwealth Government sugar control accounts from the 19th July, 1915, to the 31st March, 1922.

In the article that he contributed to the Melbourne Argus, Senator Colebatch made the following statement: -

In 1920-21 the production of sugar was 1S2.525 tons. This left no surplus for export, and the producers - those engaged in growing the cane and milling to the raw sugar stage - obtained the full £21 a ton.

During that year the industry received £30 6s. 8d. a ton; but, as I have already pointed out, away back in 1917 the production was 324,260 tons. Senator Colebatch also dealt in his articles, as he did in his speech last night, with the price of land. In one article he said -

The fact that land assigned to the growing of sugar is worth more than £100 an acre in good districts, while unassigned land would not bring £10 an acre in the same area, is proof of profits of the farmer that will withstand a cut.

– In Sydney, I suppose, where a few months ago cauliflowers were selling at 3d. a dozen and certain other kinds of vegetables could not be given away. During recent months I have seen green peas and french beans selling in Sydney at 4 lb. for 6d. Anyone who knows anything about the growing of vegetables knows that there is no profit for the producer at such prices.

Reference has been made to the price of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company’s shares. Recently Mr. Knox, the managing director of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, said that the company had £18,500,000 invested in the business. As honorable senators are aware, the share capital is between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 so that the 12* per cent, dividend which the company is paying is not high compared with the amount of capital invested in the business.

Senator Foll:

– The company is not responsible for the boosting of the shares.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I am well aware of that. In Monday’s Melbourne newspapers the 20s. shares of the Melbourne Herald were quoted at 55s. buyers and 56s. 6d. sellers, so that the premium in the case of the Melbourne Herald shares is just as great as it is in the case of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company’s £20 shares. The company does not derive all its profits in Australia. For instance I read in the newspapers a few days ago, that the output from the company’s ‘ Fijian sugar mills this season will total 130,000 tons, and Upon that quantity the company is getting a preference in the British and Canadian markets of £5 a ton, which is considerably more than the preference afforded Australian sugar.

Senator Daly:

– In some instances the shares in gold mining ventures have doubled and trebled in value.

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Daly:

– If we purchased sugar from Java could we pay for it with wheat or wool?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– We are buyin a great deal more from Java than Java is buying from us. According to the last figures, we are buying annually nearly £2,000,000 worth of tea, which is sold in Australia as China tea. It has been said that the cost of sugar consumed in Australia, as compared with the price at which it could be purchased from other countries, represents an amount of £7,000,000. Professor Giblin estimated it at £5,000,000 and Professor Bridgen at £4,000,000. It would be reasonable to assume that the cost, is somewhere between those two amounts. By purchasing Australian sugar, instead of running to the bargain counters of the world to obtain it, the people of Australia are paying for the sugar they consume probably £4,500,000 per annum more than they would if they imported their requirements.

The reduction proposed in this bill will represent a . saving of £1,300,000 to them, so that the additional cost to Australian consumers of purchasing’ Australian sugar, in preference to the imported article, will be about £3,200,000, of which Queensland will pay one-sixth, leaving the other States to pay £2;666,667, the whole of which amount will be paid for in goods which are as much above the price of the bargain counters of the world as is the price of sugar. Queensland purchases from the other States goods to the value of £11,300,000 per annum, which it is only fair to assume could be imported at a much lower cost. If we examine the position closely, we shall find that the other States really owe Queensland a considerable sum, instead of Queensland being in debt to them.

Do honorable senators think that it is fair to compare the price of a commodity produced in Australia under white labour conditions with the price of a similar commodity produced in some other country by coloured labour and sold at half the cost of production ? I have always understood Australia’s fiscal policy to be based, not on the cost of production in other countries, but on the reasonable cost of efficient production in this country in industries which it is thought desirable should be established here. Once we depart from that principle, disaster will overtake the industries of Australia, and other countries which desire to do business with us will suffer also.

Some years ago, I was present at a festive gathering in Melbourne at which the speaker who proposed the toast of the host concluded his remarks by saying, “ May he live long and continue to prosper, because if he does not prosper he is of no use to us.” Applying the remarks of the speaker on that occasion to the case now before us, I would say that an impoverished Australia would be of no use to Great Britain. [Extension of time granted.] I thank honorable senators for their courtesy in allowing me further time in which to conclude my remarks. I shall not trespass unduly on their generosity. We can purchase from Britain only so much as our means will permit; if we buy our sugar from other countries we shall have less money to spend within the Empire.

Senator Daly:

– We shall have to get “ niggers “ to grow tomatoes with which to pay our debts.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– There are some persons in Australia who would like the “ niggers “ to grow more than tomatoes. Unfortunately, Australia is weakening on the White Australia policy and that weakening, if not checked, will lead to disaster. I speak to-day, not in support of any theoretical political idea, but in the interests of scores of thousands of persons in Queensland and other parts of Australia. Economists agree that, for every person directly employed in the production of wealth, two or three others are indirectly employed. If the thousands employed in the sugar industry are thrown out of employment, and the trade is diverted to coloured labour countries, the inevitable result will be that many more thousands of our people who are now supplying the requirements of the sugar producers will be unemployed. Some honorable senators may agree with Senator Colebatch that, in the event of restrictions being placed on the sugargrowing’ industry, those who are now engaged growing sugar could find employment, in some other form of primary production. In what primary industry in Australia today could production be increased without injury to those already engaged in it? That danger is recognized by the wheat-growers and the wool-growers of Australia, as well as by the fruit-growers, who are vitally concerned” with the success of the sugar industry. The Minister said that the only alternative to this measure was the continuance of the old agreement. The Commonwealth Government has promised to stand by that agreement if this measure is rejected, and the Senate will readily understand that, in that event, the Queensland Government, as well as the sugar producers of that State, will do the same.

Senator Elliott:

– I understand that the price of sugar in England is 3.6d. per lb.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– That is not much less than the 4d. per lb. proposed in this measure. Most of the sugar consumed in England is imported from countries such as the West Indies, British

Guiana, Mauritius and South Africa, in which coloured labour is employed.

It has been suggested that the position could be met by a duty on sugar. That may be so ; but the duty would have to be sufficiently high to protect the Australian industry. It would have to be at least 3d. per lb.

Senator E B Johnston:

– What price did the honorable senator advocate before the Tariff Board?

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Daly:

– The honorable senator did the right thing then.

Senator E. B. JOHNSTON.Naturally, I am pleased to have Senator Daly’s approval for my action towards our pensioners, even if he disagrees with me about the price of sugar.

Senator Elliott:

– Is it not a fact that a reduction of1/2d. per lb. now would be equivalent to a reduction of1d. per lb. at the expiration of the old agreement?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Why should we expect that, at some future date, the reduction in the price of sugar will be only1d. per lb. It might be 2d. per lb. or more. This Parliament should have an effective control over the tariff proposals of any government, so that, if a majority approved of an alteration of the sugar duties, sugar could be imported and sold to the Australian people at a reasonable price. This would permit States like Western Australia to engage in reciprocal trading with foreign communities close to their doors.

Senator Daly:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that we could find an outlet for our butter there?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– In Java there is an excellent market for many commodities produced in the southwestern portion of Western Australia, and in South Australia also, but because of embargoes and excessively high tariffs we are not permitted to take advantage of that natural market. We are not allowed, for example, to obtain cheap sugar produced there, in exchange for our horses, our apples, and other fruits, our biscuits, our wheat products, and many other commodities which we produce in abundance.For many years, Western Australia did a thriving trade with Mauritius, importing sugar, and sending away, in return, horses, timber, fruit and other products. In those days we were not ashamed to use the excellent brown sugar which we obtained from Mauritius. One of the things that I object to in this agreement is that it contains no provision for the marketing of brown sugar which, besides being excellent in quality - I was brought up on it - is also cheaper. All this, I remind the Senate, is done in the interests of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. Under the agreement, the price of sugar is reduced by only1/2d. per lb., from41/2d. to 4d. per lb.

SenatorFoll. - The honorable senator knows quite well that the growers could not stand a greater reduction.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I know quite well that the growers, who do most of the work in producing sugar, are getting the least advantage out of this agreement. One of my main objections to its ratification is that it imposes onerous industrial conditions upon the growers; all employees in the industry are to be paid rates of wages out of all proportion to the wages paid in other industries, although climatic conditions are not, on the whole, more trying in the sugar districts of Queensland than they are in some other parts of that State and of Australia where farming, mining and pastoral operations are carried on.

I admit that work in the canefields is arduous, and I agree that the men engaged there should be paid adequately; but mypoint is that, for some portion of the time, at all events, the climatic conditions for cane cutting are comparatively favorable. The same cannot be said of harvesting operations. The best work is done during the hottest days, and, if a cool spell comes in the middle ofsummer, men engaged on a harvester have to cease work for the time being.

Under this agreement the price of sugar will remain constant until August, 1936, whereas under the did agreement it was to be reviewed in August, 1934, when there was good reason to expect there would be a reduction of Id. or 2d. per lb. in the retail price of sugar. There would be a greater reduction if the embargo were removed. Clearly, the object of the bill is to prevent, before 1936, any alteration of the price in a downward direction.

It is quite a mistake to suppose that this agreement finds general acceptance throughout the Commonwealth. Strong objections have already been made to it in every State except Queensland, and it does seem strange that it should have been signed by a Nationalist Prime Minister, and that the bill giving effect to it should be introduced in another place by a Tasmanian Minister, in the person of Mr. Guy. At a later stage I hope to be able to quote briefly from speeches made a few months ago by Mr. Guy, who then held views quite different from those lately expressed by him upon this important subject. In J July last, an important interstate conference was held in Adelaide for the purpose of considering this agreement. All the States except Queensland were represented at that gathering, and the following resolutions were carried unanimously : -

That, in the opinion of this conference of interstate organizations representing sugarconsuming interests, the sugar embargo, entailing a levy of approximately £7,000,000 annually, imposed an undue, unwarranted, and oppressive burden upon the people of Australia, and should be immediately removed.

That as, in the opinion of competent authorities, the sugar agreement is a violation of the provisions of section 99 of the Constitution, this meeting respectfully requests, in view of the remarks of the Chief Justice of Australia in the case of Anderson v. Commonwealth, that the Premiers of the States most vitally interested in the question take steps to test, by legal action, the validity of the agreement.

Senator Brown:

– Were industrial unions represented at that conference?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I do not know that they were directly represented; hut it was a most representative gathering, and included the following: -

Victoria. - Sugar Consumers Association, incorporating eleven kindred associations; Housewives Association; Grocers Association; Tariff Reform League; Henry George League.

New South Wales. - Cheaper Sugar Association.

Tasmania. - Sugar Consumers Association; State Fruit Advisory Board.

Western Australia. - Housewives Association; National Council of Women; Women’s Section, Primary Producers Association; Women’s Electoral League; Grocers Association; Sugar Consumers Association ; Pastoralists Association.

South Australia. - Housewives Association ; Wheat Producers Freedom Association; Wheat-growers Protection Association; Wheat-growers Federation; Retail Storekeepers Association; Biscuit Manufacturers Association; Manufacturing Confectioners Association; Single Tax League; Country Womens Association; South Australian Fruit-growers and Market-gardeners Association; Citizens League.

Senator Barnes:

– Did the conference discuss a proposal for a return of kanaka labourers to the cane-fields?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– No such suggestion was made. I may add, for the information of the honorable gentleman, that, like myself, the delegates belonged to political parties having as their foremost plank the maintenance of the White Australia policy. I do not know whether the South Australian Citizens League represented at the conference was the political body which played such a prominent part in the last State election. Possibly it was, and its representatives were Mr. A. L. Langsford and Mr. E. D. A. Bagot.

Senator Crawford, this morning, made a moving appeal to honorable senators to support the bill in the interests of one State. I am sorry that the honorable gentleman is not, at the moment, in the chamber, because I wish to emphasize that there is strong opposition to this agreement in at least two of the States, one of which is under a Labour government, and the other under an administration controlled by the Nationalist and Country parties. It may interest honorable senators to know that the South Australian Government sent the following message to the conference : -

It is the considered opinion of members of the South Australian Ministry that the present burden of sugar prices should be relieved. While realizing the benefits which the present embargo confers upon at least one section of the Australian community, it is felt that these are greatly outweighed by the disadvantages whichthe high prices place upon householders in the Commonwealth. It can be truly said that, in giving this assistance to an industry in one State, the whole of the people in the remainder of the States are having their conditions made more difficult in the process.

On behalf of the Government of South Australia, therefore, I desire to inform you that our attitude is that we believe that the most good for the greatest number of peoplein Australia would result from at least a substantial revision of the present policygoverning sugar.

Senator Foll:

– Is the honorable senator aware that a recent meeting of South Australian wheat-farmers carried resolutions in favour of the present agreement ?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

–

No; I am not. The honorable gentleman’s versatility and knowledge of political happenings is such that, if a meeting of farmers were held in the remotest part of the Commonwealth, and that meeting supported the sugar interests, he would be fully informed. But if such a meeting were held, and if it carried a motion in favour of the agreement, I am surprised that it has not been included in the propaganda material published by the sugar interests in the Sydney Bulletin, and other newspapers. In these circumstances, also, I have no doubt that even if the gathering consisted of only seven persons, Senator Foll would set the resolution against even the considered opinion of the Labour Government of South Australia which, we may assume, represents the democracy of that State. Sir James Mitchell, the Premier of “Western Australia, has pithily expressed the considered opinion of that State on the sugar agreement.

SenatorRae. -He believes in secession.

Perth Chamber of Commerce, at a general meeting, has passed the following resolution : -

That in the opinion of this chamber, imposition sugar embargo without approval Parliament, and entailing taxation approximately £7,000,000 annually upon the people, contrary to principles constitutional government, and imposes undue, unwarranted and oppressive burden on householders of Australia.

Of course, I am pleading for the men and women of Australia who consume sugar, while the support for this measure comes from the wealthy sugar barons of the northern States, and from the Labour party. The importers’ section of the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce forwarded the following message: -

Wish express entire sympathy with your endeavour effect satisfactory adjustment price of sugar.

Representatives of sugar consumers’ associations met in Melbourne on the 28th October, and, after full consideration of the Government’s proposals, the following resolutions were unanimously carried: -

That this conference reiterates the demand for the removal of thu embargo on the importation of sugar.
That, pending such removal, it protests strongly against that portion of the agreement which prevents a revision of the price of sugar in 1033 or any other time.

I strongly object to this Government, without having received a mandate from the people at the last election, entering into an agreement which will extend into the life of the next Parliament. The sugar consumers would be better off without this agreement, which compels them to use dear sugar for the next four years.

I propose now to refer to the remarks of the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Guy) who, speaking in another, place on the 21st May, 1931, condemned the agreement as unconstitutional. This is the Minister who introduced and fathered the present bill in another place last week. In 1931. he said-

Last year, the Minister for Trade and Customs said that . the world’s, parity price of Sugar was approximately £1 1 per ton, and the average price in Australia, was £30 per ton. Tn view of the fact that the consumption of sugar in Australia is about 300,000 tons, a calculation will show that the annual charge to the Australian people over and above the world’s parity is about the amount mentioned by the honorable member, for Swan (Mr. Gregory ) , . namely, £7,000.000.

Senator Guthrie:

– Did the honorable gentleman oppose the agreement last vear?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– He certainly condemned the embargo. He proceeded as follows: -

When we take into consideration freight, landing, and other charges, that figure may be somewhat reduced. Nevertheless, a tremendous burden is placed on the shoulders of the people, and they are asking that the embargo be removed, and replaced by a reasonably heavy customs duty on foreign sugar.

Why does not M.r. Guy, as Minister in charge of this bill, put that policy into effect? He went on to say -

Another as poet of the embargo is that the excessive price paid for sugar in Australia benefits a section of the people residing in one State only. It is contended that that is n distinct violation of the spirit of federation. Section 02 of the Constitution reads -

On the imposition of uniform duties of cu» toms, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.

Section 9!) reads -

The Commonwealth shall not,. by any law or regulation nf trade, commerce, or revenue, give preference to one State or any part thereof over another State or any part thereof.

Under the embargo, the people have to pay for their sugar a price fixed largely by the sugar interests, with, of course, the sanction of the Commonwealth Parliament. It will be admitted that the federal compact provides for absolute freedom of trade between the States.

Then the Minister quoted statements made by Mr. Deakin, Sir George Reid and Sir Edmund Barton, to the effect that trade and commerce should be absolutely unrestricted between all parts of the Commonwealth. These statements appear in Hansard of the 21st May, 1931, at page 2207. Mr. Guy added-

I claim that preference should not he given to an industry in one State, unless other industries in other States receive exactly similar treatment. I have already suggested that the sugar agreement violates the federal compact, and if it does not do that; it certainly strains it to the utmost limit.

I draw the attention of honorable senators to the Minister’s inconsistency in fathering the present bill, which gives preferential treatment to the sugar industry, while refusing similar treatment to the wheat industry by providing for a bounty on wheat by means of the imposition of a sales tax on the local consumption of wheat and flour. I am in complete agreement with the opinion expressed last year by the Minister that the special preference given to the sugar industry, if it is not an absolute breach of the Constitution, at least strains it to the utmost limit. Then the Minister made a strong attack on the finances of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. I have not time to read his remarks in that connexion, but they are to be found in Hansard. The Minister also said -

Another anomaly is that the Colonial Sugar Refinery quotes A.l sugar in New Zealand at £16 10s. a ton, while in Australia the very same sugar is quoted at £37 6s. 8d. a ton, more than double the price. That is regarded as exploitation of the worst kind by many persons outside this Parliament. It has been said in defence of the embargo that it enables Northern Queensland to support a white population, and tends to preserve our racial purity. Surely that contention has been exploded long ago. It is surprising that Australians have for so long been blind to the falsity of such a claim. It is altogether misleading. There is no reason why white people, even without an embargo, should not carry on the sugar industry just as they are carrying on other industries in Queensland. The mining industry at such places as Mount Morgan, Charters Towers and Gympie, has for years been carried on by white persons, without any special pampering such as is given to the sugar industry by means of the embargo. I think that it will be agreed that the bogy of coloured labour, with which the people of Australia have been constantly threatened, has cost them many millions of pounds. This money has been extracted from them on the pretence that it is a necessary charge to keep Australia white. That contention can no longer be supported.

I answer the criticism by Senator Collings of the attitude of those who oppose the agreement, by referring him to those statements in which the honorable member for Bass pointed out that in North Queensland other industries are carried on with white labour under equally unfavorable conditions, and without any support from the Government. In fact he contended that the White Australia policy in no way depended on the sugar embargo.

Earlier in my speech, I expressed particular opposition to the industrial clause of this agreement, which reads -

That the employees engaged in the Australian cane-sugar industry and in such sections of the Australian fruit industry as receive benefits under clause 7 of this agreement shall be entitled to have their wages and conditions of employment determined by conciliation or arbitration if not settled by agreement and in the case of any employees or section of employees who arc now or who may subsequently be excluded from the jurisdiction or control of any conciliation or arbitration authority the Commonwealth Government shall on the application of any industrial organization bona fide representative of such employees establish for the purpose of determining what wages and conditions of employment for such employees are fair and reasonable a tribunal or tribunals consisting of-
1. a representative of employers engaged in the sugar industry or the fruit industry as the case may be;
2. a representative of employees engaged in the sugar industry or the fruit industry as the case may be; and
3. a person who shall act as chairman and who shall be appointed by the Minister of State for Trade and Customs on the joint nomination of the representatives of employers and employees or if the representatives of employers and employees fail to make a joint nomination of a chairman within twenty days after being called upon by the Minister of State for Trade and Customs so to do a person appointed as the chairman by the Governor-General or the person for the time being administering the Commonwealth Government acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council.

– There is a very big fruit-growing industry in Western Australia. The south-western portion of that State is just as capable of producing fruit as any other part of Australia. No better fruit is grown in the world. Although a main objection to the agreement is that it includes these nasty industrial conditions, my opposition to it is strengthened by the fact that Western Australia is excluded from any benefits that may accrue from it. We have all the disadvantages of the embargo, and no share of the crumbs from the rich man’s table.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Is the honorable senator aware that full provision is made in the case of the orchardist who buys sugar in half -ton lots?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– What is the extent of the concession?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– It is id. per lb.; he gets his sugar for 3£d. per lb. if he purchases it in half-ton lots.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Daly:

– With black labour?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– No, I said white settlers. The honorable senator has again to be reminded of Mr. Guy’s remarks, and of my statement with respect to our White Australia policy. 1 wish white settlers to have the same opportunities in those wonderful undeveloped lands in northern Queensland, as are enjoyed by others in Queensland, and in northern New South Wales. These persons are anxious to obtain permission to grow sugar. If I am ever in doubt I feel that I cannot appeal to a greater authority than the head of a Christian church.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator E. B. JOHNSTON [Extension of time granted]. - Several months ago, the Bishop of North Queensland, speaking at Malanda in regard to the limitation of areas to be planted with cane, and of the effect of the restriction on new settlers and others who wish to establish themselves in those fertile areas, said -

Did their only hope lie in a continued embargo, restriction of areas, and refusal of permits to grow cane? How could that be just when, at the present time, sugar lands were selling at £150 the acre or more? Some men were making great fortunes at the expense of the whole country. And where was the justice of forbidding a land-owner to grow cane when values of that kind were being obtained in order to secure a monopoly to his neighbours ?

The richest portions of the tropical coastal lands in North Queensland are actually locked up against further settlement, because of the present system of restricting planting to areas now allotted and cropped; new lands will not now be assigned for sugar plantations, and no new settler can receive a “ permit “ to grow sugar, except by buying out an existing planter.

It is only the artificial assistance provided by the embargo that enables the sugar industry of northern New South Wales to survive in face of the competition of the more fertile areas of North Queensland. This Parliament should reject the bill and the agreement, and determine upon a policy which will encourage further settlement of North Queensland without harassing restrictions, in the interests of the industry, and those residents of North Queensland who desire to extend it. If, however, this measure is agreed to, I feel sure that the high price of Australian sugar will continue, with the result that the sugar beet industry in southern Australia will receive a new stimulus. Early this year, I visited Maffra? in Victoria, in company with Senator Colebatch. We found there a beet sugar mill with obsolete machinery working at a considerable disadvantage because of State management and control, and yet it was able to make an annual profit of £50,000. Large areas of Tasmania and in the southwestern portion of Western Australia are admirably suited to the cultivation of sugar beet, and if this measure becomes law, I believe that the beet sugar mills will be established there and in other parts of Australia. Nevertheless rather than establish such mills, it would be better for the people of Australia to be permitted to import cheap sugar, and for the natural industries of each State to have a chance to develop. Only to-day I have received from the Pastoralists Association of Western Australia a telegram dealing with this subject, reading as follows : -

This association emphatically opposed to ratification of sugar agreement, and urges abolition of embargoes at earliest opportunity, thus enabling this State, particularly northwest, to develop’ its natural trade with the Near East.

– I think it was 21/2d. or 3d. per lb. in Australia; but I shall let the report speak for itself. I understand that the Australian Sugar Producers Association Limited, of Queensland, has been fortunate in having had, since its inception, such a distinguished and capable gentleman as Senator Crawford for its president. In its report, the Tariff Board said -

The members of the Australian Sugar Producers Association Limited, of Queensland, through their president and secretary, have now applied to the Federal Government, stating “ that they are unanimously of opinion that it is vital to the interests of the sugar industry that an immediate and substantial increase in the amount of the present import duty on sugar should be granted. . . . We would ask for a duty of l1/2d. per lb.” This request means an increase in the import duties on cane-sugar from £6 to £14 per ton. The granting of this request would naturally mean the conclusion of the sugar agreement.

Referring to the economic position of the industry, the Tariff Board said -

The Tariff Board is forced to the conclusion that the sugar industry is on somewhat of an anomalous basis. In Queensland, where nearly all the sugar is produced, the . State Government - through its instrumentalities- fixes the wages and conditions of the industry, whilst the Federal Government is called upon to protect a position it has had no hand in creating. Speaking generally, this does not appear to be a proper economical position, for in the future it might happen that the granting of a certain protection, if made necessary through special conditions imposed by any State, might not be long sufficient if the State authorities concerned decided to impose additional conditions. Such divided control does not appear to be satisfactory, and it seems reasonable to suggest that, should any State desire un usual conditions in one of its staple industries, it should specially contribute towards such conditions, and not penalize the whole of the Commonwealth to maintain any special conditions desired.

It is remarkable to what extent those observations are applicable to the present condition of affairs in the sugar industry. The board goes on to say - .

As a means of protecting the sugar industry, the board strongly endorses the granting of a protective duty- not an embargo - in preference to the extension of an agreement. The latter is neither satisfactory to the producer, the manufacturer or the consumer.

In this matter I stand for the interests of all those sections of the community -

As soon as an agreement is made the general question is what is to happen atthe conclusion of the period. Is the agreement to be continued on the same terms or reduced, or what is to happen? The producer has no real security which would lead him to invest his savings in an industry not on a secure basis. It should not be forgotten that while the present agreement has meant very much more money to the producers, it has not meant that the natural increase in the production of sugar has been very much augmented. The good seasons recently prevailing have helped the agreement. On the other hand, a protective duty is a permanent assurance on which the public may rely when considering the investment of their money and time.

Senator Dunn:

– Does the honorable senator favour a bounty on the production of wheat?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I am not permitted, at this stage, to reply to the honorable gentleman. In its summary, the board states - it does, however, consider some increase is necessary to enable the industry to successfully compete against the black-grown sugar of other countries. Inarriving at the amount of duty necessary to protect theindustry, the following tacts have been taken into consideration : -

When the Royal Commission on sugar in 1912 examined the industry it was being conducted by white labour as at present, all save one commissioner recommended £6 10s. per ton. The one commissioner recommended £7 per ton.
The Royal Commission on sugar, reporting in 1020, said- “ At present world prices the Australian industry happens for the moment to be independent of any tariff assistance. Even allowing for a substantial fall in world prices it would appear that the present tariff ratewill be adequate for some timeto come.”
There is no intention of making the duty on sugar a means of raising revenue, therefore, only a protective duty is required.
Prior to the warthe imports of sugar were valued as follows: -

At that time the price of Java sugar was £17 3s. per ton. The board goes on to state -

This return shows that the average price of sugar imported for five years before the war was11/4d. per lb. On this average price for five years the request of11/2d. per lb. represents a protection of 120 per cent., which is excessive.

The present protection in the tariff on goods using sugar will be largely deprived of the protection afforded them through a heavy duty being imposed on their raw material.
The consumers will be called upon to make an unnecessarily large contribution towards an industry which has recently been reported upon as inefficiently conducted should the duty be fixed at £14 per ton.

That charge cannot now be levelled at the sugar industry, because it is being conducted on a most efficient basis. The board states further -

After mature consideration the board considers the duty should be increased, but not beyond Id. per lb. or £96s. 8d. per ton. This will be a protection of 80 per cent. on the. prices of imported sugar before the war, and should be ample to enable the industry to be successfully carried on, provided efficient methods are adopted.

In support of the proposed duty, the board notes thatthe price of overseas sugar, which is higher than it was twelve months ago, is now quoted at Java at £17 3s. per ton. With the addition of the duty recommended, and the freight and other charges,this should leave ample room for profit, even should a further decrease take place in the price of overseas sugar.

The board is influenced in recommending1d. per lb. by the knowledge that the Navigation Act will add to the expense of placing the local product on the market; also that, during the war, our industrial conditions have improved, and it is not considered that they will, nor should, return altogether to pre-war conditions; also, for some time the cost of machinery and other equipment will be above pre-war rates, though this condition will, to some extent, apply in other countries.

The present duty on sugar is - Sugar, the produce of sugarcane, £6 per ton; sugar, n.e.i. (beet), £10 per ton.

The Tariff Board recommends that the import duty on canesuger be fixed at1d. per lb., and that the duty on beet sugar be fixed at lid. per lb.

Senator Crawford:

– That report had been presented on faked figures.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I cannot accept that statement, as the report was signed by the then members of the Tariff Board, Messrs. Oakley, Brookes and Leitch, and it represents the views of an independent tribunal, which made an investigation into the sugar industry. The report may be out of date, but successive governments could have remedied that by referring this important subject again to the Tariff Board. I conclude by repeating that the people of Australia desire cheaper sugar for household and other purposes, and that I am opposed to the agreement, because, for a period of four years, it will prevent them from getting it.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– The speeches by the freetrade twins from Western Australia force one to the conclusion that it is impossible for persons holding strong views with regard to State interests to overcome their prejudices, and consider this important subject from a national view-point. The sugar industry is essentially national in importance, because its development is so closely related to the life of the people throughout Australia. Personally, I regard Senator Johnston as a discredited witness. We all know that, in our law courts, the evidence of a discredited witness is ignored by the judge and jury.

Senator Johnston has endeavoured to establish the case for freetrade in sugar. Doubtless, the economics of industry in his State justify his attitude, just as they induced the people of Great Britain to remain loyal, for so long, to the policy of freetrade. For that reason, I have a certain amount of sympathy with the honorable senator; but I do not think he was quite fair in quoting the opinion of the Auditor-General, because it has been proved conclusively that that official was wrong.

Senator E B Johnston:

– I know of no proof that the Auditor-General was wrong, and I quoted authorities for every statement which I made.

Senator BROWN:

– Usually, when a man has a poor case, he quotes authorities, hoping, perhaps, to persuade his hearers that he is right. But I always feel a bit sceptical when a man relies wholly on figures and authorities to prove his case. Our case for the sugar industry rests on the truth, regardless of what the Auditor-General may say about it. He stated that we could import all our requirements in sugar for a total cost of £2,000,000, or £6 13s. 4d. a ton, whereas the official committee which investigated the position declared that to land Czechoslovakian refined sugar would cost £13 7s. 6d. a ton free of duty, and that to land Java raw sugar, and pay- all refining expenses, would cost £14 13s. 2d. a ton, free of duty. Thus the cost of 300,000 tons of imported refined sugar, duty free, would be £4,000,000; but it would co3t £4,300,000 to land that quantity of Java raw sugar free of duty and refine it in Australia. There has been a duty of £9 6s. 8d. a ton on raw sugar, and a duty of £14 a ton on other sugar. To, land 300,000 tons of Java- raws under statutory conditions, would cost £5,700,000, and to that mustbe added the refining cost of £1,250,000, while the same quantity of imported refined sugar would cost £8,200,000. The Auditor-General referred to raw sugar. The importation of 300,000 tons of raw sugar, duty free, to meet Australia’s requirements,, would cost £2,900,000, or £900,000 more than the Auditor-General said it would cost. Senator Colebatch contends that under freetrade there would be a general cheapening of commodities.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The honorable senator, I think, has left exchange out of consideration.

Senator BROWN:

– Under existing conditions it would be necessary to add exchange to the figures that I have given. Senator Johnston is the protagonist of freetrade. He believes in opening the ports of Australia to foreign goods of all kinds. Here is a quotation from the Sydney Morning Herald, which refers to the attitude of that honorable senator in regard to the Government’s proposal for assisting the wheat industry: -

If the bill reaches the Senate in its present form, Senator Johnston, of Western Australia, will move that the House of Representatives be requested to amend the bill to provido for a bounty on production of at least 4Jd. a bushel. This amendment may be carried with the support of five Western Australian senators and six from other States, in addition to the Labour vote. In that event, however, it would certainly be rejected by the House of Representatives.

How does Senator Johnston reconcile his freetrade ideas, his antagonism to bounties, and his bitter antagonism to the sugar industry, with what he proposes in regard to a wheat bounty? If governmental interference is wrong-

Senator Johnston:

– Do away with all governmental interference, and no bounties would be required.

Senator BROWN:

– Australia is experiencing abnormal times owing, to economic conditions prevailing both in Australia and beyond its shores. The price of wheat has fallen throughout the world on account of immense overproduction. We understand that the overproduction in all countries will total this year 388,000,000 bushels. When dealing with wheat, Senator Johnston has regard to present day conditions; but in discussing sugar he looks forward to the time when freetrade will prevail. I remind him that we must deal with the facts as we find them, and that if his attitude were adopted generally, the Australian sugar industry would, be destroyed. If the honorable senator supports a bounty on wheat, to be logical he must support political interference - if that term must be used - in order to protect those engaged in the sugar industry. According to Senator Johnston, there is nothing uneconomic about a gold bounty, and he does not believe in freetrade in the matter of the sale of Melbourne beer in Perth. He is in favour of gold and wheat bounties; but he is irrevocably opposed to governmental interference in regard to bounties in other directions.

I always listen to Senator Colebatch with a great deal of interest, because he is u logical debater. He admits that during the war the sugar industry rendered a service to Australia. He says that nobody wishes to damage the industry. “We are all friends of the industry”, he assures us. I arn reminded of a Minister of a government in Queensland who once said to me “ We are all socialists, and we all believe in the brotherhood of man “, yet I was put inside a gaol for two months by that Minister’s government because, on one occasion, I spoke on socialism without permission. This was fi. peculiar way of demonstrating fraternal relationship. Senator Colebatch reminds me of a cartoon I once saw, depicting “labour” and “capital” drinking together from a loving cup. Each had one hand on the cup, and the other behind his back holding a huge waddy. I am. afraid that some of those who claim to be friends of the sugar industry are holding a big stick behind their backs with which to give it a crack. However, I feel sure that the majority of honorable senators will vote in support of this agreement, because, as reasonable men, they will recognize that, in the present conditions of Australia, the industry would suffer if the Parliament did not stand solidly behind the agreement. Senator Colebatch further stated that a restriction on the production of sugar would not assist the White Australia policy. I ask the honorable gentleman if it would help that policy if production were not restricted. Senator Johnston considers that Australia should produce as much sugar as possible. I point out to both honorable senators that, if production is not controlled, the position of the industry will be harder than ever. In every country in the world, whether its policy be freetrade or protection, there is a movement to restrict production.

The 1932 season in the industry was one of the worst on record, because of the unfavorable weather conditions and frosts. The following are the dates on which mills commenced and finished: -

Gin Gin Central Mill, commenced 20th July, finished10th August (three weeks crushing).

I hope that Senator Johnston is listening, because he referred to the high wages earned by those employed in the sugar industry, and said that, in some cases, the amounts received were so high that those engaged in the industry were able to enjoy extensive trips. The letter continues -

Bingera Sugar Mill, commenced 20th July, finished 25th August (five weeks crushing).

Fairymead Sugar Mill, commenced 20th July, finished 30th September (ten weeks crushing).

Millaquin Sugar Mill, commenced 3rd August, finished 10th September (five weeks crushing).

Maryborough Sugar Mill, commenced 17th August, and worked for a period of five weeks.

Colonial Sugar Refining Company Mill, Childers, commenced 30th August, worked for a period of four weeks.

Isis Central Mill, commenced 31st August, worked for a period of six weeks.

Bauple Sugar Mill and Qunaba Sugar Mill did not crush this season.

You will note the short periods that the mills worked, as compared with previous years, when they worked for periods of fourteen to twenty weeks. No doubt the district suffered a severe blow financially, and the loss to the district, that is, to the growers and workers, is considerable, and it isestimated that at least the loss would be £725,000. Of course, consideration has got to be given to the drought which is prevailing, which has resulted in the small crop in this area. The reduction in the price of sugar,1/2d. per lb., will undoubtedly affect the growers and workers, because the grower, in the first place, will not be able to employ the necessary labour to harvest the crop, and, consequently a lesser number of workers will be engaged in the industry, and a big possibility of the growers going to the court and seeking a variation of the sugar industry award, with a view to lowering the wages of the workers.

It will be seen, therefore, that in at least one district in Northern Queensland the workers are not having the glorious time that many of those in the southern States and in the western State imagine they are enjoying. The letter which I have quoted clearly shows that in. portions of northern Queensland there is an absence of prosperity, and that the sugar-growing country is by no means an Eldorado. A few months ago a trader in Bundaberg told me that a number of sugar-growers who were in distress had asked him to carry them over for that season. Honorable senators should bear that in mind when dealing with this subject. It is said by some that the sugar industry is uneconomical, and that we, as intelligent people, should not allow it to continue, but should absorb those now engaged in it in other directions. Even if it were decided to wipe out the sugar industry, we could not possibly find employment for those now engaged in it in other branches of primary production. I remind honorable senators that there is over-production in the wheat industry; that the price of wool is lowerthan it has ever been; that the price of meat is still going down-

Senator Collings:

– Butter is falling.

Senator BROWN:

– Yes, it is now 85s. per cwt. in Great Britain. It will be seen, therefore, that’ those now employed in the sugar industry could not possibly be provided with work in other branches of primary production. At present fewer persons are employed in these industries than in the past. Mr. Gordon Bennett, the president of the Chamber of Manufactures, said -

In1913 persons provided work by rural industries in Australia numbered 471,480. In 1919 there were only 443,000. Present-day developments in agriculture were accentuating the trend. The capacity of the human race to consume food was limited.

With due deference to the economic knowledge of those opposed to the views I am expressing, I contend that it would be impossible, even if we were to import sugar from Java or from Cuba, and thus destroy the Australian sugar industry, to find employment for those now engaged in that industry in other forms of primary production. I commend these remarks to Senator Brennan, who, as a lawyer, is quite capable of analysing my statement. To-day we are producing huge quantities on a falling market, and the position would be accentuated if further thousands of persons were thrown out of this industry and forced to seek work in other forms of primary production. To adopt such a course would mean that the prices of these products would be further decreased, and instead of Australia being better off as a result of the destruction of this so-called uneconomic industry, it would be infinitely worse. I understand that a livelihood can be obtained from working 40 acres of sugar land. A dairy farmer requires at least 160 acres, while a wheat farmer needs about 1,000 acres; but with wheat at its present price he would require about 10,000 acres, and might then be worse off than he is to-day. From one acre of planted cane 30 tons of cane, or 4-^ tons of sugar are produced. With an average price of 5s. a bushel for wheat, and a return of 15 bushels to the acre, a wheat farmer would receive £3 15s. an acre. With sugar at £10 a ton, and a crop of 2£ tons to the acre, the return to the sugar-grower would be £25, compared with £3 15s. from a wheat farm. In these circumstances 300,000’ acres under sugar are equal to 2,000,000 acres under wheat. There is, therefore, more in this industry than is suggested by those who favour the importation of sugar from Java or Cuba at a cheaper rate than that at which sugar can be produced in Australia. To me those figures are very significant, and show that the industry provides a better return in actual value than some of its opponents suggest is possible. Some contend that it is not a natural industry; that it is one that should be worked by black labour. Our people in the north are doing their work well. They are producing sugar in such a way that they can be favorably compared with those of other countries. Australia extracts more sugar from one ton of cane than does any other country. Moreover, the persons engaged in the industry compare more than favorably with many in the cities. It can readily be shown that it is in every sense a natural industry, particularly as those engaged in it are healthy and are rearing healthy families who are living in reasonable comfort. Sugar can be produced in Queensland by white labour as successfully as it can.be produced in other countries. Senator Collings referred to the efficient manner in which the industry is conducted. There is a popular delusion that the Queensland industry is carried on in an extravagant manner. For the information of honorable senators I quote the opinion of Mr. Wickens, consulting engineer to Auelett and Company Limited, sugar refiners, in Natal, who some time ago visited Queensland. He said -

The economic conditions, which demand cutting down labour costs all round, have been carefully followed up in Queensland. It was with the greatest interest that I noticed many gadgets both in field and factory which might with profit and general advantage be adopted in other countries.

– It is true that the honorable senator has not criticized the agreement in this chamber, but his remarks outside are, I think, a sufficient indication of his views on this subject. I am, however, hopeful, in view of his recent undertaking to support our primary industries, that he will include this great primary industry of Queensland in the category of those industries which he has pledged himself to assist.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that when land is assigned for the growing of sugar, its value is not increased?

Senator FOLL:

– Such land is naturally more valuable than other land. I do not like the assignment principle in the growing of sugar cane, wheat or any other commodity. To my mind, it is unfortunate that in a young country like Australia, which needs to be developed, that system has been adopted; but I should be glad if Senator Colebatch, with his wide knowledge and great ability, could tell us what other method could be adopted in place of the assignment principle. If a go-as-you-please policy were put into operation, the growers would find themselves with more sugar on their hands than could be coped with by the existing mills, and the-* surplus production would be so large that the prices obtained would be entirely unprofitable. The assignment system has been adopted reluctantly, because at the present time no better method is known. We hope that, as the world price of sugar improves, it will be possible in years to come to put many more acres of our sugar land under crop.

Senator Colebatch also referred to an “ antiquated “ beet sugar factory at Maffra, that could make a profit of £50,000 a year as a result of the inflated Australian price. In the first place, let me say that the Maffra mill is not “ antiquated “. In recent years it has introduced improved machinery, and it has enlarged its capacity.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– ‘Only a few months ago, I spent half a day with the manager of the mill at Maffra.

Senator FOLL:

– Even if the honorable senator spent a week there, he may not know whether the machinery is new or old. I am prepared to substantiate my own statements, and the honorable senator can disprove them if he chooses to do so. Under this new agreement, the profits of the Maffra mill will automatically fall by £20,000 per annum; but one of the chief reasons for its large profits is that it contributes nothing to the fruit industry, although it is a Victorian Government factory, and government-aided fruit canneries and governmentirrigation group settlements in Victoria received last year nearly £100,000 from the cane sugar industry. The mill receives the Australian price for all its output, instead of for only 60 per cent, of it, as does cane sugar. Moreover, it is actually able to sell its output in the neighbourhood of the factory at from £1 to £” a ton more than the cane sugar Australian price; because of the transport charges which it avoids, but which the competing cane sugar-growers would have to pay. Maffra sugar takes all the benefits of the embargo, but bears none of the responsibilities. If it shared the latter on equal terms with cane sugar, its profits would disappear completely.

– Well, then, it accepts the agreement, realizing the danger in which it might be placed under the old one. Furthermore, it has voluntarily made a concession in price to the consumers of Australia.

– Then I beg the honorable senator’s pardon. But I know that more than passing reference was made to the matter by Senator Colebatch. There is, however, one point upon which I wish to put the honorable senator right. When I interjected that a public meeting held in Adelaide had expressed strong views in favour of the sugar embargo and the present sugar agreement, he appeared to doubt the accuracy of my statement. I have a press cutting which contains the report of a meeting, attended by between 150 and 200 persons, and held in Adelaide about two years ago. lt was addressed by representatives of the Queensland sugar industry, and the following resolution was carried with three dissentients : -

That this meeting of citizens of Adelaide support a continuance of the sugar embargo and agreement, and that the price of sugar be its fair and reasonable cost of production under White Australia conditions.

That, however, is not the meeting which I had in mind when I made the interjection. In Adelaide eight years ago, at a conference of the Australian Farmers Federal Organization, at which various primary-producing industries from all States were represented, the following resolution relating to the sugar industry was adopted: -

That the price paid for sugar shall be its fair and reasonable cost of production, plus a fair profit under White Australia conditions, and that a tribunal to fix the price of sugar shall be constituted representative of the Commonwealth Government, the consumers, and the sugar industry.

To my mind, much of the agitation for a reduction of the price of sugar has been over-estimated a good deal by many of those who are connected with the industry, and much of it has been fomented for political purposes by persons who seize every opportunity that offers to address public meetings and have their names mentioned in the press. I do not believe that the small farmer, the worker, the artisan, or the average man about town has ever been desirous of pulling down the price of sugar. One can organize a meeting on practically any subject, and secure the adoption of almost any resolution. The industry itself has made a sacrifice, at a time when Queensland is suffering very materially as a consequence of the fall in the prices of primary products. During the depression, when the returns from wool, wheat, meat, butter, mixed farming and other primary products have declined, the sugar industry has kept our people employed and our finances in circulation. Notwithstanding its difficulties, it has voluntarily surrendered to its customers a total of £1,250,000 per annum. The representatives of other States should accord recognition to what the industry has done towards assisting in the general rehabilitation of Australia. For that reason I hope that the agreement will speedily become law.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
President of the Executive Council · South Australia Vice · UAP

– I shall not detain the Senate very long, because from the end of July last I have been, metaphorically, chewing sugar-cane and now feel that if the process continues much longer I shall probably suffer from political diabetes. Excursions into the history of the industry from the economic standpoint, the lashings that have been meted out because of the mistakes that have been made, and the accusations of false economy that have been levelled against different governments, are beside the question which the Senate is asked to consider to-day. “We are asked to discuss the question whether we shall ratify an agreement negotiated between the Government of Queensland and the Commonwealth Government, so as to secure to the people of this country, from the 5th January next, a reduction of i’d. per lb. in the retail price of sugar. Whatever may be the mistakes of the past; however false the doctrines espoused, and however uneconomic the action taken, the fact remains that this Government was faced with an agreement executed by its predecessor, which the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) had undertaken to honour unless it was voluntarily reviewed. I do not consider that this Government had any moral right to repudiate that agreement; consequently, the only course open to it was to negotiate’ for a variation of the agreement. The prices that obtained are relevant to the debate only insofar as they affect the question whether the reduction proposed is sufficient or not. That, is the one question which has exercised the public mind, and the one matter to which the Government devoted its attention when it endeavoured to come to an arrangement with the representatives of the industry. ‘The stand taken by it was that the agreement was to be accepted in its entirety, but that an effort should be made to secure a reduction of the price. In the reduction that has been made, we may possibly not have paid sufficient regard to the happenings of the past, and on that score the Government may be open to criticism. I have never had an interest in maintaining the price of sugar at a higher rate than I conscientiously and honestly think ought to be charged, having regard to all the circumstances and the happenings of the past. On the contrary, the interests of the State that I represent, and tosome extent my own predilections, lean against giving to the sugar industry the price that it has hitherto enjoyedHaving regard to what had happened in the past, the fact which had frequently been brought under the notice of the Senate that the sugar industry had been penalized during a certain period through not being allowed to extract the tribute that, on the basis of the world’s market prices, it was entitled to extract, I felt that I had to approach this question with changed views with respect to the price that had been fixed. Honorable senators should remember that from 1915 to 1922 the price of Australian sugar was not allowed to be increased above pre-war prices to the extent which applied to most other commodities. At one stage when the peak price was 6d. per lb. in Australia, the price of sugar outside Australia varied from1s. 2d. to1s. 6d. per lb. In 1922 the price of 6d. per lb., which was then prevailing in Australia, was reduced by the Commonwealth Government by1d. per lb., bringing it down to 5d. per lb. Subsequently, while other industries were still allowed to obtain the benefit of the higher prices that were available and good markets, the then Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) in 1923 reduced the price of sugar by1/2d. per lb., thus bringing it down to41/2d.perlb. That was not the only reduction that was made ; but I am afraid that in the welter of debate that point has to some extent been overlooked. The sugar committee was referred to by Senator Johnston as a body that apparently was incapable of dealingwiththesubjectfromajudicial view-point; but whatever jurisdiction it had, it succeeded in embodying in the agreement accepted by the Scullin Government a rebate to the fruit producers and the fruit-processing industry of £315,000. Notwithstanding the statement of Senator Colebatch that rebate is still preserved to an extent to the industry. The honorable senator loses sight of the fact that, while the rebate is reduced by £115,000, the price of sugar has also reduced by1d. per lb, that reduction being commensurate with the £115,000 reduction of the rebate. There is, however, £200,000 still available to the fruit producers of Australia, and that represents a concession of, I think, about 2/3d. per lb. When we talk of reducing the price of sugar by221/2per cent., we must pay some regard to the actual facts. In the first place the price of sugar in Australia was never allowed to soar to the giddy heights it reached in other countries. Sugar was never allowed the freedom that pertained to wool, wheat, and other products. I do not think that we need pay too much attention to the peak price of 6d. per lb., because, in order to maintain sufficient supplies in this country, sugar had to be imported at a price higher than that fixed for the local article. The reduction of1/2d. on a price, of 5d. was equivalent to a 10 per cent. cut. We have now inflicted another cut of 11 per cent., and in addition to that there is a concession of2/3d. per lb. to those engaged in the fruit-processing industry. I venture to say that if some honorable senators feel that a reduction of 22£ per cent. should have been made, based on the Premiers plan, it will be found that the reduction if calculated on the same basis, as in connexion with

Other industries, the sugar industry has fulfilled its obligations in that respect.

Senator Elliott:

– The price of 4d. in relation to the peak price of 6d. is equivalent to a reduction of 33 per cent.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– It can be put that way; but I do not want to state the case any higher than I am putting it. A certain portion of the 6d. was devoted towards meeting the extra price that had to be paid for the sugar imported at that period.

In the first place, I contend that the sugar industry has faced up to the requirements of the Premiers plan. and. that if it were called upon to stand very much more at the moment, it would receive such a shock that there would be a definite repercussion, not only in Queens- land, but in other parts of the Commonwealth as well, that would not be beneficial to the Australian body politic. Although I was anxious that the benefit of any reduction of price should go to the consumers of sugar, not only families, but also large charitable institutions which feel the pinch when making their supplies of jam, I felt that any fraction of a penny less than -Jd. would have very little effect; in other words, any benefit to the consumer would be lost in the process of distribution. If honorable senators care to examine the cost of living figures upon which wages are based, they will find that sugar is well into line with those other commodities the price, of which has been reduced. It is not my intention to repeat statements which have already been made, but- I should like honorable senators to bear in mind what is actually happening before coming to a conclusion in this matter. The Assistant Treasurer (Senator Greene) referred to the fact that the British Government purchased 250,000 tons of sugar from Mauritius at £90 a ton, and that from 1915 to 1922, the world’s parity for sugar was at its highest. It varied from £20 to £137 10s. throughout that period, and for a considerable time was about £100 a ton. It is not my intention to refer to the subject of preferences which was dealt with by Senator Colebatch, and replied to very effectively by Senator Foll. I should, however, like to say a word or two with respect to that portion of the agreement which preserves the concession to fruit processors. I have already pointed out that we have preserved to them the benefits which the enjoy under the previous agreement, but owing to the fact that the price of sugar bus been reduced, that benefit has been preserved in a slightly different way. The concession has been reduced by £115.000, but £200,000 is still available for the use of the committee. Some unwarranted references were made last night with respect to the personnel of the concession committee. That committee consists of one nominee of the Federal Government, one nominee of the Queensland Government, and four gentlemen nominated by various branches of the fruit industry. Mr. Feil represents the growers of jam fruits, Mr. Young the growers of canning fruits, Mr. Palfreyman the proprietary manufacturers of fruit products, and Mr. Fairley the cooperative and State manufacturers of fruit products, lt will therefore be seen that every section of the industry is represented. It was the duty of this committee to conduct an investigation, and report to the Minister as it did on the 4th of November last. The committeeprepared a balance-sheet which was duly audited, and then proceeded to give such advice as it thought necessary with respect to an industry which was receiving £315,000 for the purpose of encouraging fruit-processing. The sugar used by those engaged in fruit-processing provides an outlet for a portion of the product of the sugar industry. The sugar industry looks for an expansion of its activities, and for increased markets for its product. On the other hand, those engaged in the fruit industry, while they do not wish to see the sugar industry injured, are anxious that sugar shall be produced under the best possible conditions, so that it may continue to obtain the supplies it requires at the lowest pos’sible cost. On page 9 of the report, the result of the committee’s operations for last year is given. There is a summary of the minimum fruit prices for 1932. This is one of the industries which was consulted regarding the extent of the sacrifice being made by the sugar interests, and asked whether it could justify giving them a quid pro quo in the shape of an extended period. The following table shows the prices it was able to secure: -

The committee also dealt with pineapples ‘ and ‘ other fruits ; but I am more concerned at the moment with fruits grown in the southern districts.

– I consider it is a matter of little moment to the average householder whether the retail price of sugar is 4-£d. or 6£d. peT lb., although I admit that the higher price might be made the subject of a grievance.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that prices paid for apples or potatoes are of no moment to householders?

Senator RAE:

– I am referring to the principle. As to how it would work out in actual practice would depend upon circumstances over which we have no control. It has also been contended that the agreements hitherto made between the Commonwealth Government and the sugar industry are a violation of, if not the letter ? at all events the spirit, of the Constitution. I was not aware that Mr. Guy, the Assistant Minister who moved the second reading of the bill in another place, was a constitutional authority; but he is reported to have declared that the earlier agreements were a violation of the Constitution. I assume he has ‘in mind those constitutional provisions which stipulate that no law shall be valid if it benefits one State only. I am not aware that there has’ ever been an attempt to give legal force to any proposal for preferential treatment to one particular State. If we enact a law or impose a duty which confers a benefit on, say, pineapple-growers, the fact that it may benefit Queensland only does not prove that it violates the Constitution, because Queensland is the only State where pineapples may be grown on a commercial basis. It follows, therefore, that if such a law or duty were a violation of the Constitution it might, with equal force, be argued that because galvanized iron is, so I am told, manufactured by only one firm in Australia, a tariff on galvanized iron would be a violation of the Constitution. Of course this would not be to state the position correctly, because manufacturers in any other State could, at any time, begin the manufacture of galvanized iron, so it could not be argued that the duties were really in the nature of differential treatment for one State.

The other point to which I desire to refer is the limitation of production under this agreement. It is a fact that, because of certain restrictive provisions in the agreement, the sugar industry cannot be further developed, even in areas most suitable for the production of sugar cane, because to do that would cause a glut in the market, thereby lowering the average prices to the growers. This is a condition of affairs for which neither the Government nor the sugar industry can be held responsible. It is merely another of those anomalies that arise under the capitalistic system and are causing so much trouble in various countries. In the newspapers of yesterday or the day before there appeared a statement that the Government of Brazil had absolutely prohibited the planting of any more coffee trees, the intention being to limit future production, because last year, so it was stated, over 4,000 tons of coffee had to be destroyed in order to keep up the price for the remainder of the crop. Some years ago there was an attempt to restrict supplies by using the surplus coffee as fuel; but as this arrangement interfered with the business of fuel merchants, the surplus stocks were then dumped in the sea. Two or three years ago, because of the extraordinarily heavy crop of cotton in the southern States of the United States of America, the growers decided to destroy every third row in their cotton plantations. Certain planters who, for some years, had been getting poor returns, and who, then, had better crops, declined to fall in with the proposal. Consequently, the majority of planters organized night raids and destroyed not only the crops, but also in many cases the dwellings of those planters who objected to the plan. More recently the British Government had to come to some arrangement to limit the production of cotton in the Soudan, and I understand that the authorities in Egypt have taken similar action.Actually, so much wealth isbeing produced in all countries that the problem now confronting governments is to prevent the glutting of markets, in order to keep up commodity prices.

Senator Crawford:

– Proposals with regard to tin are the latest example.

SenatorRAE. - That is so. One could quote numerous examples of action in this direction by governments of various countries. It must be admitted that one of the outstanding weaknesses of the existing economic system is the fact that we cannot afford to buy for consumption all that we produce. This is one of the inherent faults of the capitalistic system, and until it is changed-

Senator Kingsmill:

– What system would the honorable senator substitute for it?

SenatorRAE. - Socialism. If we do not succeed in introducing that system by peaceful methods, it will be brought into operation by other means. I support the agreement on the ground that it deals in’ an orderly way with an industry which, except, for an agreement of this kind, would be plunged into chaos, to the detriment of the people of Australia. I do not look with contempt upon any race, whatever its colour or degree of civilization; but, in all cases in which the white race has obtained power, it has attempted to use, and has mostly succeeded in using, the. coloured races to provide cheap labour in order to break down the conditions of the white workers.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is departing from the subjectmatter of the bill.

Senator RAE:

– I merely wish to point out that any measure which aids in maintaining the White Australia policy should be supported by all who have the welfare of this country at heart. I do not think that any small decrease in the price of sugar would be of substantial benefit to the wage-earners of this country.

Senator GRANT:
Tasmania

.- I was rather interested in the remarks of Senator Crawford regarding the “ vicious “ propaganda with respect to the sugar industry that has been published in the press in five out of the six States of the Commonwealth. I point out that a good deal of press propaganda has been indulged in on behalf of the industry.

Senator Crawford:

– Counterpropaganda.

Senator GRANT:

– Many newspapers have refused to publish articles in opposition to the interests of the industry because of the huge advertisements being received from it. For a number of years attempts have been made by honorable senators from Tasmania and other States to obtain a reduction of the Australian price of sugar, and the action of the industry in voluntarily agreeing to the slight reduction now proposed is somewhat belated.

Senator- Crawford. - Not voluntarily.

Senator GRANT:

– There seems to be disagreement among honorable senators from Queensland upon that point. I was interested to hear the remarks of Senator Colebatch about the attitude of the Government towards the Customs Bill. Senator Duncan-Hughes endeavoured to ascertain when that bill would be brought before the Senate, but he could obtain no satisfactory information on the matter. That measure was placed at the bottom of the notice-paper in May last, and there it remains. The Government does not appear to take the Senate much into its confidence when it is necessary for us to rely on press statements, even those appearing in the sugar journal, for information as to why the Customs bill has been placed in the back ground. I can well understand the anxiety of the Government and of Queenslanders regarding the legality of the agreement. In view of the numerous decisions of the High Court, it must have been worrying to the Government to be told that any agreement regarding sugar might be upset if action were taken by a State Government or by others to test its validity. I ask for leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 3070

WAR SERVICE HOMES AGREEMENT BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

[5.27].- I move-

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through all its stages without delay.

Honorable senators will remember that some time ago the Parliament agreed to a bill for an amendment of the War Service Homes Act to enable certain relief to be given to tenants under that act, as a result of an inquiry made into their circumstances. When the Government came to give effect to that measure, it had to approach the State Savings Bank of Victoria which was under an agreement administering war service homes in that State, but owing to certain differences the Commonwealth Government and the State Government have amicably decided to alter the arrangement for the control of these homes in Victoria. It was necessary that a bill be passed immediately to give effect to the proposed alteration, and a bill was prepared and introduced in another place providing that it should take effect by proclamation. Owing, however, to various interesting events that intervened, this matter has been somewhat overlooked, and it is now apparent that the revised agreement must take effect from to-day; otherwise the tenants will not get the benefit of it until some time in January next. It has been ascertained that the proclamation cannot be made retrospective. The Victorian Government has, therefore, agreed to pass a bill through all its stages in the State Parliament to-day, and by arrangement with all parties similar action has already been taken in the House of Representatives. I am now asking the Senate to agree to the suspension of the Standing Orders so that the bill may be passed through all stages in this chamber without delay.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLachlan) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Leader of the Government has explained the urgency of this measure. Prior to the passing of the War Service Homes Act 1927, the State Savings Bank of Victoria had acted in that State as agent on behalf of the War Service Homes Commission. By Act No. 33 of 1927, and at the request of the Victorian State Savings Bank, the homes which that body had provided as agents for the Commission were transferred to its control, and its relationship was changed from that of agent to that of principal. Honorable senators will remember that recently a committee appointed by the Commonwealth Government inquired into the administration of the War Service Homes Act, and the relief that should be afforded to purchasers ofhomes under it. In the main, the recommendations of that committee were accepted by the Government, and operated by the department. The Victorian State Savings Bank Commissioners were asked to extend similar concessions to the occupants of war service homes with whom they were dealing as principals. There are 3,600 of those persons in Victoria, and the Commonwealth Government considered that they should enjoy the concessions extended to the purchasers of war service homes in other parts of Australia. The bank, however, felt that such action would lead to its having to extend the concessions to returned soldiers who are purchasing homes from it under other terms, and that the resultant loss would be too great. It, therefore, asked to be relieved of its administration under the agreement. Negotiations were conducted with the bank over a considerable period, with the object of formulating proposals that would enable the War Service Homes Commissioner to discharge the obligations formerly discharged by the bank as principal for the Commonwealth Government. The arrangement arrived at is the subject of the agreement which is attached to the bill.

Senator DALY:

– Does the agreement impose on the Commonwealth a liability that so far it has not shouldered?

Senator MCLACHLAN:

– No. To-day the bank is the principal, and, except by moral suasion, we could not compel it to give these concessions to the 3,600 purchasers of homes to whom I have referred. The position in South Australia is slightly different from that which exists in Victoria. This is simply an effort to extend to returned soldiers who have entered into contracts with the Victorian State Savings Bank, the concessions that have been given to those who have purchased from the Commissioner of War Service Homes. It was finally arranged that there should be a payment of £184,000 by the bank to the Commissioner. The department estimates that there will be a saving in administration of £10,000 a year, because the payment to the bank of 13s. per cent, upon loan balances will be terminated. As the passage of the bill will enable us to give the concessions that I have mentioned, I ask honorable senators to agree to it.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– I appreciate the fact that the

Government is “ in a jam “ in connexion with this matter, because this is the last day of the month; therefore, Senator Rae and I are willing to assist it to pass this measure. I understand, however, that there is on the business paper of another place a bill to amend the War Service Homes Act. When that comes before us we intend to seek a review of the whole of the conditions affecting the purchase of war service homes, so that they may be made more beneficial to the occupiers of these homes.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 3071

SUGAR AGREEMENT BILL

No comparison can he drawn between the sugar industry of Queensland, living, as it were, in the lap of luxury, and the unfortunate small dairy farmers who are eking out an existence in the southern States

Senator GRANT:

– I think that I should be entitled to make my speech in my own way. I do not intend to refrain from answering interjections, but if they are made too frequently I shall have little opportunity to express my ideas on the bill now before the Senate. It has been said that those honorable senators who are opposing the agreement are in favour of the employment of coloured labour. I give that statement an emphatic denial. I am sure that no honorable senator on this side of the chamber believes in the introduction of coloured labour. On the other hand, I am somewhat concerned about the labour actually employed on the Queensland sugar-fields. According to the Australian Sugar Journal of the 3rd November, 1932, large numbers of aliens are employed on the Queensland sugar-fields. Frequent reference has been made to the utterances of Professor Brigden, particularly by those who support the views which he has expressed. This is what that gentleman said concerning the naturalization of the workers in the Queensland sugar industry-

Tha Australian Workers Union * fully organizes the employees in the industry, and it is in close association with the organizations of the employers. A comprehensive State award regulates the conditions of employment; but subordinate agreements are made with the intention of limiting the employment of foreigners. The so-called - “ alien influx “ has been a troublesome question in the northern district, and some 43 per cent. of the cutters and 34 per cent, of thu field workers are of foreign birth and unnaturalized.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– And Senator Rae said that 98 per cent, of them were British.

Senator GRANT:

– I am quoting the figures of Professor Brigden. He continues -

Indeed, in that district the British and Australian employees comprise only 42 per cent, of the cane-cutters, and 3(1 per cent, of the field workers.

That is in the whole of the northern districts of Queensland, where 70 per cent, of the sugar is grown. When I was in that district I visited places where one seldom heard the English language spoken. The article continues -

Very few mill workers are of foreign birth : but naturalized foreign farmers arc 30 per cent, of the whole.

Notwithstanding this we are told that we should give encouragement to Australian workers. The article proceeds -

The rates per ton for cutting cane are based on an average cut per man per day of 34 tons, estimated in 1920. Since then the average has increased, partly because softer varieties of cane are now planted, and in 1930 the cutters in one northern mill area averaged 4.0 tons, and £204 each for the season of twenty weeks.

– The dividends could be reduced by the company charging less for the refining of sugar, and passing the benefit on to the consumers of sugar.

Although the sugar agreement provides for the establishment of a sugar depot at Hobart, a depot has not yet been established there. Clause 11 of the agreement reads -

That the Queensland Government, if and when requested by the Commonwealth Government, shall establish a sugar depot at Hobart: provided that the Commonwealth Government shall not make such a request unless the request be accompanied by evidence proving that a general shortage of sugar has occurred in Hobart, which is due to Hobart merchants or the Queensland Sugar Board failing to adhere to the present arrangements, whereby special reserve stocks of sugar are supplied to and held by such merchants.

– There is no doubt that the sugar industry is wonderfully protected. No one objects to a reasonable amount of protection for an industry of such importance, but the people of Tasmania certainly object to an embargo on the importation of sugar from other countries. The Government also professes to dislike that class of legislation.

Senator Barnes:

– What would be the the use of the agreement without the embargo ?

Senator GRANT:

– It would be possible to meet the situation by imposing a reasonable duty on sugar, instead of an embargo.

SenatorCrawford. - What about a duty equal to that on dried fruits?

Senator GRANT:

Senator KINGSMILL:

– I am wondering who will prove to have been the lamb when this little contest is over. I can understand these gentlemen, who have believed all their lives in the socialization of industry, watching this great company grow fatter and fatter, and saying like Blucher, when he first saw London, “ Oh, what a city to loot “. I can imagine them looking at this company, and exclaiming to one another, “What a good thing to socialize”. I am wondering _ whether the industry will be socialized, or the gentlemen opposite civilized.

Senator Dooley:

– It may prove a step in the right direction.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– Exactly. The bringing together of these parties to-day may be a prelude to the realization of the brotherhood of man.

– And apparently without the aid of fertilizers.

It must be a trouble to them sometimes to find a place in which to put all their winnings. Some of these are revealed, but I feel sure that some are not. There must be secret granaries where these golden harvests are put away for further use.

Senator McLachlan:

– There are lots of rats about which make storage in granaries risky.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– Quite so, and some undertakings are ruined by bad management.

Senator Colebatch made a statement about the division of the sugar districts, which, I think, is the only assertion that has not been contradicted in this debate. Like Gaul, Queensland is divided into three districts, the southern, the central and the northern, and so far as I can learn, the bulk of the sugar and the bulk of the interests are in the northern division. The southern and central divisions are apt to suffer from the vagaries of the climate. When I visited Queensland I could sec the effects of frosts and drought, and it occurs to me that it would be a good thing if the Queensland Government took steps to establish some other industry in place of sugargrowing in those districts. Of course the Commonwealth Government could not do it; it makes enough attempts at interfering with State affairs, sometimes with, and sometimes without conspicuous success. But if the people of those areas could be induced by the Government of Queensland, and by the force of circumstances, to turn their attention to some other means of livelihood, I think that it would pay them quite as well as the growing of sugar. Senator Colebatch was accused of having said that they ought to grow tomatoes, but I do not believe that he made that statement; it. sounds like a remark torn from its context. There are several other industries, however, the prospects of which have been wonderfully enhanced by the Ottawa agreement. I have in mind such an industry as the intense fattening of cattle. That, I believe, could be established. If a number of small holders of sugar lands, each with an area that could be well looked after, could be induced to cultivate suitable fodders for the fattening of stock - almost anything can be grown in those districts - so long as enough store stock were made available, the farmers could not only grow baby beef, but also beef that would be killed where it had been fattened. I have no doubt about a market being obtainable for such beef. That has all been made possible under the Ottawa agreement. 1 think that Senator Pearce said that Queensland stood to gain an additional £1,000,000 out of the demand for Australian meat. If the quality of the meat is improved, and the age at which the stock is killed is reduced, there is no limit to the possibility of building up a prosperous industry in this direction. The growers could adopt the same system as that followed in Canada and the United States of America, where the cattle are bred on the ranges and are fattened inspecial districts. The only difficulty is transport, but that could, I think, be arranged. If the Queensland Government could be brought to realize the possibility of establishing a large, new and what promises to be a very prosperous industry, I have no doubt that the necessary financial arrangements could be made. Many of the areas on which sugar is now grown are large and fertile, but they do not, as a rule, possess that regular and sufficient rainfall that is undoubtedly required for the successful cultivation of sugar. If the areas that are suitable for cattle-raising - and there are immense tracts of this country along the rivers and in other places - I am sure this industry under methods which are new to Queensland, could be put intosuccessful operation.

No opportunity is presented to honorable senators to make necessary alterations in the period of the agreement, or to increase or decrease the prices afforded under the bill now before us. The honorable senator who introduced . the measure merely said “ Here is the bill ; you can reject it or pass it, but you must not vary it “. I do not think that that is right.

Senator Daly:

– The same was said of the Ottawa agreement.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– Quite so; and, strangely enough, we passed this afternoon a bill embodying another agreement to which a similar condition applied. In its case, and in the case of the Ottawa agreement, that was inevitable; but it is not inevitable in this case. It could easily be arranged that Parliament should have the only effective means of criticizing the bill; that is, by making or endeavouring to make certain amendments to it in committee. We might then fix a period of years during which the price could be varied, and make it possible to effect savings by keeping as low as possible the exportable surplus that is necessary for the prosperity of the industry. The last thing that I desire is that the sugar industry of Australia shall be affected adversely in the slightest degree. We have chosen to cut Australia off from the sugar supplies of the rest of the world. That is the will of Australia, and it must prevail. But let us act sensibly, by improving the industry to as great an extent as possible, in the direction of avoiding the quite avoidable surplus production. I realize, of course, that there must be a margin; but the export figure has gone beyond a reasonable margin, and it is a question of “ the tail wagging the dog”. Those who live in areas that are more happily situated than others for sugar-growing, must see that it is nothing but a mistaken pride which prevents their adoption of the method that, in the embryonic stage, I have placed before the Senate. A good deal may be done in regard to beef, as well as with what the Ottawa agreement euphoniously terms “ pig meats “, and in the production of eggs - which, during the depression, came to the rescue of New South Wales to a most marked and wonderful degree.

I am sorry that I cannot support the second reading of the bill, because it is not placed before Parliament in a form which allows of our offering the most valuable and efficient criticism that can be directed against it, namely, the amendment of it in committee. I have no doubt that the second reading will be carried, because campaigns of this sort are always conducted very efficiently. If it is, I shall certainly vote for any amendment which would remove the embargo on the importation of foreign-grown sugar.

Senator DALY:
South Australia

– I hope that the second reading of the bill will be carried. I am rather amazed at the attitude towards the sugar embargo that has been adopted in this, the States’ House. Senator Brown’s reference to Senator Johnston’s attitude to the transport of beer from Melbourne and Adelaide to Western Australia may have appeared on the surface to be merely jocose; but, viewed from whatever angle Senator Johnston may choose, his was, nevertheless, an attempt to raise a tariff wall against competition by other States with a Western Australian manufacture.

Senator E B Johnston:

– I protested against unjust competition at the expense of the Commonwealth taxpayer.

Senator DALY:

– To say that it is unjust competition is merely to beg the question. For the purposes of my argument, I am content with the admission that the. object of the honorable senator was to protect Western Australia against competition.

– I shall show the honorable senator that it is not. Last year an important committee made an exhaustive examination into the industry, and made certain recommendations to the Government. According to the report of that committee, the percentage of exports to the total production has been as follow: -

For the years 1925-28 inclusive, the production costs were £20 10s. a ton. The average price realized for sugar exported was £11 5s. a ton, leaving a net loss of £9 5s. a ton on the total exported.’ This represented the enormous loss of £6,058,990 for the four years, which had to be made up by the consumers of sugar in Australia. In 1.930, the quantity of sugar exported was 219,41S tons, the total loss on which was £2,029,616 for that year. That was the heaviest loss that has been sustained in any one year as a result of exports. In 1931, it was estimated that the cost of production would be reduced to £18 12s. 9d., as against £20 10s., or £1 17s. less than for the years 1925-28. It was estimated that, on the 45 per cent, of production to be exported, only £S a ton would be realized, thus incurring a loss of approximately £2,500,000 for the year. How long is this to continue? Is this to be a perpetual burden upon the people of Australia? Surely there is a means to remove this incubus eventually. Any sane individual conducting a commercial undertaking would avoid producing at a loss for an indefinite period. He would have to do so if he desired to remain solvent. The difference between an individual or a company and the Sugar Producers Association is that the Government is standing behind _ the association, and saying that that loss, whatever it may be, can be made up by the price charged to Australian consumers. Notwithstanding the fact that suggestions were made years ago by persons who had carefully studied the subject, no attempt has been made to give effect to the proposals then submitted. In 1917-18 there were 114,295 productive acres of sugar lands in Queensland. In 1.921-22 the area had increased to 128,356 acres’. In 1925-26 there was a further increase to 198,363 acres, and in 1927-28 the area was 212,304” acres. The latest figures that I can quote are for 1929-30, when the productive acreage had increased to 222,847, or an increase of almost 100 per cent., compared with 1917-18. Years ago those particularly interested in keeping the industry financially prosperous could., without imposing undue, burdens on the people of Australia, have formulated some scheme by which the continued increase in the area under production could have been avoided. I do not suggest that such a scheme could be brought into full operation at once. It would have to be spread over a period of years in order to reduce to a minimum the hardships and dislocation which may result. lt is’ imperative that such a scheme be established in order that this unnecessary burden may be removed within a reasonable period.

Every one admits the superiority of Tasmanian small fruits. That is due, not to any special merit of the Tasmanian people, but because the climatic conditions in Tasmania are eminently suited for the production of small berry fruits.

Senator Daly:

– I supported a bounty to assist that industry.

Senator PAYNE:

– It has been suggested that the small fruit-growers are not in favour of this agreement. I have with me to-night an expression of the views of Mr. Fyle, a member of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee, and a small fruit-grower, who is interested in the prosperity of the industry in which he is engaged. No section of primary producers in this country has had greater burdens placed upon it than has the section represented by the small fruitgrowers of Tasmania. Mr. Fyle said -

Unfortunately, the public and the growers do not quite understand just what this organization means to them. A bounty of £10 per ton was granted for the export of berry pulps overseas. This permitted at least 500 to 700 tons to be exported from Australia, and so reduced the quantity in Australia that the minimum price fixed by the Sugar Concession Committee was exceeded, to the benefit of the growers. This also insured that no old stocks will 1ms on hand at the commencement of the next fruit season. The fixing of the minimum price to growers is the best step that has ever been taken to protect the industry, as if no minimum price were fixed, purchasers would endeavour to get fruit at the lowest price possible to prevent competition against them. It must be understood that jam manufacturers and other manufacturers cannot get the rebate on their sugar .unless they produce a declaration or evidence that the growers received the minimum price for the fruit.

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

– I am sorry that Senator Guthrie ended his speech with the statement that he intends to oppose the embargo, because every Australian who has decent instincts realizes that that goes right to the bone of the matter. If we were considering a product of white labour, particularly British white, labour, ‘ 1 should not express myself so forcibly; but it is well known that the sugar which would be imported were the embargo to be abolished would come from Java, a country that produces about 3,000,000 tons annually, and could easily destroy our industry. Its people live under a different flag from ours, and I dare say are exploited by the Dutch. Such a suggestion is even worse than the proposal to admit Fijian bananas into

Australia, because Java is not under the British flag and the wages and conditions are such that if Ave submitted to them we should be degraded to the living standard of coolies. The literature that has been circulated among honorable senators contains a little about every phase of sugar. One document that ha/ been sent to me makes the statement that sugar cane was discovered first in India by the soldiers of Alexander the Great, in 337 B.C. If the matter were traced further back, even to the beginning of time, a number of other discoveries might bc made concerning it. During the last twenty years, many senators from other States have visited Queensland and made discoveries. One of these was discussed by Senator Payne, when he suggested that Australia is growing too much sugar, and that, because of over-production, loss is being occasioned. A senator from “Western Australia, on the other hand, complains that, in order to prevent over-production, the Queensland Government has limited the right to the use of land that is suitable for the growing of cane. He discovered the very interesting fact that the restriction on the use of land for sugargrowing should be removed, and that Queensland should go full-steam ahead in the development of every inch of sugar land that the State possesses. Other discoveries also have been made by visitors to Queensland. I am reminded of the discovery of a very highly respected and conservative New South “Wales statesman, that sugar grew on sugar bushes. He was subsequently disillusioned. Another visitor on one occasion spoke of the planting of ratoons.

I compliment Senators Greene and McLachlan on the very fair case that they have put to the Senate from the Australian viewpoint. Other honorable senators also have supplied most interesting information. I am not a bitter partisan of the sugar industry, nor a straightout supporter of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. Although I have criticized that company in this Senate, I am not one-eyed. Everybody who wishes to promote the interests of the sugar industry must admit that in its management and refining the company has -raised its operations to a very high pitch. So long back as 1912, a commission was appointed to inquire into the sugar industry, and upon it was a Labour member in the person of Mr. Albert Hinchcliff. Greatly to the surprise of some good Labour supporters, that gentleman reported against any withdrawal of control from the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, his investigations having convinced him that the company had reduced the cost of refining to the lowest possible point. In the propaganda that has been circulated, I find that the remuneration to the Colonial Sugar Refining Company for refining worked out in 1932 at .082. In 1915, the figure was .083. Consequently, the company has not increased its charges on the sugar industry. If it is a monopolistic company, and has been imposing an enormous exaction on the consumers and the manufacturers of jams and confectionery, surely the Government’ of this country, which, since 1916, with the exception of two years, has been in the hands of our honorable friends opposite, should have dealt with the matter instead of allowing it to continue until we had reached the stage of discussing an agreement which barely gives justice to the sugar-growers. If any honorable senator opposite feels aggrieved, he can endeavour to induce the Government to make a careful investigation, so as to obtain an exact statement of the position in regard to the profits of the company, and, if necessary, to introduce legislation to deal with the matter, as was done in Queensland in certain cases. As a Labour representative, I would not oppose such action. My economic doctrine is, that those who have greater gifts than others for management and superintendence should be suitably remunerated, and that those who take risks in- capitalistic enterprises are entitled to a better reward than others. But we certainly should prevent the making of anything like extortionate profits, which are damning both to the man who receives them and to those from whom they are taken. The Labour party in Queensland is not attempting to form an unholy alliance with’ capitalism. “We know that capitalism must exist, and that it will continue until we arrive* at a higher “state of society. But we shall certainly not allow our capitalistic enterprises^ be kicked to pieces, or unfairly criticized, by our friends opposite, who make no comment on their own capitalistic concerns, some of which are making twice as much and are as monopolistic as any concern in Queensland. Prior to the general elections held in 1931 consideration was given to the fact that Queensland was becoming more and more a primary-producing State, and that the opportunity for Labour representatives to be returned to the State Parliament seemed somewhat remote. I am surprised at the indifference displayed by certain honorable senators opposite who claim to be the representatives of primary producers towards a great primary industry in that State. One honorable senator representing Western Australia, who is a member of the Country party, seems to delight in attacking the sugar industry, but he should remember that the State which he represents, and also the State of Queensland, depend largely upon primary production, and not upon secondary industries. When I considered the possibility of Labour being represented in the Senate, I found that the primary producers of Queensland had increased during recent years by 6,000, which .meant an increase in the anti-Labour vote. Moreover, mining had declined to a large extent, and that was responsible for a reduction of the Labour vote. In the matter of secondary production, Queensland has remained stationary for the last seven years. I take this opportunity to place in Hansard some interesting figures with respect- to the number of hands employed in secondary industries in the various States. They are taken from the official statistics, and are therefore authentic. For the financial’ ‘year 1928-29, which is the latest for which figures are available, the number of hands employed in secondary industries in the various States was as follow: -

Honorable senators will’ doubtless say’ that, as the population in New South

Wales and Victoria is much larger than in any of the other States, the number of factory hands in those States should also be larger. The number is larger by 137,000. But an analysis of the figures shows that on a proportionate basis New ^ South Wales has 65,000 more factory employees than she should have compared with Queensland; Victoria, which is also a manufacturing State, with a smaller population than New South Wales, has 60,000 more ; and South Australia, which is next in importance in the matter of manufactures, has 15,000 more. Western Australia is on the same basis as Queensland. Even Tasmania has 7,000 more than Queensland or Western Australia. On a pro rata basis the total for the whole of Australia is 147,000 more than Queensland. It will be seen from these figures that those engaged in secondary industries in the other States are doing secondary production work for the Queensland people. If the total number of employees engaged in secondary production were divided on the basis of Queensland having oneseventh of the population of the Commonwealth, that State should have 21,000 more factory employees than it has to-day. As that number of operatives is not engaged in. secondary production in Queensland, the other States are evidently doing its work and, therefore, the northern State - should receive a quid pro quo. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask the. other States to assist Queensland in protecting what is a God-given right to produce tropical commodities. There is a good deal of tropical territory in the northern portion of Western Australia, but unfortunately the land in that locality is comparatively poor and is, therefore, used principally for grazing cattle. That is unfortunate for Western Australia, but Queensland, also, has disadvantages, particularly as the temperatures in the northern parts are exceedingly high for the greater portion of the year, which necessarily reduces the producing capacity of the people. Moreover, Queensland does not receive any great benefit from the tourist traffic from other States, which considerably increases the revenue of some of the other States. The Queensland people who are able to travel visit New

South Wales, and also Victoria, and the money which they spend is of benefit to the States which they visit. That should be taken into consideration when considering the comparatively small benefits which Queensland enjoys in other respects.

In view of the extent to which primary production is increasing in Queensland, and the fact that manufacturing is almost stationary, I thought -that it would be fruitless for me to contest the last Senate election. I decided, however, to enter the contest, because I thought that I might have a chance of success. Some ten years ago, when the Commonwealth Parliament was meeting .in Melbourne, and when it was suggested that the embargo should bc removed, I participated in the debate. A portion of my speech is recorded as follows: -

While the cost of living in Melbourne is practically double what it was in pre-war days, we cannot reasonably expect the retail price of sugar to be 3d. per lb., as it was some years ago. Having given a little study to the reasons which have necessitated the great increase in prices throughout the world, I have come to thu conclusion that . . . when economic stabilization is readied, prices and wages will be probably 50 per cent, higher than before the war. High prices are sure to remain when we consider that the war cost the world £40,000,000,000, and that the interest on that expenditure has to be met. Sugar is never likely to be at the pre-war retail rate of 3d. per lb.

Senator REID:

– Not at the present cost of production.

Senator MACDONALD:

– No, because the cost of living to the growers and those engaged in the works, at the mills, and in the refineries, is much higher than it was when the retail price of sugar was at the rate I have mentioned. If it recedes to 4$d. per lb., that is as far as we can expect it to go while the’ cost of other commodities remains at the present level.

Senator J. B. Hayes suggested that the sugar industry, in common with many others, should submit to a reduction of 22£ per cent., in accordance with the Premiers plan; but the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator McLachlan) showed that the industry has submitted to so many reductions, and has made so many concessions, that it is practically on the same basis as other similar undertakings. - The pre-war price of sugar was 3d. per lb.; it was eventually increased to 6d., and in 1923 reduced to 4£d. The present proposal is to bring about a further reduction, and, in view of all the circumstances, it is unfair to say that the industry has submitted to a reduction of only 11 per cent. Reference has already been made to the great benefit which the sugar industry was to Australia during the war period, when sugar was selling at ls. 6d. per lb. in England, as against 6d. in Australia. That benefit has been variously estimated at a sum ranging from £10,000,000 to £30,000,000. A former Minister for Trade and Customs said that it was approximately £16,000,000 ; but I do not think it would be incorrect to set it down as £20,000,000. What would be the position in the event of another war? If the sugar industry were not adequately protected, Australia would have to depend upon supplies from other countries, which might not be readily obtainable, and for which the consumers would have to pay excessive prices. One honorable senator suggested that British preferences represent £1,000,000; but I understand that the average is £650,000 and this year it will be under . that amount. If the embargo is removed, large quantities of land would go out of cultivation, and it would be impossible profitably .to use sugar land for any other purpose. We have also to remember that rum . is manufactured in Queensland, and that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company is also producing that beverage in Sydney. The production of. power alcohol mixed with Shell oil, and marketed under the trade’ name of “ Shellkol,” is also being undertaken in Queensland. Power alcohol is said to have many advantages over the pure spirit, and experts have expressed the belief that it will be possible to develop the power alcohol industry and thus reduce Australia’s bill for imported oil. Australia receives £2,000,000 per annum for the sugar it sells overseas, and that .amount goes towards meeting our national indebtedness. I shall not speak of the value of the treacle and syrup which Australia would have to import if it were mot for the sugar industry, except to remind honorable senators that in. the outback parts of Australia, golden syrup - more commonly known as “ cockies’ delight “ - is found most useful. If we lost the sugar industry, we should have to send good Australian money out of this country to buy these and other things. Senator Greene said that the sugar industry ran a risk if it did not take the advice of the Government. The frequent reductions of the price of sugar have caused dismay in Queensland because growers there have not known where the reductions would stop. Some honorable senators advocate freetrade, while others suggest a duty of only £6 a ton on sugar. In either case, the Australian sugar industry would bc ruined. As I have already stated there have been considerable reductions of the price of sugar. If we reduce wages and prices still further, the burden on our people will be so heavy that the country will not be able to ‘bear it. During the war, the workers received about £5 a week. If now their wages are reduced to £2 a week, and the prices of our export commodities fall, our interest burden will be relatively heavier, and Australia will become bankrupt. In view of our enormous war debt, it would not be safe for Australia to reduce wages and prices more than 50 per cent, below war time rates. I submit that 4£d. per lb. is about as low a price for sugar, as the industry can stand. Compared with the pre-war price of 3d. per lb. it is about equal to the general increased price level of commodities and services. For instance, a hair-cut which in pre-war days costs 6d. now costs ls. 6d. in Canberra. Well-established newspapers, such as the Sydney Morning Herald, the Melbourne Argus and Age, and th. Adelaide Advertiser, which, in the days ‘before the war cost Id., went up to 2d., and are now 1½d. Leading newspapers of Brisbane still cost 2d. each. Many similar instances could be given. I say now what I said in 1922, that it is only fair that the sugar industry should be given’ a full measure of protection. During this debate, Statements have been made in this chamber which indicate that the fears of the people of Queensland in relation to the sugar industry have not been without foundation. The growers of sugar recognized the need for greater stability in the industry, and consequently they consented to a compromise which was in reality the repudiation of an agreement solemnly entered into. Acting in accord-

Sena tor MacDonald. ance with the spirit of the times, the sugar industry has made a sacrifice in the interests of the whole community. All Queensland senators, irrespective of party, support the agreement and the embargo. They realize that without an embargo the way will be open for tha introduction into Australia of the products of sweated labour countries to com- ‘ pete with the product of white labour in this, country. If that were permitted the standard of the people of Australia would be forced down to the level of the black races, where men receive about ls. and women and children a few pence a day for their services. .

Senator Collings referred to the prosperity of certain towns in the sugargrowing districts of Queensland. If any one were to ask me whether Queensland was prospering, I would reply that, in view of the times, the State enjoyed a fair measure of prosperity. That is not to say that conditions in Queensland to-day are what they were in the years when prosperity was at its peak. I, personally, had not only suffered a reduction of salary, but at the time that I entered this chamber I had, under the operation of the Premiers plan, lost a considerable portion of my savings. Nevertheless, Queensland is a good place in which to live. It is a. :11ate with wonderful natural resources. Even if deprived of a market for its tropical products, Queensland would still have its wool, butter and cattle. Queensland is a primaryproducing State, which buys most of its manufactured goods from Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. Senator Collings will agree with me that Queensland, is not so prosperous as it was in 1926-29. The honorable senator’s remarks have been challenged, and he has been charged with having painted a bright picture of conditions in Queensland. On that ground it has been contended that the sugar industry can stand the reductions proposed. That is an illogical argument. Senator Kingsmill interjected during the speech of Senator Collings that the rest of Australia paid for the ‘ thriving towns of Queensland. I retaliate by saying that Queensland is paying a good deal to the rest of Australia for the manufactured goods which she buys fromthe other States Senator Colebatch said that the people of Queensland who, not long ago, declared the sugar agreement to be a monstrous imposition, now regard it as a splendid achievement.

Senator SirHal Colebatch:

– I am afraid that the honorable senator has not reported my remarks accurately.

Senator MacDONALD:

– Queenslanders do not admit that they have made a splendid bargain.

Senator Johnston read a number of resolutions against the continuance of the embargo. Senator Foll spoke truly when he said that it is sometimes easy to get a meeting to agree to a resolution.

Senator E B Johnston:

– The resolution to which I referred was agreed to at an interstate conference.

Senator MacDONALD:

– That makes no difference to my argument. I remember a convention carrying a motion dealing with income tax only to rescind it a little later when the Premier of the State came in hurriedly and said that it would mean a loss of 25 per cent. of the State’s revenue from that source. About ten years ago I was invited to address a meeting in the Bijou Theatre, Melbourne, on the sugar industry, and because of the antagonism which, I understand, had been aroused in the southern States as a result of misstatements concerning the industry; I was somewhat concerned as to what might happen to me if I attempted to defend the sugar industry from the attacks which had been made upon it, especially as the retail price then was 6d. per lb. But having accepted the invitation of the Victorian Australian Labour Party, I did my best. I put the case as straightforwardly as possible, and to myintense satisfaction there was not a singleinterjection from an audience of nearly 2,000 persons. I was convinced from my experience at that meeting, that, after all, the great bulk of the consumers in the southern States were not much concerned about the price of sugar. I feel sure now they will not worry much about the present proposal. If, however, theagreement affected the price of meat or bread, I have no doubt thatthe people generally would be greatlyconcerned because of the much bigger amounts involved.

Senator Daly:

– We are paying 4d. per lb. for the right to eat our butter.

Senator MacDONALD:

– That is so, and the Australian industry has a protection of 6d. per lb. against New Zealand butter. Our dairymen are benefiting to the extent of between £4,000,000 and £6,000,000 and probably we shall this year assist the wheat industry to the extent of £4,000,000. The people of Queensland will cheerfully accept their portion of that burden.

Senator Grant told us this afternoon that he intended to support the agreement, but would vote against the embargo. I am wondering what will happen to the agreement if the embargo is rejected. I was under the impression that, like the Ottawa trade agreement, this bill containing the sugar agreement had to be accepted in its entirety. I, therefore, regret that, at this late hour, there are suggestions of opposition to the embargo, because sugar is selling at only1d. per lb. over pre-war prices although the cost of living is now 50 per cent. higher. I hope that Senator Grant will not persist in his opposition to the embargo. May I remind him that for many years there was an embargo against correspondence being carried through the post to the institution known as Tattersall’s Consultation in Hobart. Personally I did not believe in that prohibition, and I was in good company, as thousands of people in all States mades regular contributions to the Tasmanian revenue, which must have benefited to the extent of many millions of pounds. The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), himself a good Tasmanian, was responsible for having that embargo lifted.

Oneof our Tasmanian friends- commented, this afternoon, on the fact that although the agreement contains provisions with regard to wages and conditions of labour in the sugar industry, nothing is said about the growers. For their information I may state that the Cane Prices Board, which has been operating for many years, fixes the price to be paid for sugar cane, with a result that the growers receive fair treatment from the mills.

Senator E B Johnston:

– Is it not a fact that the grower is carrying most of the reductions proposed in the new agreement ?

Senator MacDONALD:

– -That is a matter for consideration between the canegrowers and millers, and possibly the Colonial Sugar Henning Company; but I am afraid that, for any concessions that are made the worker will, as usual, suffer the most.

I support the bill, not because it represents an act of justice to the Queensland growers, but for fear that, if it is not accepted, something worse may happen to them. The idea that all representatives in this chamber from Queensland are a happy family when proposals affecting the sugar industry are under discussion is not quite correct. I have on other occasions condemned the Colonial Sugar Refining Company for certain actions, and, doubtless, I shall do so in the future, but I believe that all criticisms directed againstthat company should bc absolutely fair. The Colonial Sugar Refining Company is no more a monopolistic concern than are many other industrial activities in the southern States. Queensland growers have benefited to the extent of approximately £2,000,000 as the direct result of the operation of the Sugar Cane Prices Act passed by the State Government in 1915.

One or two mis-statements were made by some honorable senators this afternoon. I refer particularly to exaggerated reports about the number of Italians engaged in or employed by the industry. As one who has been studying and writing about the sugar industry for the last twenty years, I know that in certain districts like Ingham and Innisfail, the proportion of Italians who, after all are good Europeans, is large. In some districts where the farms are entirely -in the hands of Italians, the cane-cutting gangs are composed practically- of Italian labourers; but viewing the industry as a whole, the percentage of Italians engaged in it is not so large as some honorable senators would have us believe it is, and the intention is to work back to a percentage of at least from 80 to 85 per cent, of British workers, in the canefields.

– I have not said that it is either unusual or improper; but, I have suggested that it is considerations based on propaganda of this sort, which legislators should always keep closely before their minds.

SenatorFoll. - I may inform the honorable senator that the statements from which I quoted were official documents from the department. The honorable senator should now withdraw his dirty accusation.

Senator BRENNAN:

– I do not think that that is a nice thing for the Government Whip to say, particularly as I remarked, inanswer to an interjection by. Senator Sampson, that it was not unusual for that to, bedone, and that Idid not suggest that there was anything improper in it. Nor do I suggest that there is anything improper in an honorable senator supplying himself, from whatever source, with the. best material that he is able to procure. If there is now any question of a withdrawal, Senator Foll may feel inclined to make it.

The reason why I cannot .vote even for the second reading of the bill is that were I to do so, I should commit myself to what on my part would be a falsehood. Clause 2 sets out that “ the agreement made between His Majesty’s Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and His Majesty’s Government of the State of Queensland … is approved”. If I voted for that, I should signify my approval of it, and that would not be correct, because I simply cannot approve of an agreement of this sort. In the first place, as a matter of general principle, 1 am always opposed to the extension of government activities. I ask myself and this Senate, what arguments are left to any of us who belong to the individualistic side in politics - who arc anti-socialistic - if we support an agreement of this sort?

Senator Elliott:

– Does the honorable senator prefer the only alternative - the old agreement?

Senator BRENNAN:

– I am asked, in effect, affirmatively to approve. of a document. I say that I cannot do so, because I do not. approve of it. What is the result? It is to bring into operation, at any rate for the time being, a document which I had no part in bringing about and took no part in enacting.

– I draw a distinction between my positive act, and what is merely negative on my part. If I voted for the agreement, it could be said that 1 affirmed it. No one can say that I voted for what is known as the Scullin agreement.

I desire to refer to two points. One is the difference between this agreement and the agreement which last week we were asked to assent to. Honorable senators will remember that I held strongly the view that we were bound to either accept or reject that agreement in toto; that we could not amend it. We are in the same position in regard to this agreement. It is impossible for any third party, even though it be a legislature, to amend an agreement that has been entered into by two other parties. In this case, however, the position is different from that of the Ottawa agreement. This is a domestic agreement, and, if necessary, the parties to it could be brought together without any difficulty. Consequently, those who want to modify it may do so by amending clause 2 of the bill, which expresses approval of it. What particular form that amendment should take, I must leave to those who think it ought to be made. Therefore, the difference between this agreement and the Ottawa agreement is that in this case, although we may not directly amend the agreement, we can offer suggestions as to why it should be amended - which we could not with propriety do in the case of the Ottawa agreement.

The second point that I wish to raise, and it has not so far been touched upon, concerns the. constitutional aspect of this agreement. T ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator

McLachlan.) : where does the Government find in the Constitution any power to enter into an agreement such as this? Although the parties to it are the right honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) and Mr. Forgan Smith, the Premier of Queensland, each of those gentlemen signed it on behalf of his Government, and with no intention of binding himself personally. I should think that the whole trend of cases upon this subject is against the validity of any such agreement being made by the Government. I hesitate very much to offer an opinion, knowing, as I do, the standing as a constitutional lawyer of the honorable gentleman who occupies the position of Attorney-General; but I cannot help expressing the view that there is not in the Constitution any power to enter into an agreement such as this; and if the power is not given in the Constitution it cannot be done. There are several cases which approach very closely to the matter and I have no doubt that the AttorneyGeneral (Mr- Latham) is acquainted with them. It also appears to me that the agreement is obnoxious to the provisions of section 99 of the Constitution. That section says that the Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade, commerce or revenue, give preference to one State or any part thereof over any other State or part thereof. Here is a long agreement, in which only two States are mentioned. One might almost say that it is entered into solely between the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government. Assuming no mention of New South Wales in it, how can it be said that the Commonwealth is entitled to enter into some commercial arrangement with Queensland, which does not apply to any other State in the Commonwealth? Another reason why I think this agreement is invalid is because of the inclusion in it of clause 12, which says that the Commonwealth Government shall, subject to compliance with clauses 3 to 11 inclusive, continue to prohibit the importation of sugar until the 31st August, 1936, with certain exceptions that are immaterial. -The Prime Minister, therefore, pledged the -Parliament of Australia that the prohibition of the importation of sugar should continue. The term of the agreement carries it beyond the term of the present Commonwealth Parliament. If the position is that the agreement is entered into by the Queensland Government because of the existence of that provisionand I venture to affirm that lacking such a provision it would not have been entered into - the Queensland Government has been induced to become a party to a contract by reason of a clause that has no validity, and which it is beyond the powers of the Prime Minister or the Government - one might almost say the Parliament - to make. In my humble view, that provision in itself is sufficient to invalidate the agreement. I offer this opinion with deference, but with some confidence that there is a good deal in it. I feel that I must vote against the bill as a whole, whatever be the result. Much is said concerning the crack of the party whip, and that sort of thing. Those who find criticism so cheap, may criticize. I find no difficulty in saying that loyalty to anybody, whether it be to a party, a government, or a friend, cannot be altogether a bad quality; and in these extremely troublous times I should be very loth to do anything that might embarrass the Government; but in view of the attitude that I have always taken in connexion with the Queensland sugar industry, I feel that there is no course open to me other than to vote against the second reading of the bill.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– It has been my painful duty, during the last two days, to listen to the criticism of “ sugar babies “. I wish to reply to one or two of the arguments that have been advanced by Senator Brennan.

Having listened to the speeches of Senators Brennan, Colebatch, and Johnston, one can understand the reference of the first-named gentleman to the bull, which is mentioned in one of the opening chapters of a work by Henry George. After hearing senators opposed to the bill, I am satisfied that the bull is in this chamber. I understand and appreciate the criticism offered by Senator Colebatch, whose arguments are ably supported by the “Insane Democracy League “ of New South Wales, and would receive the plaudits of the- Millions Club, which stands for any sort of cheap labour, coloured or otherwise. On this, as on other occasions in this chamber, the honorable senator has shown clearly where he stands in relation to the growth of sugar cane and the manufacture of sugar, tie is not greatly concerned with whether it is manufactured by white or coloured labour. In fact, if it were possible to give the people of Western Australia the benefit of black-grown Java sugar, he would tlo so. Senator Johnston supported the policy outlined by Senator Colebatch who believes in the importation of s’ugar produced by black labour. Apparently honorable senators representing Western Australia believe in opposing any assistance to the Queensland sugar industry, but, at the same time, they favour a bounty of 4^d. a bushel on wheat. Tasmania has also received a good deal of assistance from the Com.monwealth Government, and the only complaint of the representative of that State appears to be based on the fact that there is no sugar depot in Hobart. Senator Brennan has apparently expressed the views of the members of the Housewives Association in Victoria whose support he received at the last general election. I suppose that he will tell the members of that organization what he has done to protect their interests. It is not my desire to detain the Senate by further discussing a measure that has already been fully debated; but I sincerely trust that the bill will receive the support of a majority of honorable senators.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– I have listened to this debate with a good deal more attention than usual, because I have not been at all sure as to the proper course which 1 should adopt with respect to this particular matter. Some honorable senators ure fortunate in having their minds made tip before they enter the chamber, and I arn usually in that position myself; but I have not felt certain in regard to this, us it appears to me, somewhat difficult subject, particularly as some of the clauses of the agreement are in direct opposition to my general views. I refer more particularly to the very undesirable-from my” view-point quite undesirable - provisions in regard to embargoes. I dislike embargoes. I think they are bad for the people, and, consequently, for the country, i would sooner have a high tariff, even a prohibitive tariff. An embargo is bad for every one concerned, bad for the country to which it applies, and particularly dangerous, at this time above all times, as applied to trading relations with other countries. Other things being equal, a high protective tariff is more! desirable than an embargo. I do not claim to approach this subject with that broadnational outlook which. I hope, Senator Collings had when making That I considered to be the best speech I have heard him deliver in this chamber. When I was a member of another place we always thought that the possession of a broad national outlook indicated some particular interest in a State at the particular moment. I may mention in passing, that this bill is not a very redoubtable instance of the brotherhood of man in full operation. I do not think that I need emphasize that point to any extent. We have recently had the brotherhood of man preached to us, but this measure cannot be regarded as a striking instance of that brotherhood in full working order.

I do not propose to detain the Senate very long, but I should like to S:V a word or two about the old agreement which was never ratified by Parliament. It has been suggested that this Government had no “ moral right “ to repudiate that agreement. I cannot accept that view. It was the duty I take it, of the previous Government to bring the old agreement before Parliament, and until it was ratified by Parliament it was not, in fact, an effective or legal document. We cannot have all sorts of legal presumptions and moral rights set up when the law was really established for the purposes of defining what rights are. I can quite understand that those supporting the present Government may possibly have indicated to the people * ‘ Queensland during the last election campaign that if returned they would not discard the old agreement without entering into another voluntary agreement with the Queensland Government on behalf of those engaged in the sugar industry. Whether that is sb or not I do not know ; but I’ cannot accept the view that, if ah agreement “is made ‘and for whatever reason - and in some instances it may be for a deliberate reason. - that agreement is not brought before Parliament, any future government is morally bound by it although it has not been legally and properly completed. To accept that view would permit all sorts of agreements being made which would never be submitted to Parliament or would simply be brought in and dropped owing to the knowledge that they would not be passed.

A good deal has been said as to the relative claims of different primaryproducing industries. I do not make any apology for referring briefly to that aspect of the matter. I do not quite agree with what Senator Brennan said on the subject. I believe that there is a certain amount of jealousy on the part of the other States owing to the favorable position which Queensland has occupied, not only with respect to sugar, but also with respect to a number of other products. Very little has been said in this debate from the viewpoint of South Australia; but the fact cannot be questioned that there is a general feeling in that State that Queensland has done exceedingly well out ‘of sugar.

Senator Daly:

– We did very well out of wine.

– We are astounded at such criticism.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– Were the honorable ‘senator to travel through

Some of the other States he would see that other Australian industries are just as efficient as is the sugar industry. I have no desire’ to harm the sugar industry, merely because other industries are not prosperous ; but I point out that it enjoys better conditions than any other primary industry in Australia. The trouble with the sugar industry is that it now produces more sugar than the Australian public can consume. In that respect it. is not unlike some of our secondary industries which find it difficult to export their surplus production overseas. Those other industries are, however, not in the fortunate position of being able to force up the price of their product and to make the people of Australia pay for the losses incurred on the surplus production exported overseas. The sugar industry has developed because .the legislation of this Parliament gave it such a measure of protection, that it became attractive. As in the case of .(he dried fruit industry, many persons were induced to engage in sugar-growing, and it was not long before the whole of Australia’s sugar requirements were produced’ in this country. During the boom years, when Australia appeared to be prosperous, because of borrowed money and high prices for our export products, the people did not mind paying high prices for sugar. Why has this industry been so much under public notice during the last two or three years, and why have meetings of protest been held so often in the southern States? Is it not because of the feeling of resentment on the part of the people against the continuance of the agreement?

Senator Collings:

– Vested interests have’ been responsible for the agitation.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– Why should that charge -be levelled against any body of persons who protest against certain items in Government policy? Why should it be suggested that, because there have been protests against the sugar agreement, those responsible for the agitation have been actuated by ulterior motives? Is it not the right of every citizen to protest against any government action which, in his opinion, is likely to injure him or the people collectively? It is the undoubted right of the people to make themselves heard in such circumstances. The sugar industry and those associated with it would have been wise to take cognizance of these continued protests from the southern States against the continuance of the agreement. We had every right to expect this of such a great national industry which, for so many years, has been working under the shelter of agreements and embargoes imposed by successive governments. I assure supporters of the bill and our Queensland friends that representatives of Tasmania and the people of that State are just as anxious as are the people in any other State to see this great industry prospering. I remind them that all the patriots in Australia are not domiciled in Queensland. If we criticize the agreement or the industry it is not because we have any desire to drag it down. The people engaged in the sugar industry have had ample,, time, to come forward voluntarily and offer some contribution towards the sacrifices .demanded of other sections of the community in order to rehabilitate this country. It may lie said that they are now doing this by reducing the retail price of sugar by -id. per lb. But that reduction does not represent a real sacrifice, and certainly it is not comparable with sacrifices made by other primary industries in Australia. As working costs and cost of living figures have come down during the last year or two, what the industry may lose “by a reduction of the price of sugar will, I suggest, be made up by savings in working costs and other items of expenditure. I have said that other primary industries have suffered to a much greater extent than the sugar industry is likely to suffer under this agreement. I am a farmer. Everything that we as farmers produce is down at least 50 per cent, compared with prices ruling five years ago, but our working costs have come down only to the same extent as working costs have declined in the sugar industry, which has agreed to a reduction of only 11 per cent, in the price of its product. It has been said that it is suffering under disabilities due to Commonwealth legislation. If that be so, it is the duty of the Government to submit proposals to remove some of the handicaps that may have been placed upon the industry. It is being carried on under awards made, not by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, but by the State Arbitration Court. Consequently it has to pay higher wages and give more favorable working conditions than are applied to any other primary industry in the Commonwealth. If the industry is suffering in consequence, it is strange that those connected with, it have not, up to the present, attempted to bring it under the Commonwealth Arbitration Court.

Senator Foll:

– There has been a reduction in the wages of mill hands and field workers.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– I am aware of that. Awards for waterside workers, railway servants, and employees in many other industries throughout the Commonwealth have ‘also been reduced as part of the p!an for the rehabilitation of Australia, and the people generally have looked to the sugar producers to make their contribution. It is my intention , to support the second reading nf the bill, but I. am opposed ‘to the embargo. I am at a loss to understand why the Government proposes to continue the embargo, because while high protection may hamper trade with other countries, embargoes are provocative of hostility, and not infrequently give rise to international difficulties. I, therefore, hope that the Government will not persist with the embargo.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– I have no intention of detaining the Senate at this late hour, but I should like to make one or two observations before the vote is taken on the motion for the second reading of the bill. Those honorable senators who have had an opportunity to visit the sugar-growing areas of Queensland and have obtained first-hand information concerning the industry will, I am sure, be reluctant to do anything that might damage it. About six years ago, it was my privilege to spend three or four weeks among the sugar-growers in Queensland, and I have no hesitation in saying that the industry, in all its phases, is highly efficient. But as other industries have been suffering sever e’y in recent years, it is only fair that some portion of the burden should be borne by this great primary industry in Queensland. I listened attentively to the speech of the Minister (Senator Greene) in introducing the bill, and also to the observations of Senator Colebatch, who, as usual, excelled himself in concise destructive criticism. I regret that the honorable gentleman did not offer some alternative to the agreement. It is true that he mentioned” the possibility of sugar production from beet in “Western Australia and Tasmania, but that was not a very helpful proposal, because about nine years ago, we thoroughly investigated the prospect of the sugar beet industry in Tasmania and came to the conclusion that a sugar beet mill would not be an economical proposition. We realized that it would be practical^ impossible to ‘ compete against cane sugar produced under ideal climatic conditions in Queensland.

In this agreement, like all others, there is a quid pro quo. Some parts of the proposal appeal to honorable senators, others do not. The agreement will mean a saving to the sugar consumers of Australia of over £1,000,000 a year, for a fixed term of years. Quite a number of my colleagues object to this, but I consider itonly fair that those connected with the sugar industry should know where they stand, and should have some reasonable assurance of tenure. It would be unreasonable if the proposal could be upset from year to year. Conditions in the industry would then be chaotic.

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 12.80 a.m.(Thursday).

Thursday, 1 December 1982

Senator SAMPSON:

– It is only fair that there should be a guarantee of continuity of policy so that the sugar industry and the industries allied to it may know where they stand. When the late Sir Henry Jones visited the sugarmills of Queensland in 1924 he said -

He strongly favoured the stabilization of the industry. Three-year agreements were far too brief. They should have a ten or twenty years’ term so that farmers, millers and refiners would know where they were.

Therefore, the “quid” that we are getting is about £1,300,000 a year by reason of the reduction of1/2d. per lb. in the retail price of sugar, and the “ quo “ is the provision that the agreement shall operate for a term of years. If I rejected the new agreement I should be unable to justifymy action in refusing to accept a reduction of the retail price from 41/2d. to 4d. per lb. All honorable senators, I understand, have been bombarded with telegrams- for and against the agreement.

A much-debated subjectin Tasmania is the establishment of a sugar depot in Hobart. Clause 11 of the agreement sets out what is to be done in the matter. The Assistant Minister (Mr. Guy) has directed that frequent and periodical stocktakings shall be made by the Collector of Customs in Hobart of the merchants’ sugar stocks there, to ensure that merchants maintain adequate reserves. The penalty for failure to do that will be the. establishment of a depot, and naturally this will provide a, strong incentive to the merchants to “play the game”. I think that Tasmanians can rest assured , that there will always be adequate reserve stocks of sugar in the capital city.

The subject of the sugar agreement has been discussed on many previous occasions in this chamber, and I do not intend at this stage to go into detail regarding it. Although we have not obtained all that is desirable, I can see no justification for rejecting this voluntary offer on the part of the industry. The offer was made voluntarily, for the Government did not hold a pistol at the head of the industry. The partisans on both sides have been inclined to discuss this subject with some heat, and to use extravagant language, instead of keeping strictly to the facts. I have in mind a circular that I received last week from certain interests in Melbourne. The letter was signed by a gentleman named Hagelthorn, and it was said that the consumers in the Commonwealth were charged three times as much for their sugar as consumers in Britain were paying, but that statement is quite inaccurate. We should consider this matter calmly, and, in my opinion, a step is being taken in the right direction. The agreement will considerably help the berry fruit-growers of Tasmania, than whom there is not a finer or more hard-working body of men on the land. From investigations made by me in 1926, and since, I believe that the sugar-growers of Queensland work hard and for long hours, but they are not making a great deal out of the industry. The growers of small fruits in Tasmania are a hard-working and frugal section of the primary producers, and they deserve all the help that this agreement will confer upon them. The consumers generally will benefit to the extent of something over £1,000,000 a year, and that advantage is not to be lightly thrown aside. For these reasons, and for many others, I support the second reading of the bill.

Senator MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Half an hour after the “witching hour “ is not an appropriate time for an oratorical display. While I agree with what Senator Duncan-Hughes and others have said as to the objectionable provisions of the bill, I do notfeel disposed to askthe peopleof Tasmania to pay a halfpenny per lb. more for their sugar forthe next two years than will be charged if this bill is passed. Therefore, I intend to support the second reading of the measure, but I shall oppose the embargo.

Question - That the bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided. (President- Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch.)

AYES: 27

NOES: 5

Majority . . 22

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee :

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Approval of agreement).

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia). [12.45 a.m.]. - I suggest that the proper course is to postpone the clause until the agreement has been considered.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I refer honorable senators to the ruling that I gaveon a similar point in connexion with the United Kingdom and Australia Trade Agreement Bill. The same principles apply in the consideration of this measure. It is quite competent, and would be clearly in order, for any honorable senator to discuss the schedule or any part thereof. But the agreement, which is the schedule to the bill, is an agreement entered into between the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Govern ment, and this Parliament has no power to alter it. An amendment of the agreement can be brought about only by way of an amendment of a clause of the bill.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– I object to the Chairman’s ruling and, pursuant to the Standing Orders, hand in my objection in writing.

In the Senate:

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– It is with reluctance, and the greatest respect, that I dissent from the ruling of the Chairman of Committees. I do so on two grounds. The first is, that it is in conflict with Standing Order 201. That standing order reads -

Any amendment may be made to any part ofthe bill, provided the same be relevant to the subject-matter of the hill and be otherwise in conformity with the rules and orders of the Senate.

So far as concerns the words “ provided the same be relevant to the subject-matter of the bill and be otherwise in conformity with the rules and orders of the Senate “, the point obviously cannot be decided until the amendment itselfis submitted.. Consequentlythe only portion of the standing order that has application to. the present situation is that which reads, Any amendment may be made to any part of the bill “. I maintain that die schedule is a part of the bill, and that, therefore, it is competent for honorable senators to move an amendment to any portion of it, so long as the amendment be relevant to the subject-matter of the bill, and be otherwise in conformity with the rules and orders of the Senate. My second objection to the Chairman’s ruling is that it restricts the constitutional powers of the Senate to amend bills of this character. Section 53 of the Constitution, after setting out certain limitations on the power of the Senate in regard to money bills - and this obviously is not a bill which falls within that category - concludes -

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with .the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.

In the House of Representatives last week, during the consideration of the Ottawa agreement, the schedule to the United Kingdom and Australia Trade Agreement Bill was discussed in detail, and amendments to different clauses of it were accepted as matters that that House was competent to deal with. I maintain that, to deprive the Senate of equal power to deal with the clauses of an agreement, in to nullify the provisions of section 53 of the Constitution, which gives the Senate equal power with the House of Representatives.

Senator Daly:

– The ruling of the Chairman of Committees is absolutely ridiculous.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– The honorable senator took this point, and I supported him, when the question previously arose. I also direct attention to section 49 of the Constitution, which reads -

The powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and of the members and the committees of each House-

These are the important words - shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the Commonwealth.

There is not, so far as I have been able to find, any provision in i, our Standing Orders limiting the powers of the Senate in this matter. Lacking such provision, we are thrown back on the practice of the House of Commons. I take it that it is within your knowledge, Mr. President, that only a few weeks ago, when the Ottawa agreement was before the House of Commons, different clauses in it were debated, and members exercised their right to move amendments to it.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– In challenging the ruling of the Chairman of Committees, Senator Colebatch has misunderstood the interpretation - a fairly easy one, I consider - of Standing Order 201. I shall deal first of all with the honorable senator’s objection to the Chairman’s ruling on the ground that it is unconstitutional. I do not know whether you, sir, will take the power to interpret the Constitution. I have known other Presidents who declined to do so, on the ground that a special authority in the High Court exist3 for that purpose. All that I would say is, that the honorable senator really supplied the answer to his own contention, because he quoted section 49 of the Constitution, which says -

The powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate and of the members and the committee . . . shall be such as are declared by the Parliament.

They have been declared by the Parliament and are to be found in our Standing Orders. Consequently, it is not necessary for us. to fall back on the procedure of the House of Commons, or of any other house. Our powers in this matter are declared in Standing Order 201, which reads -

Any amendment may be made to- any part of the bill, provided the same be relevant to the subject-matter of the bill and be otherwise in conformity with the rules and orders of the Senate.

The Chairman of Committees has not ruled that no amendment can be made in the bill. He has informed the committee that this is a bill to approve of an agreement made between His Majesty’s Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and His Majesty’s Government of the State of Queensland. The enacting clauses, which approve that agreement, are clauses 1 to 3. The agreement, which is a schedule to the bill, cannot be amended. :It is not an agreement between the Commonwealth Parliament and the Queensland Parliament : it is one which has been entered into between the Prime Minister of Australia on behalf of the Commonwealth and the Premier of Queensland on behalf of the State of Queensland. What we are. asked to do is to validate that agreement.

Senator Daly:

– Without seeing it.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Yes, if the honorable senator wishes to put it that way. In clauses 1, 2 and 3, this Parliament expresses its approval or otherwise of the agreement. If the ruling of the Chairman of Committees deprived the committee of its rights, there would be some substance in the dissent. Clause 2 of the bill provides that -

The agreement made between His Majesty’s Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and’ His Majesty’s Government of the State of Queensland (a copy of which agreement is set forth in the schedule to this act) is approved.

– This bill relates to the original document, a copy of which has been inserted for the convenience of honorable senators.

Senator Brennan:

– That is an excellent point. “We have not the original document before us, and if, by an amendment, we interpolated something into the document before the parties to it had attached their signatures, technically, we should be guilty of forgery. The Government submits, as a schedule to the bill, an agreement which is strictly valid, but for greater caution has asked Parliament for its ratification.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I do not wish to delay the Senate because the case has been argued admirably already, but I should like to answer one point that was raised, I believe by Senator O’Halloran, that this Parliament has never validated an agreement without setting it out in a schedule to the bill. I have not the time to study the whole of the Statutes, but I invite the honorable senator to look at Act No. 31 of 1923. If he does so, he will find that it validated a whole series of agreements, and excepts from the operation of the act another series of agreements, not one of which appears in the schedule to the bill.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– I would again direct attention to the constitutional aspect of this question. It has not been denied by any member that the course adopted by the House of Representatives in regard to a similar bill prevented honorable members from considering the clauses of the schedule, and submitting amendments to it. . I am in entire accord with the statement made by Senator McLachlan and Senator Greene, but I agree that it would have been competent for the Government to submit this bill without including the agreement in the schedule at all, but if that had been done it would have been obvious that the schedule was not part of the bill and therefore could not be amended; the Government would have taken its chance of getting the bill through without including the agreement inthe schedule. As the Government, however, has included the agreement as a schedule to the bill, it is, I submit, part of the measure and, under our Standing Orders, the committee has the right to amend that part of the bill. .

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - The case before the Chair seems to be that when this bill was in committee and when clause 2 was being considered, Senator Colebatch suggested its postponement until the schedule had been dealt with. The Minister in charge of the measure took an objection and Senator Colebatch then asked the Chairman of Committees whether it wouldbe competent, when the schedule came before the committee, for an amendment to be made in the schedule, whereupon the Chairman ruled against the honorable senator. Following the usual procedure, when a clause of a bill is put to the committee, it is open to amendment. In this case an amendment to clause 2 might mean an amendment would be made in the agreement which appears as a schedule to the bill. It would really seem that the contending parties are almost at one with each other, the only difference being one as to procedure. Senator Millen has directed attention to the practice of the House of Commons when dealing with bills to confirm agreements as set out in May at page 406. Clearly, under that procedure, the rights of this chamber are preserved. Senator Daly contends that the agreement in the schedule to this bill can be altered by direct amendment to the agreement itself, but Senator McLachlan argues that its alteration may be brought about by amending the enabling provisions of the bill. Obviously, to be strictly in order, amendments should be made only in the manner indicated by May, the highest of all authorities, which Senator Millen quoted.

Senator Colebatch apparently relies upon the Senate procedure as laid down in Standing Order No. 201, which provides that an amendment may be made to any part of a bill provided it is relevant to the subject-matter of the bill and is otherwise in conformity with Senate procedure. I would, however, direct attention to the following, which appears in May, at page 404-

Amendments may be made in every part of the bill, whether in the preamble, the clauses, or the schedules; clauses may be omitted and new clauses and schedules added.

Senator Daly:

– Exactly.

The PRESIDENT:

– If Senator Daly would turnto the next page and find out what is done in the case of a bill which contains an agreement he would find that the word “ exactly “ would not fit in. As has been mentioned by Senator Brennan, these Standing Orders do not provide specifically for this case. There is no standing order that fits the case the same as this authority does. But I have a recollection that when a contract was being entered into with the Orient Company some years ago for the carriage of mails between Australia and Great Britain an effort was made to amend the agreement, and it was held that such an amendment could not be entertained on the ground that the agreement could not be amended, but that an amendment of the preceding motion, if the Senate thought it desirable, could be effected. With that sole precedent before me, and as the Standing Orders are silent on the matter, I have only to rule that the Minister in charge of the bill was right in proposing that the clause should be proceeded with. And if the Chairman upheld that view, I have no ground to stand on except that which has never been challenged - that clause 2 can be amended, and by that means an alteration may be brought about in the agreement; hut where the schedule to a bill consists of an agreement the practice is that such schedule is not open to amendment. Therefore, I uphold the ruling of the Chairman.

In committee:

Clause 2 (Approval of agreement) -

That the QueenslandGovernment as from the fifth day of January One thousand nine hundred and thirty-three will make sugar and other sugar products the product of the raw sugar manufactured during the seasons of 1932-1933, 1933-1934, 1934-1935 and 1935-1930 available for sale and delivery in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Fremantle, Hobart and Launceston respectively at prices (which shall include the cost of bags and other containers ) not exceeding those prices specified in thisclause in respect of each grade of sugar and each sugar product -

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [1.49 a.m.]. - I move -

That the following words be added to the clause: - “ Provided that clause 5 of the Agreement be amended by inserting the word ‘ and ‘ between the figures ‘1932-3’ and’ 1933-4 ‘ in the third and fourth lines of the clause and by striking out the figures ‘ 1934-1935 ‘ and ‘ 1935- 1936’ in the fourth line of the clause.”

The effect of this amendment would be to continue the price now fixed upon until the end of the 1933-34 season, as provided in the original agreement. Should the amendment be accepted I intimate my intention to submit a further amendment to provide that the selling price of sugar for 1934-35, and for 1935-36 shall be fixed in accordance with the provision of the original, or Scullin agreement. The effect would be that the1/2d.perlb. reduction would take effect, but naturally a further adjustment of the price could, if thought desirable, be made at the end of that period.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Honorable senators will recall that the old agreement which is to be replaced by the agreement set forth in the schedule to the bill, provided that the price of 41/2d. per lb. should continue to the end of 1934, and that there should be a review of the price in 1934. When the question of a new agreement with a reduced price was being considered recently, the sugar interestsnaturally said that if they gave up their undoubted rights under the old agreement-

Senator Brennan:

– Not quite their undoubted rights.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I am assuming, of course, that the old agreement was valid, and that it was possible for it to be implemented until the end of its term. The sugar interests had that agreement for what it was worth. The Commonwealth Government had signed it, and, as I have already said, it believed that in the event of not being able to get a voluntary adjustment of the agreement, it was bound to implement it to the best of its power throughout its currency. The sugar interests, in entering into this voluntary agreement, said, “ You are taking away the right we had under the old agreement for the price of 41/2d. per lb. to the end of 1934. If we now give up this1/2d. per lb., is it not fair, that you should give us continuity until the end of the term?” . These are matters of compromise, and the Government endeavoured to hold the scales as evenly as possible between the parties. It was considered that in view of the fact that the growers were giving up what were their undoubted rights under the old agreement, there was no certainty that in the review of the price we should get any reduction, and as the sugar industry was prepared to take a reduction for four years, it was considered to be a fair quid pro quo. I think that it was, and in view of that, the Government cannot accept Senator Colebatch’s amendment. He desires to limit the price of 4d. per lb. to two years, and at the end of that period to endeavour to get it down again. In view of all the circumstances, I do not consider that that would be fair to the sugar industry. One of the things which the agreement is designed to secure is stability, not only to the sugar industry, but also to all the related industries. Under this agreement they will all know where they are for four years ahead, and they can make their arrangements accordingly. Therefore, the Government cannot accept the amendment.

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

– I intend to support the amendment,not because of its virtues, but because, if carried, it will effect thepurpose which we failed to achieve on the second reading. It is, so to speak, a destructive agent, and is therefore germane. It further goes to prove the truth of my contention on the second reading, that the only fair way of dealing with this matter is that the parties should agree on terms, and that these should be made the subject of a bill, which should be passed, in this case by this Parliament and by the Queensland Parliament.

Senator McLachlan:

– A sortof statutory contract?

Senator KINGSMILL:

– Yea. It isa contract, the terms of which are arranged, but which, before being signed, has to be approved, in this case by the Parliament of the Commonwealth and the Parliament of Queensland. That is the only fair course to take, because it is seen from numerous instances that this method of putting an agreement in as a schedule to a bill involves its acceptance or rejection, and cannot possibly permit of an amendment of the agreement.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [2.0 a.m.]. - The Assistant Minister has contended that it is fair to allow the present price to continue for the term of the agreement because of the concession of id. per lb. that the industry has made. That is entirely opposed to the principle of the concession, which was supposed to be an equivalent of the reduction of221/2 per cent. made by bondholders and every one else. My contention is that those who made the concession have no right to any new privilege in return for it.

Question - That the words proposed to be added (Senator Colebatch’s amendment) be so added - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 6

NOES: 27

Majority . . . . 21

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Sugar Agreement, 1933-1936.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [2.4 a.m.]. - I move -

That the following words bo added to the clause: - “Provided that clause 7 of the agreement be amended, by striking out the words two hundred ‘ and substituting the words three hundred and fifteen ‘ “.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– At this hour of the morning, after having listened to the debate throughout the day, it is a little difficult for one to keep the whole thing in mind. But what is perfectly clear is that the old agreement provided that the sum of £315,000 should be reduced in the event of a reduction of the price. That is the point which Senator Colebatch did not touch. In view of it, the Government cannot accept the amendment. Every one knows that the sole object of these amendments is to break down the agreement, and that once it is altered in any particular it goes by the board.

Senator GRANT:
Tasmania

– I intend to support the amendment, for the reason that, during the next two years at all events, the fruit-growing industry is entitled to the £315,000 provided for under the old agreement. Only during the last two years of the term of the agreement would there be any possibility of a reductionin the amount of the allocation.

Question - That the words proposed to be added (Senator Colebatch’s amendment) be so added - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 11

NOES: 22

Majority . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Sugar Agreement, 1933-1936.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [2.19 a.m.]. - I move -

That the following words be added to the clause - “ Provided that clause 12 of the agreement be eliminated.”

Clause 12 of the agreement which I have moved to eliminate provides for the prohibition of importations. In pursuance of the course which I have followed in connexion with other amendments which I have moved, I do not propose to discuss this amendment, as I think that the subject has already been sufficiently debated.

Senator GREENE:
Assistant Minister · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– This amendment, if adopted, would invalidate the whole of the arrangements entered into between the two contracting parties. In order to secure a reduction of the price of sugar the Government undertook to continue to provide for the prohibition of imports, and without which the whole of the agreement would be ineffective. In the circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– I should like to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator McLachlan), who conducted the negotiations leading up to the adoption of this agreement, if he can say on whose suggestion the provision providing for the imposition of an embargo was placed in the agreement. Was it suggested by the sugar interests or by the representative of the Government? I feel sure that it could not have been made by the representative of the

Government because, when speaking on the sugar policy on the 14th May last year, the Minister said - .

The agreement and the embargo impose on the taxpayers a burden ranging from £5,500,000, as indicated by the commission, to £7,000,000, as suggested by other outside authorities. Be the figure what it may, the taxation is excessive and we might very well complain that Parliament was not consulted before the Government decided to renew the agreement and re-impose the embargo. Under this arrangement the sugar industry is a taxing machine. Whether the amount which it levies is 15s. or £1 per head, is beside the point. What I and other honorable senators complain about is that the Government should have committed itself before giving Parliament an opportunity to express an’ opinion on the subject. It is no answer to say that this administration merely followed the procedure of previous governments. Our economic circumstances were entirely different when previous administrations entered into these arrangements. In our present circumstances no government should have inflicted this further burden upon the people without consulting Parliament.

As the Government has placed honorable senators in a somewhat unpleasant position in regard to the embargo, I think that I am justified in quoting the remarks of the Minister on that occasion.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– I am delighted to have an opportunity to explain the position. As the representative of the Government it was my responsibility to negotiate with the representativesofthe sugar industry, and in these negotiations I ascertained that the representatives of the industry were prepared to agree to a reduction of price and to give certain other concessions provided that the Government agreed to the imposition of an embargo, and the retention of certain other provisions which were in the old agreement. During the course of those negotiations Ifrankly confessed that I preferred the imposition of a protective duty to an embargo. I still hold that view, but I had to deal with the conditions as I found them, and to bear in mind that the industry was well established and efficiently conducted. . The sugar producers said that if they agreed to a reduction of the price of sugar, there were certain provisions in the old agreement, including an embargo, which they wished to preserve. They said that they required some security with respect’ to the future, and looking at the matter from all its viewpoints, the proposals they made were considered tobe fair. They said that the arrangement was voluntary, and that in view of all the circumstances, their proposal in this respect should be agreed to. Some of the provisions which they wished to preserve have already been attacked by Senator Colebatch in the amendments he has moved, and which have been rejected by the committee. The Government felt that it had cither to include this provision or leave the position as it then stood. The representatives of the industry having agreed to a reduction of price, the Government consented to provide for the prohibition of imports.

Question - That the words proposed to bo added (Senator Colebatch’s amendment) be so added - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 11

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Sugar Agreement, 1933-1930.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [2.30 a.m.]. - I move -

That the following words be added to the clause, “ Provided that clause16 of the agreement be eliminated “.

While I do not intend to say anything further than I have already said, I think that it is my duty to aid the Leader of the Government (Senator Pearce) in making up his mind how he shall vote on this amendment. I, therefore, recall a speech which he made on the Cotton Industries Bounty Bill, on the 20th June, 1930, as reported in Hansard on pages 3047 and 3048. Taunted by Senator Rae with having opposed an exactly similar provision in that bill merely because it was an innovation, the right honorable gentleman said -

No. I object to it because it is a vicious innovation. It is an interference with the rights of the States to regulate industrial conditions within their own boundaries.

The reasons given by the right honorable gentleman on that occasion are my sole reasons for moving this amendment.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I oppose the amendment. The circumstances related by the honorable senator in connexion with the Cotton Industries Bounty Bill are altogether different from those associated with this measure, inasmuch as this is an agreement with the State of Queensland, which State has the power to regulate labour conditions within its boundaries. The sugar industry is almost entirely confined to Queensland, and the arguments put forward by the Leader of the Government in connexion with the Cotton Industries Bounty Bill do not apply to this bill.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [2.35 a.m.]. - The Minister has failed to appreciate whathis own bill provides. The Leader of the Government (Senator Pearce), when in opposition, objected to the Cotton Industries Bounty Bill, giving the Commonwealth Government the power to step in. That is exactly the position here. Clause 16 of the agreement provides -

That the employees engaged in the Australian cane sugar industry, and in such sections of the Australian fruit industry as receive benefits under clause 7 of the agreement, shall be entitled to have their wages and conditions of employment determined by conciliation or arbitration if not settled by agreement, and in the case of any employees or section of employees who are now, or who may subsequently be, excluded from the jurisdiction or control of any conciliation or arbitration authority, the Commonwealth Government shall, on the application of any industrial organization . . .

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The State has agreed to that.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.Exactly the same wording was contained in the other bill to which the present Leader of the Government objected on the ground that it was proposed to insert a provision that, in certain circumstances, the Commonwealth Government could override the State Government.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I should have preferred the amendment to be confined to the fruit industry, because, in its present form, the bill might take from that industry all the benefits which it will derive from the agreement. The fruit industry is different from the sugar industry. If clause 16 of the agreement were put into operation, the small fruit-growers of Australiawould be robbed of any benefit under the agreement.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– The honorable senator may move an amendment along the lines he has suggested, and if he does so, I shall support him. The principle is the same.

Senator PAYNE:

– I shall move later to that effect.

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

– I spoke against this clause in my second-reading speech, and I shall oppose it now. I do not think that all honorable senators have grasped the importance of this provision. The agreement refers to” such sections? of the Australian fruit industry as receive benefits”. In order that the berry fruit-growers may receive benefits under this agreement, industrial arbitration conditions must be introduced into the working of the berry fruit plantations. If that is done, the industry will be destroyed, because employees engaged in it will be entitled to wages and conditions which the owners of the properties and their families do not enjoy. I shall support the amendment.

Question - That the words proposed to be added (Senator Colebatch’s amendment) be so added - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 11

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the following words be added to the clause: - “Provided that the following words be excised from” clause 16 : - ‘ and insuch sections of the Australian fruit industry as receive benefits under clause 7 of this agreement ‘ “.

Persons engaged in the fruit industry who will receive benefits under this agreement are in an entirely different category from those engaged in sugar production.For years they have been carrying on their industry under great difficulties, even without any “interference with the wages and conditions of the industry by any arbitration tribunal. Berry fruit-growing is generally a family industry into which outside labour is introduced at times. The price paid for the fruit is so small that the industry would be destroyed if this provision were to remain.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I support the amendment. Unless it is inserted, Mr. Forgan Smith, Premier of Queensland, will be able to enforce his policy, not only in the Queensland sugar cane-fields, but also throughout the fruit-growing districts of Australia. I mentioned this possibility in my second-reading speech. The Minister in charge of the bill (Senator Greene) has admitted that under this agreement Mr. Forgan Smith will have every right to dictate the industrial conditions that will obtain in the sugar industry. I hope, however, that the Government will accept the amendment, and exclude the fruit-growing districts in the other States.

Senator GREENE:
Assistant Minister · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– For reasons already given, I must ask the committee to reject the amendment. When the committee was discussing the gold bounty, and when a motion was submitted to reject the labour conditions, Senator Johnston supported it.

Senator E B Johnston:

– That was because the Arbitration Act is already applied to that industry.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Nevertheless, the honorable senator’s attitude then, and his objection to-night, are remarkably inconsistent. If there were any real substance in Senator Payne’s objection I should, perhaps, be found supporting him; but this provision has been in the agreement which has been in operation for the last two seasons.

Senator Payne:

– Parliament had no opportunity to discuss the earlier agreements.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The honorable senator told the committee a little while ago that if this provision remained in the agreement, it would mean the extinction of the berry fruit-growers. Actually it has been in operation for two seasons, and the honorable gentleman did not know it.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I cannot allow the Minister’s statement to pass unchallenged. He knows, as well as I do, that the Senate did not have an opportunity to deal with the earlier agreements made between the Commonwealth Government and the sugar industry.. What I did say was that if this provision were put into operation it would destroy the berry fruits industry. It has never been put into operation although it was in the old agreement. And I repeat that, if it is applied to the berry fruit-growers, it will annihilate them.

SenatorRAE (New South Wales) [2.51 a.m.]. - If Senator Payne or any other honorable senator thinks that he is going to get all the benefits that may arise under this agreement for his particular clients, operating under sweated labour conditions, we, on this side of the chamber, will not be a party to any such agreement. If any industry is so absolutely miserable as to decline to pay decent wages, as prescribed by the Arbitration Court, it is time that it was extinguished.

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

– I feel sure that honorable senators are not aware that this particular provision to which Senator Payne objects has never been operated; but the publicity which has been given to the matter to-night will undoubtedly stimulate Mr. Forgan Smith to invade Tasmania, and see that it is put into operation among the fruitgrowers in that State.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [2.53 a.m.]. - I again direct attention to the annual report of the Fruit Industries Sugar Concession Committee. If honorable senators will read it, they will see that the members of the committee say that this is the most difficult problem which they have had to face, but that they are making a complete investigation with a view to finding out those who are entitled to the benefits under this agreement; also that they intend to fix prices all over Australia. It seems to me that it would be inconsistent to carry out that portion of the agreement which relates to price fixing without also fixingthe wages to be paid in the industries concerned.

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

– I intend to support the amend- ment.This matter has never before been under review by the Senate. Although it is quite extraneous to the subjectmatter of the agreement, it has been interpolated, and now forms part of the agreement. The remarks made by Senator Rae and Senator Daly’s interjections indicate that the danger, to which Senator Payne has directed attention, exists. This was also suggested in the report to which Senator Colebatch has alluded. Clearly if the agreement is passed with this provision remaining in it, certain persons and influences may get into the little Eden of the fruit-growers in Tasmania and prove to be a very discordant element.

Question - That the words proposed to be added (Senator Payne’s amendment) be so added - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 11

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– Before the clause is passed I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that the provisions contained in clause 11 of the schedule will be properly policed in Hobart, so thatcitizens of Tasmania may be assured of ample supplies of sugar.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I give the honorable senator that assurance.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 -

The importation of sugar into the Commonwealth, except with the consent in writing of the Minister, is prohibited.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the following words be added to subclause 1, “ for a period of two years and no longer “.

I submit this amendment for the important reason that it is certain that after the next election there will either be a Country party Government in office or a government in which that party is dominant, and I am anxious that it should not find its hands tied when it gets into power.

Question - That the words proposed to be added (Senator Johnston’s amendment) be so added - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 7

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule, Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Standing and , Sessional Orders suspended; report adopted.

Motion (by SenatorGreene) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3120

ADJOURNMENT

AUSTR alian REPRESEN ta tion.

Motion (by Senator Sir George

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator DUNN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; LANG LAB from 1931

– I direct the attention of the Leader of the Government to the following extracts from an article published in a Victorian newspaper, the Castlemaine Mail, of the 29th November : -

page 3120

AMBITIONS IN POLITICS

Frankness in Party Room.

Task for Mr. Lyons

Latest advices from Canberra, indicate the continued existence’ of a state of unrest and uncertainty in the Federal Government.

The suggestion now put forward is that Mr. Lyons should take a trip overseas to represent the Commonwealth at the World Economic Conference to be held next year. . . .

But there must be some particular reason prompting the suggestion that Mr. Lyons should take a trip to Europe. When the arrangements were being made for the representation of Australia at the Imperial Economic Conference, it was repeatedly emphasized that it was most essential that Mr. Lyons should remain in Australia to guide the ship of State through the troubled waters. The ship has not yet reached the calm waters of harbour; why, then, is it now possible to permit the master to transfer his responsibilities to some one else? . . .

The Attorney-General’s ambitions certainly carry him high - the High Commissionership, the Chief Justiceship, and, perhaps, the Prime Ministership. These may be three reasons for the very plain speaking that has been heard in the Ministerial party room at Canberra during the last three weeks, and that frankness may upset a few plans.

A few days ago I placed a question on the notice-paper seeking information as to whether it was the wish of the Government that the Prime Minister should go overseas to attend the World Economic Conference, or whether Australia was to be represented at that gathering by the Resident Minister in London, Mr. Bruce. I realize, of course, that it is not usual for matters of government policy to be announced in reply to questions, but 1 should like to know whether the Prime Minister will leave Australia at an early date to attend the World Economic Conference, whether at a later date he will be made High Commissioner or Resident Minister in London, and whether another member of the Government will be installed as Prime Minister?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

[3.14 a.m.]. - I have heard of Castlemaine where, I believe, Senator Lawson resides, but I have never heard of the Castlemaine Mail. The Government is obliged to Senator Dunn for dragging this newspaper from obscurity, but I can assure him that there is not the slightest truth in the statements to which he has referred.

Question resolved in the ‘affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.15 a.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 November 1932, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1932/19321130_senate_13_137/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate30 November 1932

NEW BUSINESSAFTER 10.30 P.M

PAPERS

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN-MADE GOODS

Senator DUNN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Senator DUNN:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

PORT AUGUSTA TO KALGOORLIE RAILWAY

Freight Concessions

QUESTION

WOOL INQUIRY COMMITTEE

Senator GUTHRIE:VICTORIA

Senator GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE REGULATIONS

Senator COLLINGS:QUEENSLAND

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

SUGAR AGREEMENT BILL

Second Reading

Senator CRAWFORD:Queensland

Senator Payne:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

Senator Brennan:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Elliott:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Elliott:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Elliott:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Daly:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Sampson:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Foll:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Daly:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator E B Johnston:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Daly:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Daly:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Elliott:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator E B Johnston:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Daly:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:Western Australia

Senator Daly:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Collings:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Collings:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Daly:

Senator Elliott:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Daly:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Brown:

Senate
30 November 1932

Senator DUNN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP