Senate
21 June 1933

13^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- PARLIAMENTARY ECONOMIES
QUESTION
- FEDERAL LAND TAX
QUESTION
- TRADE RELATIONS WITH NEW ZEALAND
QUESTION
- BRITISH DEBT TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
QUESTION
- CUSTOMS TARIFF DEBATE
PAPER
- Papua - Annual Report for 1931-32
QUESTION
- INTEREST ON FOREIGN AND BRITISH LOANS
SALE OF AUSTRALIAN BUTTER IN ENGLAND
QUESTION
- DISGUISED?
QUESTION
- FILM DUTIES
QUESTION
- FRIVOLOUS QUESTION
QUESTION
- ASSISTANCE TO WHEAT-GROWERS
QUESTION
- AUSTRALASIAN PERFORMING RIGHT ASSOCIATION
QUESTION
- RACE-COURSE AND SHOW GROUND AT CANBERRA
QUESTION
- WIRELESS BROADCASTING PROGRAMMES
QUESTION
- ARTICLES ON FINANCE BY MR. F. W. EGGLESTON
QUESTION
- IMPERIAL AIRWAYS AEROPLANE
QUESTION
- TARIFF BOARD’S REPORT ON PIPES AND TUBES
QUESTION
- IMPORTATION OF HOPS
QUESTION
- ERECTION OF FLATS IN CANBERRA
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION
- Newspaper Criticism
QUESTION
- CUSTOMS TARIFF 1933
ADJOURNMENT

The President (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2457

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY ECONOMIES

Senator SAMPSON:
TASMANIA

– I ask you, Mr. President, whether the report of the Public Service Board, which was formulated by Mr. Pinner, contains recommendations for effecting economies other than those which relate to Hansard and the Parliamentary . RefreshmentRooms, and, if so, will you, sir, enlighten the Senate as to their nature ?

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall make a statement on the subject not later than Friday of this week. Mr.. Speaker and I have considered the report, which is rather lengthy, and have already given effect to some of its recommendations ; but have not come to a final decision regarding other recommendations.

Senator SAMPSON:

– “Will you, Mr. President, cause the report to be laid on the table of the Library for the information of honorable senators?

The PRESIDENT:

That the Senate congratulates the British Government on its action in defaulting with respect to 90 per cent, of the June instalment of its debt to the United States of America, as an indication to American bondholders that an immediate revision of the debt agreement is imperative.
That the Senate considers that the Chancellor of the British Exchequer, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, expressed the sentiment of the Australian people concerning Australia’s overseas indebtedness, when he declared that the British Government had taken the course of default because it felt that, had Britain paid the full instalment, it would have appeared that there was no reason why that country should not continue to pay indefinitely.
That the Senate recommends that the Prime Minister immediately summon a meeting of the Australian Loan Council to consider the foregoing resolutions.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The answer to the honorable senator’s questions is “ No.”

page 2459

QUESTION

CUSTOMS TARIFF DEBATE

Senator RAE:

– Is it true that the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator McLachlan) moved that progress be reported, when the subject of barbed wire was before the committee last night, in order to give members of the party to which I belong time to arrive, in order to save the Government from further defeat? Further, does not the Minister think that it is the duty of the Government to keep within the precincts of the Senate, if not in the chamber itself, a majority of its own supporters?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE The allegation contained in the honorable senator’s question is not correct. For the information of the honorable senator, and possibly other honorable senators, I now state what is already known to some of us - that for several days the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator McLachlan) has been unwell. The early adjournment of the Senate last night was due to the state of the Minister’s health, resulting from the strain to which he has recently been subjected.

Senator DOOLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the following article which appeared in the Sun on Saturday last: -

page 2459

QUESTION

DISGUISED?

Our Butter in England.

Although he made numerous inquiries in England, Mr. C. H. Orford, a Melbourne merchant, was unable to find Australian butter sold as such. On his return by the Niagara to-day, Mr. Orford said that the only brands seemed to be Danish, New . Zealand, and “ Empire “. He made his inquiries in Liverpool, Birmingham, and in London, where he visited twenty different shops.

He feared that Australian butter was being mixed with Russian, and our prices were being hammered down because of it. Consumers told him that they had had Australian butter on odd occasions, but could not obtain it regularly.

Will the Minister have inquiries made to ascertain whether that statement is true, and, if it is, will he take the necessary steps to rectify the position?

The PRESIDENT:

– Before the Minister replies, I wish to refer to the growing practice, when questions are being asked, of reading newspaper extracts, in which are expressed either the opinion of the proprietors of the newspaper concerned, or of a contributor to its columns. The Standing Orders strictly provide that newspapers must not be so quoted, and although that rule has been departed from to the extent that honorable senators have been allowed to refer briefly to newspaper extracts for the purpose of making their questions more explicit, they may not give to the Senate the opinion of a third party upon the matter on which they seek information. “When the opinion of a third party is so quoted, more power and privilege is given to a stranger than is permitted to honorable senators. I ask honorable senators to observe this rule strictly. Senator Dooley has quoted a newspaper extract in which is given the opinion of Mr. Orford about the Australian butter industry. A further objection to this practice is that if it were permitted to continue, the time occupied in the asking of questions would be increased to an inordinate length. As I have stated before, the asking of questions is permitted solely to enable honorable senators to obtain information on subjects of public concern; they cannot when asking questions express any opinion of their own, and certainly should not quote that of a third party. I, therefore, ask honorable senators, when asking questions on statements which have appeared in the press, to confine their quotations strictly to the alleged facts.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Minister in charge of Development and Scientific and Industrial Research · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The matter referred to by Senator Dooley has been brought under the notice of the Minister for Commerce, and inquiry is being made into the statement which appeared in the press.

Senator DUNN:

– I wish to ask you, Mr. President, whether, in ruling that honorable senators, in quoting newspaper extracts, may not repeat the opinions expressed therein, you have acted on the same principle as that on which Hitler of Germany has acted?

The PRESIDENT:

– I was not guided by Mr. Hitler, nor by any one else.

page 2460

QUESTION

FILM DUTIES

Senator DUNN:

– In view of the urgent and repeated requests, by letters and telegrams, of picture show proprietors throughout New South Wales in reference to the motion picture industry, has the Government any statement to make to honorable senators respecting the proposed film duties?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.That question affects government policy, and will come up for discussion on the tariff. The time for honorable senators to ask for information will be when the duties on films are being discussed.

page 2460

QUESTION

FRIVOLOUS QUESTION

Senator BRENNAN:
VICTORIA

– When a question has been ruled by you, Mr. President, to be frivolous, is it allowed to appear in Hansard, or must it be omitted from the records of Parliament altogether ?

The PRESIDENT:

– When a question has been declared frivolous, and is therefore one not entitled to be asked, no notice whatever should be taken of it.

page 2460

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO WHEAT-GROWERS

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is the Minister in a position to state what assistance is to be given to the wheat-growers for their next harvest?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer : -

The position of the wheat industry, in regard to both internal and international aspects, is at present receiving the consideration of the Government. At the present time the Government is not in a position to make a statement on the matter.

page 2460

QUESTION

AUSTRALASIAN PERFORMING RIGHT ASSOCIATION

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What action has been taken by the Government in regard to the recommendations of the royal ‘ commission which inquired into the activities of the Australasian Performing Right Association?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer: -

The recommendations made by the royal commission are now receiving the consideration of the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham).

page 2461

QUESTION

RACE-COURSE AND SHOW GROUND AT CANBERRA

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

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

What is the estimated cost of the proposed race-course and show ground at Canberra ?
Has any expenditure been incurred in connexion with this proposal?
If so, how much?
Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with this work?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answers: -

No estimate of cost for a race-course and show ground has been prepared.
No.
See answer to 2.
No proposal to proceed with this work is under consideration at the present time.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

. Is it a fact, as stated in the press recently, that the Government intends to spend £200,000 in Canberra, and that portion of this money is to be spent on the preparation and construction of a race-course and show ground at Canberra?
If so, will Parliament be consulted before the expenditure of any of this £200,000 at Canberra is commenced ?

Senator Sir WALTER GREENE.The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

The Government’s programme of works expenditure in Canberra during 1933-34 has not yet been formulated. The programme will depend upon the consideration of the budgetary position. No proposal for expenditure on the preparation and construction of a race-course and show ground at Canberra is at present under consideration.
The New Works Estimates for 1933-34, including expenditure on works in the Federal Capital Territory, will be submitted to Parliament in due course.

page 2461

QUESTION

WIRELESS BROADCASTING PROGRAMMES

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Is it a fact that important programmes of musical and other items have lately been broadcast from the National A-class stations in all States except Western Australia, including such items as “ The Arcadians “, “ Dearest Enemy “, “ Lady of the Rose “, vocal and orchestral concerts, and a relay from the Australian trade ship Nieuw Holland from Java?
Is the land line from Adelaide to Perth now complete, and capable of transmitting these programmes; if so, why are they not broadcast in Western Australia?

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

– Inquiries are being made, and a reply will be furnished to the honorable senator as soon as possible.

page 2461

QUESTION

ARTICLES ON FINANCE BY MR. F. W. EGGLESTON

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

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

With reference to the articles stated by the Leader of the Senate on the 15th instant to have been written and published by Mr. F. W. Eggleston regarding finances of (a) the Commonwealth, (b) Tasmania, (c) Queensland, (d) South Australia, will the Minister state the names of the newspapers in which such articles were published and the date of their publication ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The information is being obtained, and will be made available to-morrow.

page 2461

QUESTION

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS AEROPLANE

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the Imperial Airways aeroplane Astraea was forced to land at BathurstIsland, whilst en route from Timor to Darwin?
If so, will the Minister draw the attention of Colonel Brackley, in charge of the Astraea, to the shorter sea crossing between Wyndham and Koepang, and to the advantages of thatroute, or the routes from Broome or Derby to Koepang, for his return journey?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

Yes.
This is considered unnecessary, as Colonel Brackley would bo well aware of the distances of the respective routes.

page 2461

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD’S REPORT ON PIPES AND TUBES

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

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

Has the Tariff Board sent in its report on pipes and tubes, under section 152 (a) of the tariff?
If so, when will the report be available to the Senate?

Senator Sir WALTER GREENE:
Assistant Minister (Treasury) · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following replies : - 1 and 2. The Tariff Board report has not yet been received.

page 2462

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF HOPS

Senator J B HAYES:
TASMANIA

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

Is the importation oE hops prohibited from any country where a disease called “ downy mildew “ exists ?
If so, have any hops from such a country entered Australia?
Will the Government give an assurance that the prohibition (if any) will be strictly enforced?

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

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

Yes - with a proviso that the Minister may permit the importation of hops from such countries subject to any conditions which he may think fit to impose.
Three small consignments have been admitted.
Yes.

page 2462

QUESTION

ERECTION OF FLATS IN CANBERRA

Senator COLLINGS:

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

Is it the intention of the Government to allow the erection of blocks of flats of more than one story in height, for residential purposes, in Canberra?
If so, on what site or sites?
Is it a fact that the erection of this type of building for residential purposes in Sydney, Melbourne, and other cities, does not prove them to bc either advantageous or desirable (a) to community health, (6) to child welfare and development, owing to the limited space for living accommodation provided, and the absence of open-air recreation facilities?
Does tho Minister consider there is any adequate or justifiable reason to allow this type of residence to get a footing in Canberra while there is so much suitable land available for home building?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answers : -

Yes.
The site applied for and allocated for the purpose is in the subdivision of Braddon.
Not to my knowledge.
There is a strong demand for this type of residence to suit certain requirements, and it is not considered that there is any objection to its provision in Canberra subject to the allocation of ample space and proper planning and arrangement to meet the requirements mentioned in question 3.

page 2462

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Appointment of University Graduates

Senator COLLINGS:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government to make any appointments of university graduates to the Commonwealth Public Service, now or in the near future?
What, if any, is the age limit regarding applicants for such appointments?
What are the conditions (other than age) with which such applicants must be able to comply?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Representations have been made from time to time to the Government by university associations and others that, in recruitment to the Service, provision be made for the admission of university graduates. The matter is under consideration, but a decision has not yet been reached.

page 2462

COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION

Newspaper Criticism

Senator Sir WALTER GREENE.On the 9th June, Senator Dunn asked the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral the following questions, upon notice : -

Is it a fact that repeated attacks have appeared in the Sunday Times newspaper of Perth, Western Australia, on the Commonwealth Constitution, and also appeals to tho federal members representing that State to disregard their oaths of allegiance to the Commonwealth Constitution?
If so, will the Government take action against that newspaper under the Federal Crimes Act. If not, why not?

In reply thereto, the honorable senator was informed that if he supplied particulars of the statements referred to, consideration would be given to the matter. In response to this invitation the honorable senator has supplied an article from the newspaper in question. The article has now been considered by the AttorneyGeneral, who is of opinion that it consists of political argument and a common form of political propaganda, and that no offence against the law is disclosed.

page 2463

QUESTION

CUSTOMS TARIFF 1933

In committee (Consideration resumed from the 20th June, vide, page 2457) :

Schedule

Group 1. - Items under which the rates are the same as those operating under the 1921-30 tariff.

Division 6. - Metals and Machinery

Item 157-

Barbed wire, per ton, British, 68s. ; general, 180s.,

Upon which Senator Guthrie had moved -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, per ton, British, 40s.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

– I gave my reasons for moving this request in the speech which I delivered before the Senate rose last night, and I shall not repeat them, but will content myself with appealing to honorable senators for their favorable consideration of my proposal.

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

– I can understand the attitude of a revenue tariffist, such as Senator Johnston, who desires that iron and steel products shall be admitted free from Great Britain, but I cannot understand the attitude of a . protectionist tariffist, such as Senator Guthrie, who desires that barbed wire shall be admitted at a rate of duty which, from the point of view of effectiveness, is decidedly low. If honorable senators intend to reduce the duties on iron and steel products they will need to go back to pig iron, which is the raw material from which manufactured iron and . steel products emerge. We have already protected blooms and billets, but these are simply partly manufactured products from which other products are prepared for market. What does . Senator Guthrie desire to effect by the making of this request? A duty of 40s. per ton is the ad valorem equivalent of a duty of 9.5 per cent. This industry cannot possibly carry on with such a small measure of protection. The duty of 68s. per ton, which the Government is proposing, is equivalent to an ad valorem duty of only 16 per cent. Barbed wire is therefore an article which is protected by a low duty. I shall be interested to hear what rates of duty Senator Guthrie will regard as necessary when we reach the division of the schedule which relates to textiles. I do not think that he will be satisfied with a duty as low as he is now suggesting for barbed wire.

Senator Collings:

– The honorable senator is merely obeying the instructions he has received from the Graziers Association.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– I do not think that Senator Guthrie would obey instructions from any organized body unless he were satisfied that the instructions were sound. The honorable gentleman is avowedly a protectionist, as I am sure he will show us when we are discussing the textile industries.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I rise to a point of order. Is the Minister entitled to forecast what will happen when other items of the schedule are under consideration?

The CHAIRMAN:

– He is not in order.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– I have not made a forecast ; I have spoken from my experience of the honorable senator. I distinctly remember that in one tariff debate in this chamber the honorable “gentleman advocated a high duty when I desired a low one. I ask honorable senators to consider whether this proposed reduction of duty can be justified under the terms of the Ottawa agreement. We cannot properly take into consideration in this connexion the incidence of exchange and primage. We have, therefore, to bear in mind that the duty which the honorable gentleman is now proposing is the ad valorem equivalent of a duty of only 9.5 per cent. Article 9 of the Ottawa agreement reads -

His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia undertake that protection by tariffs shall be afforded only to those industries which are reasonably assured of sound opportunities for success.

Is not the iron and steel industry essential to the welfare of the Commonwealth ? We know very well that other nations are doing their utmost, at present, to establish this industry within their territories. The sister dominion of South Africa regards the iron and steel industry as so essential to the welfare of the nation, that it is seeking to establish it as a government enterprise, though on a smaller scale than that adopted by the

Broken Hill Proprietary Company. I remind honorable senators that our iron and steel industry has not been without its successes hitherto. When the population of this country increases, I have no doubt that it will become fully successful. Article 10 of the Ottawa agreement reads as follows: -

His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia undertake that during the currency of this agreement the tariff shall be based on the principle that protective duties shall not exceed such a level as will give United Kingdom producers full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of the relative cost of economical and efficient production, provided that in the application of such principle special consideration may be given to the case of industries not fully established.

We have it on the best of authority that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company’s steel works at Newcastle is the most efficient of its kind in the world. The members of the Tariff Board, overseas visitors to this country, and other persons well qualified to express an opinion, have left us in no doubt about the efficiency of the industry. Taking into consideration the Australian standard of living and wage rates, the Government is of the opinion that an ad valorem duty, of 16 per cent, is not too high for barbed wire. If honorable senators request a lower duty than that, I do not know what will happen to this industry. I frankly confess that during last session I was driven to the conclusion that either the steel industry of Australia must be protected or we must allow it to be destroyed. On that occasion I looked at the subject from a different point of view from that from which I now consider it. Perhaps the duties on certain specific iron and steel products are out of proportion, but surely that cannot be said of an article which is protected to the extent of only 16 per cent. I put it to honorable senators that this is not the time to attack an industry of such magnitude as our iron, and steel industry. I can quite understand an honorable senator asking for the abolition of a duty and the substitution of a bounty, but I cannot see the point of Senator Guthrie’s request for what is equivalent to a reduction of an ad valorem duty from 16 per cent, to 9.5 per cent.

Senator DUNN (New South Wales) it were to reject the request that has been made by Senator Guthrie. A recent issue of the Melbourne Sun Pictorial contained an article explaining why Senator Guthrie had voted against the Government on the first reading of the Tariff Bill. The honorable senator is a representative of a political machine known as the United Australia party. He is entitled to his opinion with regard to this great key industry just as I am to mine, but the general public should know that he is desirous of importing barbed wire from countries in which cheap labour is employed, to the detriment of an Australian key industry; that, in order to assist wealthy pastoral companies, he would patronize German and even Japanese manufactures to the exclusion of our own. The remarkable thing is that Mr. Hoskins, jun., who is part proprietor of one of Australia’s pioneer iron and steel industries, is one of the bitterest critics of the Australian Labour party, which has always fought so strenuously for the protection of that and other local industries. I often wonder what Mr. Hoskins and Mr. Gordon Bennett must think when they read the arguments that are advanced by Senator Guthrie and those who think with him in favour of importing cheap barbed wire, irrespective of its country of origin and the standard of living which obtains there.

Senator Sampson:

– Mr. Gordon Bennett ought to know something about barbed wire.

Senator DUNN:

– When he was on the Western Front he certainly had ample opportunity of testing the relative merits of the German and British product, but in his present position as president of the -Sydney Chamber of Manufactures, he should support a protection of even 100 per cent, being given to Australian, and particularly New South Wales, manufactures.

Senator BADMAN:
South Australia

– The Minister stated that, in proposing to reduce the duty on barbed wire, we contemplate striking at the very roots of the iron and steel and associated industries. Actually, the duty on pig iron is not the cause of the present high price of barbed wire. I contend that the industry really does not need any protective duty, for, without that artificial aid, our manufacturers are able to produce barbed wire more cheaply than it can be imported from Great Britain. The following table will explain my reasoning:

– It was No. 12 gauge wire, but the spacing is not given.

Senator Sir WALTER GREENE:
Assistant Minister (Treasury) · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The barbs may have been 12 inches apart.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– It was ordinary good barbed wire, and, no doubt, the barbs were 3 inches apart. In 1928. the price of Australian barbed wire had increased to £24 10s. a ton, compared with £15 7s. 6d. a ton in 1913. On the 14th August, 1931, the price of Australian barbed wire had been reduced to £22 7s. 6d. a ton, but by the 13th June of this year the price in Sydney was £23 15s. a ton, compared with £13 10s. a ton in 1900 for English wire and £15 7s. 6d. a ton in Sydney in. 1913 for Australian and American, wire. Despite the tremendous drop in the price of wheat and wool, the cost of barbed wire is very high compared with what it was some time ago, and any relief that we can give to those using it should be given.

Senator McLachlan:

– “What relief can we give to them when the Australian product is selling at a lower price than the imported article?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Whether we are, or are not, asked to consider this matter regardless of exchange, a reduction . of duty as proposed would afford considerable relief. I am in favour of barbed wire being admitted free of duty; but in any case, the request provides for a reduction, and I trust that the committee will support it.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– The Minister in charge of the bill (Senator McLachlan) not only put forward the views of the Government on this item, but also supported them by quotations from a report of the Tariff Board on this industry in 1926. I believe that the board in its report was conscientious ; but I direct the Minister’s attention to the fact that there has been a considerable change in the world’s economic condition since then; and in spite of the statement of the Minister that we must consider these duties apart altogether from exchange, I direct his attention to the Tariff Board’s annual report of 1932, a more recent report than that from which he quoted. On page 14 of this report, the board said - “ The cost of landing imported goods is at present excessive.” It then gave three examples: Window glass imported from Belgium, a band-sawing machine from the United Kingdom, and an engine lathe from the United States of America. The board mentioned the f.o.b. price of the article, freight, insurance, exchange, primage, duty on outside packages, and also the customs duty on the article. In the case of Belgian window glass it showed that the duty and charges on the f.o.b. price amounted to 235 per cent. With respect to the band-sawing machine from the United Kingdom - I stress the point that we are seeking a reduction under this item only in the British, and not on the foreign duty - they amounted to 122 per cent. On the engine lathe they amounted to 134 per cent. The Tariff Board added -

The foregoing illustrations are only typical of very many lines in some of which the percentage on f.o.b. costs are even greater than those quoted.

The board then dealt in a more or less transitory nature with both primage duty and exchange, and after allowing for all these considerations stated -

The board is faced with the position that the high customs duties, plus primage duty, exchange, duty on packages, in addition to freight and landing charges, frequently represent a protection of over 100 per cent, on the f.o.b. price. In the opinion of the board this position is dangerous-

Senator RAE:

– The proposed reduction is not necessary to the welfare of the primary industries. Barbed wire represents only a small part of the expenditure of the farmer, and the fact that the industry has been established on such a sound footing goes to show that it has deserved well of the people of Australia. It has furnished employment for a considerable number of Australian workmen, and it has retailed its products at a price which compares favorably with the price of wire produced overseas.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– Senator Duncan-Hughes said that he had many good friends in the iron and steel industry. I assume that his friends are either directors or shareholders of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, or hold executive positions in that concern. That being so, it is evident that Senator Duncan-Hughes is using his prerogative as a member of this Senate to attack his friends on the floor of the chamber. Senator Carroll stated that all sections of the community should, in view of the economic depression, start off at the scratch mark. Does he suggest that there should be another world flood with a Noah’s Ark, and that the survivors, if any, should all start off again at the same mark? Senator Payne, who supports the proposed reduction of duties, no doubt, has the interests of the farmers of Tasmania at heart, but I respectfully ask of him whether there are any farms in Tasmania big enough to need barbed wire fencing. I feel sure that the Senate will not agree to the proposed request.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

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

– While I appreciate Senator Guthrie’s motive for submitting this request, and realize that he is speaking on behalf of our primary producers, I should like to make one final appeal to the committee not to agree to his request for amendment. The fundamental principle upon which the Government and its supporters appealed to the electors was that, before any reduction was made in any tariff item, there should be a detailed examination by the Tariff Board. The honorable senator’s proposal is equivalent to the reduction of an ad valorem rate from 16 per cent, to 9 per cent. Honorable senators should bear in mind that, under the provisions of the Ottawa agreement, the whole of the tariff must he considered by the board, so I suggest that it is not competent for the Government to accept proposals to reduce the duty in respect of any item, unless and until it has been considered by the Tariff Board. That body reported fully on this duty in 1926. A calculation which I have had made of the effect of the proposed reduction of the British duty shows that one mile of 12 gauge barbed wire with 5-^-in. spacing of the barbs weighs 438 lb., and that a ton is equal to a length of 5 miles. One mile of 12 guage, with 3-J-in. spacing, weighs 352 lb., and a ton is equal to a length of 6.36 miles. Since an area of 6,400 acres is equal to 10 square miles, it would take 14 miles of barbed wire to totally enclose the area. If the whole of the 68s. per ton duty were added to the local price, the added cost, in- the case of barbed wire with 5$-in. spacing, would be ?7 10s. and in the case of wire with 3^-in. spacing, ?9 10s. Spread over a period of twenty years, the average lifetime of such material, the annual extra cost would be, in respect of an area of 6,400 acres, 7s. 6d. for wire with o-J-in. spacing, and 9s. 6d. for wire with 3^-iu. spacing.

Senator Sampson:

– One wire would be no good except to keep out ostriches.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– I believe that the practice is to put plain wire below the barbed wire in country where the barbed wire is used to enclose stock.

Senator Badman:

– Three rows of barbed wire are required as protection against dingoes.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– In dingo infested country the additional wires art; used on boundary fences only. It is urged against the present duty that it represents a burden on our primary producers. All essential factors were taken into consideration by the Tariff Board in 1926. Evidence against the duty was then given by Mr. J. W. Allen, the secretary of the Producers Association’s Central Council, which consisted of the Graziers Association of New South Wales, the New South Wales Sheep Breeders Association, the Farmers and Settlers Association of New South Wales, the Stockmen’s Association of New South Wales, and the Primary Producers Union of New South

Wales. The board, in its references to this evidence, stated -

Mr. Allen asked on 27th February, 1925, that the duty on barbed wire be reduced to free, 5 per cent., and 10 per cent., British preferential, intermediate and general tariff respectively.

He said that barbed wire is an essential requirement in the erection of rabbit-proof and dog-proof netting fences, and such fences are imperatively necessary if the pastoral industry is to maintain its position, and make progress.

He drew attention to the fact that the sheep numbers of the Commonwealth have decreased from 106,421,008 in 1891 to 78,803,171 in 1923, which decrease is to a very great extent due to rabbit and dingo pests,

Experience in South Australia has shown that the only reliable method of eradicating the dingo in the outback areas is by forming vermin districts completely enclosed by vermin fencing and the systematic destruction of the dingo within those districts.

Instances could be cited where holdings in South Australia, which have carried large numbers of sheep, had been abandoned owing to the ravages of this pest; but have been successfully restocked after vermin-proof fences had been erected.

If the dingo and rabbit oan be eradicated, it is, in the opinion of Mr. Allen, certain that a great expansion in the pastoral industry will take place, and areas which are at present unstocked would be brought into occupation, to the great benefit of the Commonwealth.

Although he had heard the evidence given by the applicants, that British wire netting is sold at the Australian parity, irrespective of the price it is landed, he stated that his view of the matter was that a bounty would reduce prices to the consumers, and therefore would be a means of forcing down the price of the imported article.

On being questioned by the Chairman as to whether he would admit that the Australian manufacturer gives the local consumer protection against exploitation by outside manufacturers, he answered that he did. He did not suggest that the local manufacturer was obtaining an unfair return for his money.

. -The Minister admits that a recent report from the Tariff Board has not been received on this item, and he contends that, therefore, we should not lower the duties. To that argument I say that on hundreds of items on which reports have not been received, this Government has increased the duties. These increases have been made in foreign duties, in order to implement the Ottawa agreement. The report on barbed wire that has been referred to in this debate is seven years old, and, as Senator Badman and others have clearly pointed out, the conditions to-day are entirely different from those obtaining when that report was presented. To pay the duty on a ton of barbed wire - an impost which the Minister has succeeded in demonstrating to be unnecessary - the farmer must hand over 13 bushels of wheat or 51 lb. of wool. The statement that one strand of barbed wire could be placed round a farmer’s paddock of 6,400 acres is utterly ridiculous, because no farmer has such a paddock, and he would certainly not use only one strand of barbed wire.

What is most amusing in this debate - and, perhaps, after all, one must have a sense of humour, if one is to enjoy coming here at all - is the unholy marriage between Ministers in this chamber and the “ Lang gangers “ on the Opposition side. I am wondering when the inevitable divorce proceedings will be instituted.

Senator Dunn:

– I ask that the words “ Lang gangers “ be withdrawn, as they are offensive to me.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I withdraw the expression; I should have said “Lang planners “. I am wondering which party to this unholy alliance will sue for the divorce, and when it will take place.

– I am interested in that company, but I shall not vote for high duties on that account. I hope that I shall never support a high duty merely for personal gain. In 1913, when wool and wheat sold at higher prices than they bring to-day, barbed wire cost about £15 17s. 6d. a ton. Although the report of the Tariff Board does not deal with this item, it emphasizes the excessive cost of landing goods in Australia. My desire is to reduce the cost of production in thi3 country, and I prefer to do that by reducing the duties on the requirements of the map on the land, rather than by lowering wages.

Senator Sir WALTER KINGSMILL (Western Australia) [3.4]. - I realize that the duty on barbed wire is a matter of considerable importance to this country, and, like Senator Guthrie, I am of the opinion that one way to lower the cost of production is to reduce the duty on this item. It may be said that this is a matter of comparatively little impor tance, but the position of the farming and pastoral community is such that little things mean much to them. When the Minister said that some honorable senators might vote for the requested amendment as a gesture, he apparently failed to realize that this debate will probably be repeated when the Tariff Board’s report on this item is available. That hard-working body has not yet had time to deal with all the subjects which have been referred to it. I have confidence in the Tariff Board, because I believe that it is more inclined to move with the times than are some other highly-placed bodies in this country. I am afraid that, unless some stimulus of this kind is given, we shall continue to go along in the knowledge that, whenever things look bad in any secondary industry, it will be only necessary to approach Parliament, and a higher duty will be imposed, in the hope that, by that means, all the ills affecting the industry will be cured. I believe that that time has gone for ever. One effect of the Ottawa Conference will probably be that Australia will have to act in concert with the rest of the British Empire, and, perhaps, with the rest of the world.

Senator McLachlan:

– And then only through tariff tribunals.

Senator Sir WALTER KINGSMILL:

– For the reasons that I have given, I shall support Senator Guthrie’s proposal for a decreased duty on barbed wire.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator BADMAN:

– Yes, and to the German product also. The Minister set out to show the difference in the cost of fencing a property of 6,400 acres if one kind of barbed wire were used in preference to another. There are few farmers with properties of that area. In the more closely-settled districts, farmers generally divide their holdings into comparatively small blocks, and use more than one barbed wire in the fences, so that, even on a comparatively small holding, many miles .of barbed wire are used. I am not so greatly concerned for the established farmer or pastoralist ais for the men who have taken up new holdings, and want to subdivide their properties. These men are entitled to obtain the materials they require at reasonable prices; they should not be forced, by high tariffs, to pay excessive costs. We ‘may not be obtaining any advantage because of this article being on the free list, but surely our Australian manufacturers should be able to produce it at a price lower than £21 a ton, particularly in view of the fact that the price in Great Britain is £13 or £14.

Motion (by Senator Hoare) agreed to-

That the question be now put.

Question - That the request (Senator Guthrie’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 17

NOES: 15

Majority . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Item agreed to subject to a request.

Item 158 (Wire netting).

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– Although the duty is shown in the schedule as free, under the anti-dumping provisions of the Industries Preservation Act, it is not free at all. The Government, in accordance with representations made to it by people who wish to import wire netting from Great Britain, referred to the Tariff Board for report the effect of the incidence of the anti-dumping duty on this item. Only yesterday, I asked the Minister whether the Tariff Board had furnished its report, and he informed me that it had not yet come to hand. I now ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council to agree to the postponement of this item until that report, has been presented to the Government.

Senator Brennan:

– The duty could not be any freer than “ free “.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I shall show presently that the anti-dumping duty of £6 5s. a ton can be removed. The Government of Western Australia supplies a quantity of wire netting to settlers on the land. It pays cash for the wire netting, and charges the cost to the settlers over a period of 30 years, and it holds quotations from London which are as follows: -

Babbit netting 42 in x 1-1 in. x 17 gauge. English quotation £24 13s. per ton,c.i.f., but the English domestic value must be declared, and this value is laid down through Australia House, London, and is at present £31 6s. and cannot be sold in Australia at less otherwise a dumping duty will be levied, and that will be on £31 6s., and not on £24 13s.

Senator Millen:

– Who fixes the price ?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– It is fixed by the Customs Department after reference to Australia House, in London. Continuing -

Boiled down, it means that, on paper, there being no duty on netting, it can be landed in Australia for £24 13s.

No merchants will quote c.i.f. & e. price, lest in the event of getting “ dumped “ they will be called upon to pay dumping duty - £316s. - plus exchange.

In actual fact, however, an indentor must charge a minimum of £316s., plus exchange. Note that the “ domestic “ value of £31 6s. as laid down by Australia House has no real relationship to the actual English domestic “value.”

Of course, in England wire netting is not purchased in the large quantities purchased by the dominions, and consequently I am assured that the domestic price used for the purpose of justifying the anti-dumping duty is not a correct one. There are five large-scale manufacturers of rabbit netting in England. They are Barnards Limited, Whitecross Company Limited, Boulton and Paull, Lysaght’s, and Bylands. I am indebted to Sir Hal Colebatch for information on this subject. He still retains his interest in Australia, and, since arriving in England, he has had the opportunity to consult with the representatives of Barnards Limited and Whitecross Company Limited as to the price of wire netting in relation to the anti-dumping duty. He says -

They are both very definite in declaring that nothing in the nature of dumping has ever taken place in their trade with Australia. They point out that there can be no reasonable comparison between the English domestic price and the price for other countries, excepting on the basis of equal quantities. Wire netting is not used here to anything like the extent that it is in Australia and South Africa. Dumping would be impossible to them because they could not (as we in Australia do in the case of sugar and butter) charge a high price to the local consumer in order to make up the loss on the stuff exported. Their manufacturing is chiefly for export, and consequently their price for export must show a profit. English manufacturers export this rabbit netting in large quantities to South Africa. No question of dumping is ever raised there. The South African user is allowed to purchase it at the lowest price that the English maker is prepared to sell it, and is, in fact, at the present time using rabbit-proof netting that costs him far less than the amount the importer is now compelled to charge to the user in Australia.

This itself is sufficient to illustrate the nature of the competition to which our producers are subjected as compared with their South African competitors.

The British manufacturer has to quote £31 6s. a ton in the case of Australia, although his price to any other dominion is £24 13s.

Senator O’Halloran:

– For local requiremeuts the British manufacturer charges £31 6s. a ton.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– The domestic price is obtained from the retail shops, and not from the factory itself, and it is inaccurate.

Senator Dooley:

– Has the honorable senator included sales tax in the Australian price?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– No. Sir HalColebatch continues -

Another strong point made by the representatives of these firms is that it is entirely unlikely that there would ever be a more favorable time for the buying of this netting, It is very cheap now because of the extraordinarily low price of the raw materials required in its manufacture.

These low prices are not likely to continue, and if through our present policy we restrict the importation of this wire, wo shall certainly be doing a very grave injustice to those industries which now need it so badly.

There never was a time in the history of Australia when cheap fencing wire was required more urgently than it is to-day.

Senator O’Halloran:

– “Will the honorable senator quote the price of the real wire-proof netting - the 1¼ mesh?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I have quoted 1½-mesh, the price of which, landed at Australian ports, is £24 13s. plus exchange. Sir Hal Colebatch’s letter continues -

The point is that our consumers are being charged £6 13s. per ton, plus exchange, more than they should be called upon to pay, and that the charge is levied by virtue of a pretence that the English suppliers are dumping their goods, whereas they are doing nothing of the kind.

Senator Payne:

– What is the Australian price?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I quote the following prices at Sydney of 41 by 1½ by 17A netting, on the dates mentioned : -

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Why does not the honorable senator quote the price per ton as he did with the English netting?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I did not intend to introduce that aspect of the subject, but Senator Payne asked me for the information, and as I had it available, I gave it to him. I move -

That the item be postponed.

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

– No good purpose will be served by postponing this item, first, because British netting is admitted free, and foreign netting is practically prohibited; and secondly, because although the item is subject to a gross bounty of 68s. per ton, owing to primage and the financial emergency reductions, the actual bounty is only 9s. 7d. per ton. With the exception of a brief period from March, 1920, to September, 1922, no duty has been charged on wire-netting from the United Kingdom since the inception of federation. The bounty of 68s. per ton came into effect in September, 1922, but was subject to reduction in the event of duty being subsequently imposed on imported wire-netting. Following the imposition of primage duty, the bounty was reduced to 12s. per ton, and as no primage or import duty is payable on English wire netting, the local manufacturer is protected to the extent of only 9s. 7d. per ton, which, on the present f.o.b. price of English netting, represents less than 2 per cent.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays) . - Although Senator Johnston has moved that the item be postponed, he did not intimate until the conclusion of his speech that he intended to do so. I suggest, therefore, that the debate, on the merits of the duty, be deferred until the motion for postponement has been voted upon.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Senator Johnston, before moving his amendment, related some of the history of the duties on wire-netting, and I suggest that I should be permitted, at this stage, to reply to his speech; otherwise, I may not have an opportunity to do so. I appeal to the honorable senator not to press his amendment, for the postponement of the item can do no good. Under the Industries Preservation Act, a dumping duty may be imposed On wire-netting if it is sold to the Australian purchaser by the British exporter at a price which is lower than the domestic price in Great Britain, and provided that the landed cost in Australia is lower than the manufactured selling price of Australian wire netting. This subject is now under the consideration of the Tariff Board; but, even if we defer consideration of the. item until the report of the board is received, nothing effective can be done. If it appears from the board’s report that the dumping duty should be applied, we shall apply it, and take the consequences, whatever they may be. In view of the apparent discrepancies in prices mentioned by Senator Johnston, I give the following comparison between the present landed cost of English netting and the c.i.f. price of Australian netting of comparable qualities and mesh at many Australian ports: -

Senator GRANT:
TASMANIA

– Is the honorable* senator quoting the English domestic price ?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– I have quoted the landed cost of the British article in Australia. Honorable senators will see that, in respect of 42 x 1^ x 17n netting, the price is £10 2s. 6d. below the English price, and then there is, of course, the bounty of 9s. 7d. a ton. No action can be taken with regard to the application of the anti-dumping duties until the report of the Tariff Board has been received. I, therefore, ask Senator Johnston to withdraw his amendment.

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

[3.40]. - The position in respect to wire netting has been brought under my notice as one of the Senate representatives of Western Australia, and I have taken it up with the! Customs Department. Prices which have been furnished to me are similar to those quoted by the Minister, so I will not repeat them. I know- that the argument has been used that those figures are not a real guide to the true export value of English netting, because of the provisions of the Australian Industries Preservation Act; but I invite honorable senators to inquire the price of British netting landed in New Zealand, where the Australian Industries Preservation Act does not apply. If they do so, they will find that the difference is only 3 per cent. Mr. A. H. Malloch, a gentleman who labours under what some people regard as the disability of being a manufacturer of wire netting, wrote a letter to the West Australian on the 31st May, 1933, in reply to allegations by Mr. Gregory, M.P., and as his statements have never been challenged, I direct the attention of honorable senators to them. They are as follow: -

Mr. Gregory states that British manufacturers quote c.i.f. and e. New Zealand at approximately the same price as to Australia, f.o.b. London; but this is not the case. We have before us recent quotations, dated London, 1st May, from a well-known English buying house, which quotes considerable difference in discounts on the basis stated. The figures are 44J per cent, c.i.f. and e. New Zealand as against 50i per cent, discount f.o.b. London for Australia. We have worked out the cost c.i.f. and e. New Zealand and Australia, and find that there is a difference of less than 3 per cent, in favour of the former.

Senator E B Johnston:

– Can the right honorable senator verify those figures apart from Mr. Malloch’s statement ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I accept Mr. Malloch’s statement, because I know him to be an upright, honorable man. I am quite sure that if his figures could have been challenged, they would have been challenged long ago, for, as Senator J Johnston knows, wire netting has been the subject of a fierce controversy in Western Australia for some time. The bare allegation has been made, and frequently repeated, that the English price quoted in Australia is not the honest price, but a kind of compulsory price in consequence of the operation of the Australian Industries Preservation Act. What I have read shows that this is not borne out by experience in New Zealand, where our legislation does not operate.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I again direct the attention of honorable senators to the paragraph in the letter from Sir Hal Colebatch, which reads -

The point at issue is that our consumers ure being charged £6 13s. per ton , plus exchange, more than than they should be called upon to pay, and that the charge is levied by virtue of a pretence that the English suppliers are dumping their goods, whereas they are doing nothing of the kind.

Sir Hal Colebatch investigated this subject immediately after he reached England, and ascertained that the English manufacturers were prepared to quote Australia the same price as they quote South Africa, which for this class of netting is £24 13s. a mile. He has pointed out that information has come through Australia House, London, to the Customs Department here, to the effect that the domestic price is £31 6s. a ton, which is the price quoted to Australia, for if any lower price were named, the dumping duties would be brought into operation. The figure quoted as the domestic price is wrong as it would be £24 13s. for similar quantities. I accept without reservation the statement that has been made by Sir Hal Colebatch in that communication.

Senator GRANT:
Tasmania

.- I should like a little more information on the subject-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The debate must be confined to the motion for the postponement of the item. Any remarks as to the merits or demerits of a. duty must be reserved until the motion has been disposed of.

Senator GRANT:

– I shall give reasons why, in my opinion, the debate should be postponed. Senator Johnston has quoted the difference between the domestic price in Great Britain and the c.i.f.e. price in Australia, and the Minister has not given a satisfactory explanation in reply. The price that is charged to British users of wire netting is relatively higher than that charged to Australian importers who purchase larger quantities of the commodity.

Senator McLachlan:

– That is a matter into which the Tariff Board is going to inquire.

Senator GRANT:

– I realize also that we shall not have an opportunity to consider the recommendations of the board. That is why I desire to have the item postponed until we receive more information on the subject.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Wire netting now comes in duty free. Does the honorable senator desire to have a duty imposed on it?

Senator GRANT:

– Not at all, but I wish to ascertain whether wire netting can be imported at a cheaper rate than that which now rules, which would result in an advantage being conferred on primary producers.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– Some of the information which Senator Grant desires is contained in the following extract from the letter which I have received from Sir Hal Colebatch :- >-

I have obtained definite quotations from the Whitecross Company for galvanized hexagonal mesh wire netting 42 in, x 11 in. x 17 gauge. £22 9s. 8d. per ton Home value or f.o.b., £25 13s. Gd. per ton, c.i.f. It is more customary to sell this netting by the mile than by the ton; the weight per mile is .1 ton 5 cwt. 17 lb. The price per mile is £28 5s. (id. Home value or f.o.b., and £32 5s. 9d. per mile c.i.f. They declare emphatically that ‘their f.o.b. price is the same as their Home value price for similar quantities. Naturally, for small quantities a higher -price is charged.

Item 159, sub-items (a) (b) -

Wire, iron and steel, for use in the manufacture of barbed wire and wire netting, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, per ton, British, 52s.; general, 120s.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– As the Senate has reduced the duty on barbed wire to 40s. a ton, it will be necessary to reduce this duty in order to give Australian manufacturers of the commodity a proper opportunity to compete. Therefore, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (b), British, free.

The Australian manufacturer will then be able to obtain these commodities free, and so be able to supply his product cheaply to those who are engaged in agricultural and pastoral pursuits.

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

– I shall not repeat what I have already said, apparently ineffectually, concerning items which we have already passed relating to the basic material from which this wire is drawn. The rates prescribed under this item are the same as those which were in operation under the 1921-30 tariff. As manufacturers do not enjoy the bounty unless they use Australian wire, the amount of our importations under this heading have been negligible. I refer honorable senators to the report of the Tariff Board on the subject which was issued in 1926

It gives the following figures in regard to imports : -

The board reviews the industry generally in the following terms : -

During the year 1924-25 bounty at the rate of 52s. per ton was paid on 27,672^ tons of fencing wire and bare wire manufactured in Australia, while for the period 1st July, 1925, to 27th April. 192G (nearly ten months), bounty was paid on 2G,354J tons of such wire.

In the case of wire netting, during the year 1924-25 bounty at the rate of 6Ss. per ton was paid on 20,5704 tons, and for the period 1st July, 1925, to 27th April, 192G, on 22,002 i tons.

The figures given indicate that ‘ the local industry has held practically the whole of the Australian market in wire netting and the wires concerned.

In the case of Hylands (Aust.) Limited, sales of that company’s products increased from £357,295 for the veur ended 31st January, 1922, to £718,045 for the year ended 31st January, 192G.

The sales of Lysaght Brothers and Company Limited increased from £018.276 for the year 1921 to £1,022,548 for the year 1925.

For the purposes of this investigation the Tariff Board had an exhaustive examination made of the financial position of the applicant companies, together with their manufacturing costs. The result of this examination has disclosed that, after taking into consideration the bounty received, each of the applicant companies has been able to show a profit on its turnover while one of the companies has during each of the three years, 1923, 1924 and 1925, declared what is, in the opinion of the Tariff Board, a reasonably high rate of dividend for an industry receiving assistance in the form oE bounty. The Tariff Board is aware that the profits made by the local manufacturers included considerable amounts resulting from the sale of ashes, dross and zinc white, but as these are by-products resulting from the manufacture of tho goods covered by the request for increased protection, the board considers that the recovery of such by-products can justifiably be regarded as part and parcel of the industry so long as a profitable market for them can be found in Australia, as at present. It is not a separate industry its is the production of benzol, sulphate of ammonia and other products from the manufacture of coke in connexion with the iron and steel industry.

Tlie Tariff Board recognizes that, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, there is considerable disparity between the standards of wages in that country and those of Australia, but, in the opinion of the board, the circumstances indicate that, with tho assistance it has received in the form of bounty on fencing wire and wire netting and duty on other wires, together with the natural freight protection enjoyed in respect oE a considerable proportion of its output, the local industry has been able in the past to carry on with a reasonable measure of success against importations from that country. The board sees no reason why the Australian manufacturers should not maintain or even improve their position in this respect.

While the Tariff Board, having in mind the importance oE the industry, would not have hesitated to recommend any further assistance that might have been found to be necessary, the board does not consider that any alteration in the duties is warranted so far as tho British preferential tariff is concerned, nor does it feel justified in recommending any increase in the bounty with the object of augmenting the profits of the manufacturers.

Should anything happen in future to remove the present profitable market for ashes, dross and zinc white, then the position of tho industry as .affected by such occurrence could be reconsidered.

The board then proceeds to deal with the use of continental rods for the manufacture of wire and wire netting - a fact that I referred to yesterday, when dealing with another aspect of the matter. Having made that exhaustive examination along those lines, it recommended the duties that now appear in the schedule. Nothing has occurred that would warrant their being reduced. If anything, the industry has rather suffered disadvantage by reason ‘of the fact that some of its by-products are not so profitable to-day as they were in 1926.

Request negatived.

Sub-items agreed to.

Item 160 (a) agreed to.

Item 161, sub-item (a) -

Agricultural, horticultural, and viticultural machinery and implements, n.c.i.; cane loaders, cane unloaders and cane harvesters; channel-making graders: garden and field spraying machines not including spray pumps operated by hand or foot; garden and field rollers; garden hose reels; horse road rollers and machines; lawn sweepers; road scoops and scrapers; scoops: stump extractors; fibre-scutching machines; milking machines; potato raisers or diggers : potato sorters ; root cutters, pulpers and graters; straw stackers ; sub-surface packers - p.d valorem, British, 20 per cent.: general, 30 per cent.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I draw attention to the discrimination shown by successive governments towards different kinds of agricultural, horticultural, and viticultural machinery and implements. Under item IGO, sub-item a. cotton gins, handworked rakes and ploughs combined, bay tedders, lucerne bunchers, maize harvesters, maize binders, threshing machines, winnower forks, hand-worked cultivators, hand-worked seed drills, and chaffcutter knives are admitted free from Great Britain ; whereas, under item 161, sub-item a, the machinery specified is liable to duties of 20 per cent. British and 30 per cent general. There may be an explanation of this; but, so far, I have not heard it. The last report by the Tariff Board on agricultural machinery was made in August, 1925, and is certainly out of date, because conditions have changed materially since that date. Although the Minister has requested us to do so, I cannot forget that the incidence of exchange vitally affects the entire position. At the present prices of primary products, new agricultural machinery cannot be purchased. Throughout the wheat belts, in particular, the machinery of the farmers is worn out, and they cannot afford to replace it. These men have to sell their wheat in the open markets of the world. Cash registers, monoline type-composing machines, and typewriters are admitted free.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Typewriters and cash registers are not made in Australia.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– They are used by city people. In Western Australia. we have to pay not only the duty, but also, on an average, 12 per cent more for our general agricultural machinery than is charged in Melbourne, on account of the operation of the Navigation Act. Evidence to that effect was given to the Royal Commission on the Navigation Act by Mr. McKay, of the McKay Harvester Company. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duties, sub-item (a), ad valorem, British, free; general, 15 per cent.

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

– I shall give two reasons for the rejection of this request. The first is supplied by an epitome of the 1925 report of the Tariff Board, which, I consider, expresses in a pithy form the reasons for its recommendation; and the second is, that the subject of agricultural and horticultural implements is at present under consideration by the board. When the honorable senator has heard the reasons given by the board for having dealt with the items in the manner set out in the schedule, I believe that he will be satisfied. The epitome of the board’s report reads as follows: -

The existence in Australia of the agricultural implement industry is in the best interests of the primary producer. Implements suitable for Australian conditions have been invented and developed by Australian manufacturers. The Australian-invented implements have made it possible to produce wheat in the Commonwealth at a lower cost than in any other country in the world, and 30 per cent, cheaper than in the United States of America. The primary producer has the advantage of efficient service from factories “ on the spot “. Imported implements are sold cheaper iri Australia than in Argentine.

Australian-made implements are sold cheaper than imported implements . . . The extent to which Australian implement makers may be said to be taking advantage of the tariff is 6* per cent. . . . Protection is necessary in order to secure the market for the local manufacturers and permit quantity production. Quantity production and efficiency are the only means by which Australian manufacturers can hope to compete with the products of other countries. Protection is necessary to this end. Australian makers of “ dutiable “ agricultural implements can meet all reasonable demands. There is no need to import dutiable agricultural implements . . . The prices of Australianmade agricultural implements have been regularly and consistently reduced since the protective tariff of 1920-21 was introduced. Australian implement makers are not charging excessive prices, neither are they making excessive profits. … In concluding this report the Tariff Board would mention that for some considerable time now the agricultural implement makers in Australia seem to have been made the chief target of attack by those who are critical of the protectionist system which has been adopted by the people of Australia. The Tariff Board considers, in view of its exhaustive investigation and report, this industry might be permitted to perform its useful function to the community without being made the main objective of such attack. Every phase of the matter has now been examined by the board . . . The result of the investigation is wholly favorable to the local industry, and the Tariff Board unanimously agrees that the protective duty should not be disturbed.

Having regard to all the circumstances, the duties imposed under this item are in conformity with the recommendations of the Tariff Board, which speaks very highly concerning the Australian agricultural implement-making industry generally, and of the benefit it is to Australia. As these duties are now being inquired into by the Tariff Board, I trust that the committee will agree to pass the item in its present form.

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– But how c;m the honorable senator argue that the purpose of the request is to drive a wedge between city and country interests, seeing that both will benefit from reduced duties?

Senator MacDONALD:

– I am fully convinced that Senator Johnston’s purpose is to drive, not a wedge, but a wagon and a dozen horses between city and country interests.

I do not desire the work of the committee to be delayed by a general debate on every item, because the Government is committed to the Ottawa agreement, and must give effect to it; but it is remarkable that certain honorable senators who, a few months ago, were strong advocates of that agreement, are now pre pared to disregard the views of the Tariff Board. Senator Johnston’s requested amendment is intended to remove any obstacles to the dumping of goods from Japan, China, or any other cheap-labour countries.

Senator E B Johnston:

– From GreatBritain. Be fair.

Senator MacDONALD:

– I believe that the honorable senator would have no objection to the dumping of goods by Japanese, Chinese, or the manufacturers of any other low-wage country where workmen in factories have to be content with about ltd. a day.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– When Senator Johnston sat in opposition to the Labour Administration he asked a series of questions which implied that the Scullin Government should remove the embargo on elephants, in order that they might be imported for i lie hauling of ploughs in “Western Australia. Have the supporters of the request, for an amendment any conception of the industrial aspect of their proposal? Do they imagine that the primary producers are the only contributors to the general taxation?

Senator Elliott:

– In all countries they are the fundamental producers of wealth.

Senator DUNN:

– I recognize that all wealth comes from the land; but it is not, the product solely of the individual efforts of any section of farmers. Will the honorable senator argue that agricultural implements and machinery should be admitted into Australia free of duty? If he is prepared to do that, I am willing to debate the question with him publicly, at Sunshine, in Victoria. In 1930-31, no fewer than 3,043 persons were employed in the agricultural, horticultural and viticultural implement manufacturing industry in Victoria, and the salaries and wages paid to them amounted to £607,421. Those employees, of course, purchased clothes and many other commodities made in this country. Senator Badman, who, I understand, has cultivated wheat extensively in South Australia, knows that a suggestion has come from the World Economic Conference that Australia’s output of wheat, should be restricted. The value of the production of the horticultural, agricultural, and viticultural implement manufacturing industry in Victoria in 1930-31 was £832,891, and the value of the plant, machinery, land and buildings, was £1,296,067. Is that industry to be allowed to go to the wall, because Senators Johnston, Badman, and Elliott favour low duties, or no duties at all?

In its last report on the’ agricultural industry, the Tariff Board remarked that it had no hesitation in saying that, from the aspect of price alone, the farmer was better served under the present tariff than he would he if there were no local manufacturers of agricultural implements. Are our secondary industries and the workmen employed in them to receive no consideration? In Australia, the protection given to primary industries is greater than that enjoyed by farmers in any other part of the world. Even if the revenue of this country results mainly from primary production, is it fair to suggest that Australian manufacturers and their employees make no useful contribution to the economic life of this country? Senator Johnston would have freetrade conditions, with the workers receiving. coolie wages.

Senator E B Johnston:

– I ask that that remark be withdrawn, as it is offensive to me. -

Senator DUNN:

– I withdraw it; but are not honorable senators opposite aware of the conditions of employment that characterized industrial development in the “ black country “ of England ? I refer particularly to Birmingham. Have not honorable senators read of the lives of the chain-makers?

Senator Carroll:

– Those conditions do not prevail to-day.

Senator DUNN:

– Of course they do, to a. great extent. Australian factories are efficient, and their employees work under Industrial and Arbitration Court awards. Although the workers’ remuneration is not so high as it ought to be, they receive much better pay than similar employees in Great Britain. The Australian manufacturers of agricultural implements and machinery have evolved types of machines that are particularly suited to Australian conditions. A bulletin issued by the United States of America Department of Commerce, states -

The enormous increase in wheat-growing in Australia would hardly have been possible had not suitable machinery been evolved capable of satisfactorily handling the matured crops under the climatic and labour condition’s prevailing in that country. The entire credit for the development and perfection of the stripper, and, later on, of the stripper harvester, is due to the Australians themselves, as both of these machines were invented and first perfected and built in that country. When it is considered that these machines, as built at present, are but little different from the first ones built, and that under ordinary conditions they work in a most excellent manner, it must be admitted that Australian agricultural engineers arc second to none when given an equal opportunity.

The psychology of Senator Johnston is such that he would have elephants pulling ploughs in Western Australia. Are Senators Johnston, Elliott and Badman, in their attitude to these duties, considering the interests of the Australian farmer, or of the banks that are crushing the farmer ? I deprecate the little- Australian outlook of those honorable senators.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- The Tariff Board made a report on this matter some time ago, and up to the present time, this Parliament has been guided by it. One of the chief issues on which the last election was fought was that the Scullin Government had raised duties considerably, without consulting the Tariff Board ; but that action was taken under circumstances which, in my opinion, were thoroughly justified. They were for the purpose of meeting a serious national emergency. The experience of this Parliament shows that the board cannot investigate the conditions obtaining in an industry, and submit a report regarding them, within 24 hours. If its report is to be reliable, much research must be made. The gentlemen who now want to depart from the recommendations of the Tariff Board are those who, during the last election campaign, pledged themselves not to interfere with the tariff except on a report by the Tariff Board. The duties on this sub-item are the same as they were in 1925 ; they were not interfered with by either the Bruce-Page Government or the Scullin Government. The Tariff Board’s 1925 report on this item contained a number of interesting statements regarding the agricultural implementmaking industry in Australia. It pointed out that many harvesting and tillage machines were the product of Australian brains. In this respect, Australia stands in a unique position. The board’s report also stated - fu most cases imported as well as Australian machines are sold at a. lower price in Australia under a protective tariff, than in the Argentine and New Zealand where they arc free of duty.

In another part of its report the Tariff Board said -

The board has no hesitation in saying that on the question of price alone the farmer is better served under tho present tariff provisions and the consequent local manufacture, than he would be without a protective tariff and without the consequent local manufacture.

The same report also stated -

Australian-made implements are sold cheaper than imported implements . . The prices of Australian-made implements have been regularly and consistently reduced since the protective tariff of 1920-21 was introduced.

That shows that Australian manufacturers have kept faith with those who use the machinery they make. The board also stated in its report -

There is no need to import dutiable agricultural implements.

That is the considered opinion of the Tariff Board after an exhaustive inquiry into the subject. In the opinion of the board, Australia in 1925 was selfsufficient so far as the manufacture of agricultural implements was concerned. The report also stated -

The Australian farmer has the advantage of efficient service from factories on the spot.

What more do honorable senators want? I direct attention also to the following quotation from the board’s report: -

Australian implement makers are not charging excessive prices, neither are they making excessive profits . . . The effect of the tariff on agricultural implements is not detrimental to the best interests- of the primary producers.

That honorable senators who pledged themselves to reduce duties only when recommended by the Tariff Board should now repudiate their platform pledges is beyond my understanding. Having won an election on the assurance given to the electors, they now adopt the opposite attitude; if they have not betrayed the people, they at least have misled them. The people of Australia expect their representatives in this Parliament at least to be consistent. They will want to know why solemn pledges given on the hustings have been broken. I feel so strongly on this matter that I find difficulty in giving adequate expression to my thoughts. I find myself in a peculiar position; I am forced to defend the Government against some of its own supporters who would mutilate the tariff on which the party now in power won the last election. What will the people of Australia think of the action of those honorable senators who would betray their election pledges? Those who support this request would injure the makers of agricultural implements who have to observe arbitration awards. The electors of Australia will not be satisfied until they have dealt adequately with those who have broken their pre-election pledge.

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

– Senator Grant twitted the Government about the delay in obtaining a report from the Tariff Board on this item. When the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) was similarly twitted in another place, he reminded the committee there that the whole subject covered by this item was before the Tariff Board for investigation and report, which body, he said, was hard at work endeavouring to bring the tariff into conformity with the Ottawa agreement. On hat occasion, the Minister said -

I give ku assurance that, if a reduction of duties is recommended, the recommendation will be acted upon, either in this chamber or in another place.

He anticipated that before this item couldbe dealt with in the Senate, the Tariff Board’s report would have been furnished. He went on to say -

In all the circumstances, it can be confidently declared that there was no exploitation of the farmers, and that the price of these machines is quite reasonable.

Question - That the request (Senator E. B. Johnston’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 12

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Sub-item agreed to.

Item 162-

Chaffcutters and horse gears; corn shelters; corn buskers; cultivators, n.e.i. ; harrows; ploughs other; ploughshares; plough mould boards, scarifiers, ad valorem, British, 20 per cent.; general, 30 per cent.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I invite honorable senators to consider this item in conjunction with item 163b, which covers “ discs for agricultural implements, mould board plates in the flat, whether cut to shape or not “ which are admissible British free, and general 10 per cent. In these circumstances, why should a duty of British, 20 per cent., and general, 30 per cent., be imposed on the implements covered by the item now under consideration? It is all very well for the Minister to quote the Tariff Board report; but I remind him that conditions are entirely different now from what they were when the report was made. At that time wheat-growers, who must use ploughs, were getting a high price for their produce. To-day, the high prices have disappeared, and the exchange situation is totally different. Our wheatgrowers are to-day obliged to sell their wheat on the markets of the world at 2s. 3d. a bushel or so, and, consequently they are quite unable to pay these duties. I move -

That the House of Representativesbe requested to make the duties, ad valorem, British, free; general, 15 per cent.

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

– Honorable senators will realize that the same arguments would apply in a debate on this item as applied in the debate on the item just passed. I shall, therefore, not go over the ground again, but ask them to reject the request.

Question - That the request be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 12

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Items 163 (a) (b), 165 (a) (b), 166, 167 and 169 (a1) (b) (c2), agreed to.

Senator BADMAN:
South Australia

– I desire to discuss one of the items that you have declared agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have already declared the items agreed to. I regret that I did not see the honorable senator rise. I appeal to honorable senators to call to the Chair if they are not noticed when they rise to speak.

Senator BADMAN:

– I rose before the items were agreed to.

Senator E B Johnston:

– I rise to a point of order. I wish to discuss one of the items that has just been agreed to, namely, harvesters and harvesting machinery ; but when I saw Senator Badman rise I did not rise.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I regret that I cannot allow a discussion at this point. Honorable senators will have an opportunity to move for the recommittal of items.

Item 171, sub-items (a) to (e) -

Machinery, machines, and appliances: -

Reapers and binders each, British, £6 10s.; general, £10; or ad valorem, British, 30 per cent. ; general, 45 per cent. : whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Metal parts, n.e.i., of -

1 ) Reapers and binders, per lb British,1¾d-; general, 2d.; or ad val., British, 30 per cent; general, 45 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– The price of reapers and binders was £38 in 1914; to-day I believe it is £77 in Sydney. I have endeavoured to get accurate information of the number of wheat-growers in Australia. The latest Year-Book shows that there are 16,382 wheat-growers in. New South Wales; 19,622 in Victoria; and 14,038 in South Australia. There are also at least 12,000 in Western Australia. The honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock), who is well informed on this subject, stated in another place, while the Financial Relief Bill was being discussed in 1932, that there were 65,000 wheat-farmers in Australia, including those of Queensland and Tasmania. We know, of course, that reapers and binders are very much in evidence in Tasmania during the summer months. A reaper and binder is just as necessary to a farmer as is a harvester, and there is no justification why this heavy duty should be imposed on such machines. I, therefore, move -

That the House of Representativesbe requested to make the duties, sub-item (b), ad valorem, British, free; general, 15 per cent.

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

.- This is one of the items that the Tariff Board has under consideration, and I ask honorable senators to allow the duties to stand until the report has come to hand.

Senator Brennan:

– Do I understand that the Government will act on the Tariff Board’s report when it comes to hand?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Yes.

Request negatived.

Request (by Senator Hardy) put -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duties, sub-item (b), British, each £35s., or ad val. 15 per cent.

The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 14

NOES: 18

Majority . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Sitting suspended from 6.16 to 8 p.m.

Senator BADMAN:
South Australia

– I should like to ask the Minister whether the British preferential rate includes parts which come from Canada.

Senator McLachlan:

– No.

Senator BADMAN:

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duties, sub-item (D1 ) per lb. - British, 3/4d. ; general, 1d.

I do so because I consider that the present rates cause hardship to those who need these parts, most of which come from Canada, for, as they weigh anything from 50 to 100 lb., a charge of 15s. for duty might easily be incurred on a minor, replacement, I believe that at present no binders are imported, because the Sunshine Company is manufacturing McKay and Massey-Harris type reapers and binders suitable for our requirements. However, those who are unfortunate enough to have imported machines have to pay an exorbitant price for replacements. To give some idea of what happens, I instance an order that was sent to Canada last year for £1,000 worth of duplicates, which, when duty, freight and primage had been paid, cost £2,300 landed in the warehouse! The farmers have to rely on these machines for harvesting their crops, and must pay cash on delivery when they need replacements. I claim that, relatively speaking, this is the highest impost that is borne by primary producers on any line which they use. The lower duty would not bring about any additional unemployment in Australia, nor would it cause competition with local manufacturers, for it would not pay them to put in a plant to manufacture these parts, which, in a few years, will not be wanted. The request is a reasonable one, and would grant relief to those who need it. I, therefore, commend it to honorable senators.

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

– This is in the same category as several of the items which have already been discussed. The matter has been referred to the Tariff Board, and was previously dealt with in its report, No. 105, from which I quoted extensively this afternoon. From information which has been supplied to me, I gather that the importation of these parts is negligible and that the present duty imposes no great hardship on farmers generally. The importations for the past three years were as follow: -

I suggest that it is not worth while tinkering with this sub-item when the whole thing is in the melting pot, and we shall shortly have a comprehensive report from the Tariff Board placed before us for consideration. So, despite the fact that the duties may operate harshly against a few, I ask honorable senators to approve the rates which appear in the schedule.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– It would be interesting to know, in connexion with this and other items that we have yet to consider, what exactly is the plan of honorable senators who are opposing these duties and demanding reductions. I am quite sure that, in connexion with this particular sub-item, they have no definite plan, because when the request was being put to the committee Senator Badman was urged to reduce the existing ad valorem duty by half, and he was undecided as to what to do. It’ is obvious that the intention of honorable members of the Country party is to slash indiscriminately at these duties, and trust to luck that some of their requests will be approved. It is tragic that such tactics should . obtrude themselves when we are dealing with a national policy designed to give protection to Australian industries. The Minister has already indicated that importations of these parts are negligible, while Senator Hardy has said that the farmers are too poor to buy replacements. If that is so, it does not matter much whether the duty is Id. or 1¾d. per lb. I enter my protest against such unscientific attempts to mould a tariff, which has had the approval of the Minister and the Customs Department, and is being investigated by the Tariff Board. The tactics of honorable senators of the Country party are undignified, and unworthy of a deliberative assembly such as ours.

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

– I enter my protest against the protest that was registered by Senator Collings. What right has the honorable senator to oppose t,he full discussion of any of the items that are contained in this schedule, and to classify as unscientific any opinion which is different from that which he entertains?

Senator Collings:

– I rise to a point of order. Is Senator Brennan in order in attributing to me remarks which I did not use? I did not make any request that the discussion should be curbed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am sure that if the honorable senator has been misrepresented, Senator Brennan will withdraw his remark.

Senator BRENNAN:

– I did not say anything about the honorable senator having attempted to curb discussion; I entered my protest against the protest registered by the honorable senator, which was an objection against any other honorable senator disagreeing with his views upon the tariff. Is the honorable senator becoming so very touchy that we are not to be permitted to criticize the principle upon which he criticizes us ? If I may say so with all respect, Senator Collings makes my part a somewhat difficult one, because, though I may be tempted to accede to the view that is put by the Minister in charge of the schedule, when I remember that by doing so it will put me upon the same side as, and cause me to vote in company with, Senator Collings, I feel inclined to hesitate.

Senator Collings:

– So that with the honorable senator it is not so rauch a matter of principle.

Senator BRENNAN:

– I am not sure that it is not a matter of principle to be opposed to the honorable senator. Daniel O’Connell once said that when the

Times was praising him for anything he always examined his conscience to see what he had been doing that was wrong.

The CHAIRMAN:

– We are discussing item 171.

Senator BRENNAN:

– I made that illuminative excursion merely for the enlightenment of other honorable senators. I shall listen to the reasoned argument of the Minister in charge of the schedule as to why the sub-item should, or should not, remain as it is, and cast my vote according to my determinations and consistently with the votes that I have already recorded; but I do desireto claim for myself and those who entertain similar views the “right to express them without being subjected to the protests of honorable senators opposite for having done so.

Question - That the request (Senator Bad-man’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. ( Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 15

AYES

NOES

Request negatived.

Sub-items agreed to.

Item 175 agreed to.

Item 176, sub-items (e) (g) -

Alining machinery n.e.i., ad valorem, British, 40 per cent.; general, 55 per cent.

Senator MILLEN Tasmania) [8.20]. I move

That the House of Representatives be re-, quested to make the duty, sub-item (b), ad valorem, British, 15 per cent.

There is not a government in Australia that it not doing something - some are doing a great deal - to increase the possibilities of employment being provided in the mining industry. Prospectors are everywhere doing their utmost to increase the mineral production of this country, and the different governments are preparing geological maps, adding to their geological survey staffs, and doing whatever else they may to increase the output of this great and important industry. It appears to me that those efforts may be given an impetus by the reduction of the duties on mining machinery. This is one case in which we may render assistance without detriment to any other Australian industry! The beneficial effect that is likely to accrue is so perfectly obvious that I am confident the committee will agree to my request.

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

– These duties are identical with those in the 1921-30 tariff. During the last few years, the importations of machinery under this item have been above the average. For 1928-29 they amounted to only ?79, while for 1930-31 they reached a value of ?15,302, of which machinery to the value of ?3,767 was admitted under by-law at the rates, free British, and 10 per cent, general. This item covers only such mining machinery as is not specifically provided for under other items. Sub-items b to f of item 170, included in group 2, cover a large proportion of the mining machinery imported. The largest importations are under sub-item f of that item, which covers rotary and percussive rock drills. Those drills are admitted free from Great Britain, and are liable to a duty of 15 per cent, if of foreign origin. Coal-cutting machines, which arc covered by sub-item e, also are admitted free if imported from the United Kingdom, and are liable to a duty of 15 per cent, if of foreign origin. A large percentage of the mining machinery imported is admitted free under different items of the tariff, or under departmental by-law, if it comes from the United Kingdom. These duties have not formed the subject of a Tariff Board inquiry since 1925, when the board recommended the rates that are now operating. Only in March last, however, the matter waa again referred to the board, the Government recognizing that there may be a case for the reduction of the duties in view of the position of the country from the unemployment and other angles, and of the necessity for stimulating mineral production. In its last report, the board differentiated between a number of items of mining machinery. The rates that it recommended were, free British, 5 per cent, intermediate, and 10 per cent, general, in the case of coal-cutting machines, rotary and percussive rock drills, roller bearings and ball bearings, log band sawing machines and band resawing machines. Other rates recommended were, in the case of cylindrical cement dryers, which apparently were being manufactured in this country, 27^ per cent., 35 per cent, and 40 per cent., in the case of cement-making machines, n.e.i., road-making machines, n.e.i., stone-crushing machines, &c, 35 per cent., 45 per cent., and 50 per cent. ; and in the case of machines and machinery n.e.i., 40 per cent., 50 per cent., and 55 per cent. I ask the honorable senator not to press his request. I am particularly interested in the mining development of this country, and I know that the matter has had the consideration of the Government. By dealing with it in this general way, we may enable .a few men to obtain employment, but we may deprive of employment others who are engaged in the manufacture of certain kinds of machinery. The Government has asked the Tariff Board to expedite its inquiry as far as possible.

Senator GRANT:
Tasmania

.- I support Senator Millen’s request. As the Minister has pointed out, every encouragement is being given to the employment of men in. the different branches of the mining industry. “With money so hard to obtain, however, we cannot expect mining companies to extend their operations while they have to pay this exorbitant duty. There are also primage, exchange, and other charges, which make the cost prohibitive lt may be thought that the importations are so small that it is hardly worth while to bother about the matter; but if the duties were made more reasonable I believe that the development of mining throughout the Commonwealth, which is so badly needed, would be considerably extended. 1 should like to receive a definite assurance that we shall be given the Tariff Board reports on all these items before they are finally dealt with by the Senate. As things are now, it is possible that not one of those reports will be available. I object to that, because our votes in some instances have been influenced by the implied assurance that the reports would be available to us.

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

– I never gave any such assurance, and never intended to do so. It would be impossible for the Tariff Board to turn out reports in a machine-like way without reflection or consideration, or the hearing of technical evidence. All I promised was that when we came to group C of the schedule, those Tariff Board reports which have been considered by Cabinet will be placed before honorable senators, and appropriate action taken in regard to them. The items in group 2 have been referred to the Tariff Board with a request that they be dealt with expeditiously, because the Government is alive, as I am, to the necessity for putting the mining industry on a stable footing by giving it all the relief we can. It is possible, however, if we act without duo consideration, that in avoiding Scylla we may be wrecked, in Charybdis. In order to assist one industry, we may so injure others as to throw large numbers of men out of employment, and then our last condition would be worse than the first. All the items in the various groups dealing with mining requisites have been referred to the Tariff Board.

Honorable, senators, in the feast of reason and flow of soul we have had during this debate, have, perhaps, forgotten what the Government promised in regard to Tariff Board reports. Our policy is to carry out our election pledge, and we are doing so. Cabinet is still in possession of a number of Tariff Board reports. Some hundreds of items were referred to the board immediately the

Government took office, items on which the Scullin Government had increased the duties without consulting the board. Some of the reports were returned during the passage of this schedule through another place, and were given effect to there. Some have been returned since, and the Senate will have an opportunity to discuss them. Unfortunately, some of the reports which we are most anxious to receive, including that on this item, are not yet available. As new reports come to hand after the passage of this schedule, and are considered by Cabinet, those recommendations which the Government accepts will be embodied in new schedules which will he brought before Parliament, and honorable senators will have an opportunity to discuss them. The passage of this measure is not the last word on the subject, but it is necessary to have a complete tariff of some sort to go on with, although I hope that, before the life of this Parliament expires, it will be possible for every item in the schedule to be considered by the board in the light of the Ottawa agreement.

This item is of a complex character, and no report later than 1925 is available to guide the Government. The duties are the 1921-2S rates, which were passed by a number of senators who- are still in this chamber. They were not interfered with by the last Government. All we could do was to rectify what we believe to be wrong through the machinery of the Tariff Board. “We have given an undertaking to employ that machinery ; not to indulge in ministerial tariffmaking, but to deal with duties in a scientific manner. The Minister for Trade and Customs has assured me that, immediately Tariff Board reports are available, they will be embodied in a new schedule and submitted to the House of Representatives when it. re-assembles. Later, of course, that, schedule will come before the Senate. Similar action will be taken from time to time, as required. I had anticipated that we should by how have about twenty reports available on items in group 6; but I find that only a dozen or so are ready. Some of these matters require considerable study by Cabinet. We do not simply take the board’s report, and accept it as a matter of course. It is necessary for us to have the board’s reasons for its recommendations, and to examine the evidence on which the board came to its conclusion. If we cannot see the reasons for the recommendation, we refer the matter back to the board, with a request for an explanation, or a statement regarding the effect of the recommendation, if accepted, upon other industries. I ask honorable senators not to attempt to substitute themselves for the Tariff Board. Most of the important trading countries, including Great Britain, Carinda, and New Zealand, have now appointed tariff boards to take the place pf the haphazard regulation of tariffs by Parliament. Our Tariff Board may not bc working as quickly as honorable senators would like, but that cannot be helped. If we are to have a multiciplicity of tariff boards, it follows that a multiplicity of principles will apply to tariffmaking. . The present board is familiar with its work. In regard to some minor matters, it may be possible to divide the board into sections; but, on the major issues, it must work as a single unit. I ask honorable senators to hold their hands, As Senator Brennan pointed out, nothing is really accomplished by making requests for the reduction of duties; but such action has a disturbing effect upon industry. A tremendous amount of money has been invested in Australia in manufacturing enterprises affected by the tariff, and those in control of such industries are not likely to enlarge their undertakings while this air of uncertainty prevails. Believing that the Senate is after them hot foot, with a majority which is prepared to deal with the tariff without consulting the Tariff Board, they are likely to adopt a policy of wait and see. Surely honorable senators would not care to have every manufacturing pundit at the bar of the House showing his wares, and explaining his case.

Senator Sir Walter Kingsmill:

– Who proposed such a thing?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– That is the only way in which the Tariff Board, or any other body charged with tariffmaking, can arrive at a due, understanding of the matter, unless it comprises a collection of veritable Solomons. They cannot arrive at a proper conclusion by guess work.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- The Minister has made a mistake in suggesting that a majority of honorable senators are prepared to fix duties without receiving any reports from the Tariff Board. I, for one, am not. I have always realized the value of the Tariff Board, and believed in employing it in the manner prescribed in the act; but that does not bind me to accept all its reports. The board makes its recommendations to Parliament, and in our wisdom we accept or amend the recommendations as they come before us.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– That is all we are asking the honorable senator to do now.

Senator PAYNE:

– I have taken the trouble to look up the debate which took place on this very item in 1926, when the duty was raised from 27^ per cent. British to 40 per cent. I strongly objected to that at the time, and there have been no developments in Australia in the meantime to cause me to recede one iota from the stand I took up then. Rather do I believe that recent developments should induce us to give even a greater encouragement to the mining industry, in order to put it in a sound position. I can say that without retracting anything from my profession as a protectionist. I believed that the protection given in 1926 was more than was justified on the evidence submitted to the Tariff Board, and that was why I opposed it. Senator Millen has submitted a proposal to reduce the duty from 40 per cent, to 15 per cent. That is going a long way further than I would propose ; but we must remember that, even if Senator Millen’s proposal were agreed to, the local industry, because of the incidence of exchange and primage, would still be receiving the same protection as, if not more than, it received when the duty of 40 per cent, was first imposed.

Senator Hardy:

– Does not the honorable senator think that we should have the report of the Tariff Board on the subject of primage and exchange?

Senator PAYNE:

– It would be helpful if it were made available to us. The absence of it places us at a disadvantage in discussing this item and others, because, after all, the Tariff Board’s view of the effect of the exchange rate might be in keeping with that of many honorable senators, including myself, namely, that its protective incidence should be taken into account when fixing the rates of duty. I feel that I must support Senator Millen’s requested amendment. If it is not carried, I shall do my best to induce the committee to request another place to make the rate the same as that which operated in 1926.

Senator MILLEN:
Tasmania

– I hasten to assure the Minister (Senator McLachlan) that I appreciate his *’ flow of soul “, and I sincerely trust that lie will appreciate our “ feast of reason “. All honorable senators, I hope, appreciate the necessity for assisting the mining industry, and particularly those prospectors who were induced by various governments to engage in the search for valuable minerals. It is important, that, discoveries having been made, the mining companies should be able to obtain the necessary machinery at a reasonable price, otherwise all the searching that has been done will have to go by the board. I trust that the committee will carry my requested amendment to reduce the duty to 15 per cent. British. The Minister has indicated that shortly we may ger a report from the Tariff Board dealing with this industry. I am perfectly certain that if the board’s report shows that a duty of 15 per cent. British is not an equitable arrangement, no complaints will be heard from those who have announced their support for my requested amendment. The most pressing need a£ the moment is to give relief to those engaged in the mining industry, and my request has been submitted with that end in view.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I must ask the honorable gentleman to confine bis remarks to the item.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I am endeavouring to do that, and I submit that whatI am saying is quite relevant to the discussion. Senator Milieu’s request to have the British duty reduced to 15 per cent, is put forward because, allegedly, it will mean more employment, and I have shown that employment in the industry has been increasing during the last two or three years without any alteration of the existing tariff.

Senator Foll:

– The Mount Morgan mine did not pay dividends for years.

Senator COLLINGS:

– That is exactly what. I am endeavouring to show. Mining activities at Mount Morgan for some years slumped to a comparatively negligible quantity, but during the last three years, due largely to the advice of Sir Herbert Gepp and Mr. Gunn, the position has improved and employment has increased. The same conditions obtain in all the gold-producing States of Australia for the reason which Senator Dooley has just given, the fact that the price of gold has doubled in recent years. I doubt that any reduction of duties on mining machinery will give a stimulus to the industry.

Senator Carroll has suggested and I think the honorable senator’s remarks are worthy of notice, since they might supply the motive for opposition to this and other tariff items - that if we follow the advice of the Minister, the Senate will become merely the echo of another place. I certainly have never been content to allow the Senate to become an echo of the other branch of this legislature; but I shall not support proposals regardless of their merits merely in order to assert the independence of this chamber. Senator Carroll said he would have preferred the request to be for a reduction of 20 per cent, instead of 15 per cent., because he thought that the higher duty would receive more support. We might follow his contention to its logical conclusion, and, after requests for 15 per cent., 20 per cent., and 25 per cent, have in turn been defeated, decide to allow the duty to remain at 40 per cent. If the argument that lower duties would increase employment is intended to apply to coal-mining machinery, it is worthless, because throughout the world there are tens of thousands of coal-miners for whom there will never again be employment in the industry, with which they have .been connected all their lives. I hope that the request for an amendment will not be adopted.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– I gladly support the request. I entered the Senate shortly before the Pratten schedule was dealt with in 1926, and I remember vividly that the then Leader of the Labour party in this chamber, Senator Needham, moved on thi3 very item that the duties should be reduced from 40 per cent, to 27? per cent. With Senator Millen, I voted for that proposal, which received a great deal of support, and was defeated by only three votes. I assure Senator Collings that the present proposal to increase employment, by reducing the duties on mining machinery, applies to all classes of mining, and I hope that it will be adopted.

Senator MILLEN:
Tasmania

.- Australia has mining and metallurgical engineers as capable as those of any part of the world. A mining engineer will design the machinery to meet the various problems, and his orders’ will probably be placed with local foundries or engineering shops. Therefore, the adoption of this request for a reduction of duties would not adversely affect employment in those establishments. Senator Collings said that he would support the request, if he could be convinced that it would lead to an increase of employment in the mining industry. Only recently a corporation has been investigating the nickel deposits about Zeehan, Tasmania, and calculating very closely the possibility of erecting a plant for the working of the deposits so that they may be of value to the Commonwealth and the Empire. The only means of profitably working this ore is by the erection of a satisfactory plant, and, therefore, the duty on machinery would have an important bearing on the project.

Senator McLachlan:

– Could not the machinery be made in Australia?

Senator MILLEN:

– Ores that contain other metals in conjunction with nickel have been the subject of research in other parts of the world, and it would not be commercially sound to undertake experiments in Australia when proved methods and plant can be obtained abroad.

Senator McLachlan:

– Such machinery would probably be admitted free of duty under by-law.

Senator MILLEN:

– The intending investor looks first at the duty on the machinery. he will require, and the first glance may be sufficient to deter him. If he pursues his inquiries .further, he may learn of the possibility of admission under by-law. Only companies which thoroughly investigate beforehand every factor, and estimate their costs to a fraction of a penny can be expected to achieve success. An enterprise of this description offers no scope to the reckless, haphazard promoter of wild-cat schemes. I sincerely trust that the committee will agree to request the reduction of the duty to 15 per cent.

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

– Although in the grouped memorandum this item appears isolated, it is in the complete schedule merely one of a large; list of machinery items, many of which are on the free list. Surely those interested in primary production have just reason to complain when, of all the types of machinery mentioned in the schedule, mining machinery, which is the most important in the world at the present time, should be singled out for so heavy an impost. The Minister has again asked the committee to rely on the Tariff Board’s report, but has made it clear that there is little prospect of that document being available to Parliament before this schedule has been disposed of. The number of persons engaged in mining has greatly increased, but that increase is mainly represented by those earning a humble living by prospecting. There are two phases of the gold-mining revival; prospecting is one, and the other is the working of large bodies of ore by highly specialized machinery. In Western Australia, many large mines are being reworked profitably because of the high price1 of gold, and some of the companies have nor. found it necessary to incur heavy expenditure on new machinery.. A similar revival has occurred at Mount Morgan, which appears likely to provide considerable employment for several years. On more than one occasion during the consideration of this schedule, the Minister has deprecated the taking into account, as part of the protection enjoyed by local industries, the adverse exchange rate and primage. I do not dissent from the general proposition that exchange may prove only a transient factor, but we’ can certainly rely upon it continuing for some years. The mining industry may require prompt assistance, and it is of the utmost importance that every encouragement be given to mineral research and development at the present time. Nothing could be of greater advantage to Australia or to the world at large than the discovery of new gold-fields. We all know what gold-mining did for Australia in the middle ‘nineties, during a crisis similar to the present, but not comparable in magnitude. An intending investor who is likely to require machinery naturally studies the tariff schedule, and compares the probable costs of imported and locallymade plant. During the dinner hour, a gentleman who is interested in machinery informed me of representations made to the Customs Department on one occasion for the admission of machinery under bylaw; eventually, the request was granted, but the negotiations occupied nine months. The 1 consideration which most urges me to vote for the request is that the great primary industry of mining appears to have been singled out for a particularly heavy duty. I believe, however, that if Senator Millen had not carried his request quite so far, it would have been supported, if not by greater numbers, certainly with greater heartiness.

Senator Sir WALTER KINGSMILL (Western Australia) [9.12], - The mining enterprises which Senator Millen had in mind when he referred to the possibility of increasing employment by reducing the costs of machinery are those concerned with large low-grade bodies of ore, working on a small margin of profit, and depending on the quantity rather than the richness of the ore treated. These mines must be equipped with the most up-to-date machinery, some of which is not, and cannot be, made in Australia, and perhaps has never been used here previously. Sometimes applications for the admission of machinery under by-law are granted. On other occasions, the officers of the Customs Department are at particular pains to assure gentlemen trained in mining and metallurgical science that they are mistaken in their ideas as to what they need. On behalf of mining companies in Kalgoorlie, I have, on many occasions, had to interview the customs officers, and endeavour to persuade them that special classes of machinery could not be made in Australia commercially, because it would not pay local manufacturers to erect expensive plant for the purpose of supplying a very limited demand. Mining companies working low-grade ores on small margins have to reckon closely every penny of cost, and it is believable that a decrease of tho cost of essential plant by 20 per cent, would be the determining factor in the consideration of a proposal for undertaking a new venture. That is why I shall vote in support of the requested amendment.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator PAYNE:

– Personally, I have no objection to a man changing his mind. Experience sometimes makes it necessary for us to change our minds. 1 remind Senator Foll that the Minister in charge of this bill (Senator McLachlan) has changed his mind. In 1926 he supported a proposal to reduce the duty on road-making machinery from 40 per cent, to 27½ per cent. I quote the following remarks by the honorable senator from the Hansard report of the 8th June, 1926:-

We who represent the more benighted, and certainly the more neglected, portions of the Commonwealth, view these proposed increases differently. Surely those who purchase and use road-making and cement-making machines ought to know whether the proposed duties will he instrumental in increasing the cost. We should turn a deaf ear to those who say that higher duties will lead to reduced prices. As a protectionist, I cannot accept such a statement.

The honorable senator’s concluding remarks on that occasion “were -

I intend to support the request of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham) for a reduction of this duty.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

– It is my intention to pair in favour of the request, because I think that anything that will stimulate the mining industry will create opportunities .for the expansion of those firms at Castlemaine and Maryborough to which reference has been made.

Question - That the request (Senator Millen’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - .Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 15

AYES

NOES

Request negatived.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (e) ad val., British, 274 per cent.

I do so because, in view of the remarks that were made by the present Minister when we discussed the item in 1926, 1 feel that there is an excellent possibility of securing his vote, and also one or two of the votes from honorable senators who sit opposite. The arguments in 1926 were all in favour of the retention of a duty at the rate of per cent., and I feel justified in making an appeal that we should go back to that figure which, I think, will afford ample protection to those who are manufacturing this class of machinery.

Question - That the request (Senator Payne’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Ch airman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 15

AYES

NOES

Request negatived.

Sub-items agreed to.

Items 179 (d 3b) (e), 180 (a 1), 181 (a 1) (b 2), 183 and 185 (a) agreed to.

Item 187, sub-items (a) (d) (Nails).

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– Can the Minister explain why the duties on horse-shoe nails are 12s. per cwt. British, and 15s. per cwt. general, while those on saddlers’ tacks and nails are ad valorem free, and 15 per cent, respectively?

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

– The rates on horse-shoe nails are the same as they were under the 1921-30 tariff. There is no Tariff Board report on this matter. The revenue collected on clearances during 1931-32 was, United Kingdom £3,000, Canada £5, foreign £1,452. The ad valorem equivalents of the fixed rates of 12s. and 15s. per cwt., based on the 1931-32 clearances, are, United Kingdom 20.3 per cent., Sweden 33.3 per cent. I understand that the reason for the differentiation is that imports of these nails compete with the local product.

Sub-items agreed to.

Items 188, 189 (e) (f) (h), 191 (a), 193, 196, 198, 199, 202, 204 (a) and 205 agreed to.

Item 206, sub-items (c) (e) (Oil or spirit heating lamps; lamp chimneys n.e.i.).

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I direct the attention of the Minister to the heavy duties of 20 per cent, and 30 per cent, ad valorem on oil or spirit heating lamps, and of 2s. 6d. and 3s. 6d. a dozen on lamp chimneys, n.e.i. Lamp chimneys are used by people outback, who cannot obtain electric light. I should like to know what explanation the Minister has to offer of these high duties, to which I strongly object, and whether there is any prospect of relief being given.

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

.- In 1925, the Tariff Board recommended in regard to lamp chimneys the rates that are at presentoperating. The value of the total importations of all this class of goods, according to the last record that we have, was only £1,529.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– How can the Minister justify the inclusion of this item under the ‘heading of metals? It should come under that of glass or chinaware.

Senator Dooley:

– Some lamp chimneys are made of metal.

Sub-items agreed to.

Remainder of division, viz., items 207, 208 (e), 214, 218, 220 (a), 221 and 222 agreed to.

Division 7. - Oils, Paints and Varnishes

Items 223, 225 (a), 227 (a) (b), 228 (a1, 2) (b) (c) (d), 229 (a) (f1, 2) (g) (h2, 3) (i), 231 (a2) (b1, 2, 3) (c) (d) and 233 agreed to.

Division 8. - Earthenware, Cement, China, Glass and Stone

Items 234 (a) (b) (c), 235, 236, 238, 240 (a), 241 (a), 242 (a) (d) (e) (g), 243 (b), 244 (a) (c), 245 to 249 (a) (b), 251 (b), 252 (a), 253 (a) to (d), 254 (a), 257 (a) (b) (c), 258, 260 and 262 (a) (b2) (f) (g) agreed to.

Division 9. - Drugs and Chemicals

Items 264 (a) (b) (cl, 2), 266 (a) (b), 268 (a), 269 (d), 272 and 274 (a) agreed to.

Item 275, sub-items (a1, 2) (b) (c) (Sulphur, pyrites).

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

.- There is a footnote stating that, so long as a bounty is payable on sulphur, it may be imported free of duty. There was no duty on sulphur until 1926. This commodity is used fairly extensively both in connexion with mining, and in the manufacture of fertilizers. I observe, also, that sulphur may be imported free if used for manufacturing purposes. I should like to obtain from the Minister some information as to how the duty is operating.

Senator McLachlan:

– The bounty is still being paid, and sulphur is still admitted free.

Sub-items agreed to.

Items 276 (a) (b), 277, 278 (a1) (b1, 2) (c) (d) and 279 (c) agreed to.

Item 280, sub-items (a) (c) (d1) (Drugs and chemicals).

Senator Sir WALTER KINGSMILL (Western Australia) [10.24]. - Sub-item 280 d1 deals with saccharin, and I should like to know from the Minister whether it is manufactured in the Commonwealth. If not, I do not think that there should be a duty on it.

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

– If the honorable senator turns to page 125 of the memorandum he will see that saccharin for medicinal purposes, as prescribed by departmental by-law, is admitted free.

Sub-items agreed to.

Item 281, sub-items (e) (h) to (Ll, 2)-

Drugs and chemicals -

Carbon bisulphide, ad val., British, 25 per cent.; general 45 per cent.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– Sub-item 281 h provides a duty of 25 per cent. British on carbon bisulphide. This chemical is used extensively for the destruction of rabbits, and, as we know, rabbits are numerous and increasing. The duty is not justified, and I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (h), ad valorem, British, free.

Progress reported.

page 2512

ADJOURNMENT

Tariff Board Report on Exchange and Primage - Party Voting on. Tariff Schedule.

Motion (by Senator Sir George Pearce) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator HARDY:
New South Wales

– In view of the nature of the debate, which has taken place to-day on the customs tariff, I feel that we should urge upon the Government the need for making available to honorable senators the report of the Tariff Board on exchange and primage. It is impossible to conduct this debate satisfactorily without that report in our possession. We know that, the Government has been able to stave off defeat time and again to-day only by the help of members of the Labour party. The credit for assisting the Government, goes, not to members of the Scullin Labour party, but to members of the Lang Labour party. The Government has Senators Rae and Dunn to thank for having saved it from defeat. When we analyse the division list, and see how the members of the Country party and. the United Australia party have voted on the various items, we see in it the condemnation of the Government’s fiscal policy. I was pleased when the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) informed us that members of the Senate would have the Tariff Board’s report in their hands for the third reading of the bill. In the absence of that report, we are working in the dark.

Senator Sir Walter Kingsmill:

– Did the honorable senator hear the speech of the Leader of the Government?

Senator HARDY:

– I did, and I read the speech again next day most carefully. He said that the Government had not come to a decision regarding the report, and, consequently, could not release it. He then went on to say that, because revenue matters were involved, it would be necessary to summon the House of Representatives. That, I contend, is not such a tremendous undertaking. With the other members of my party,I feel that if the Government desires to restore confidence, and to dissipate a sense of injustice in the minds of many honorable senators, it should place the report in our hands. It may be an intricate document containing drastic recommendations; but, at the present time, when motions for the reductions of duties are constantly being moved, we should have in. our possession all the data bearing on the matters under discussion. I do not bring this proposal forward from any feeling of hostility to the Government. Mine is a constructive proposal designed to assist Ministers. I trust that the Government will take advantage of it, and will bring the report down, even if it involves summoning the House of Representatives.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– I should not have risen if Senator Hardy had not mentioned that Senator Rae and I had, in a number of divisions to-day, saved the Government from defeat. The honorable gentleman said that the Government has been dependent on the support of the Lang Labour party, as the Australian Labour party of New South Wales is sometimes called. I remind him. that we voted with the Government to-day in pursuance of plank No. 5 of the Australian Labour party, dealing with new protection, which is defined as -

Effective tariff protection of Australian industries with measures to prevent profiteering to assure industrial protection to workers.
Import embargoes to assure the home market to Australian industries capable of fully supplying the demand subject to control of prices and of industrial conditions, Australian standard.

My colleague, Senator Rae, and I voted for the Government to-day, not to save it from defeat, but in defence of our general principles. We believe it to be our bounden duty to support any measures to counteract the coolie outlook of Country party members and some supporters of the United Australia party. We are not so concerned with the political outlook of the Government, in a general sense, but we are concerned in protecting Australian industries, and to this endwill give our support to any pallialive measures which may be introduced, in the march of progress, in the interests of the workers, believing that such proposals may benefit those men and women engaged in industry who sent us to this chamber. It is from this angle that we gave our support to the Government today, and saved it from defeat by the combined forces, of disaffected Government supporters and Country party members, who have definitely stated, time and again, that their policy is to encourage the introduction of black-grown sugar from Java or any other cheap-labour country.

Senator Hardy:

– An unholy alliance !

Senator DUNN:

– The unholy alliance is between certain members of the Country party and a number of Government supporters. Since any proposal to alter the tariff schedule must be submitted to another place in. the form of a request, the defeat of the Minister in this chamber does not mean the defeat of the Government. It follows, therefore, that our support of the Government in divisions on a number of tariff items to-day did not mean that we saved the Ministry from defeat at all ; but it did mean that we did something to protect the basic principles contained in plank No. 5 of the Australian Labour party’s platform.

Senator BADMAN:
South Australia

– I support the request made by Senator Hardy, because, in the absence of the Tariff Board’s report on the protective incidence of the exchange rate, we are to some extent working in the dark. I make no apology for the vote which I gave on a number of occasions to-day. for I was in good company, and I voted according to my convictions. Not having the Tariff Board’s report before us, it is possible that we did not do the right thing in respect of some items. We are entitled to know more about the situation. If the board’s report had been made available to us, perhaps we should have been able to work more amicably, and situations which developed to-day would not have arisen, the Government being saved from defeat by members of the Lang party voting with the Labour Opposition against requested amendments moved by Country party members. The request made by Senator Hardy ia so reasonable that I hope the Government will place the report of the Tariff Board in our hands as soon as possible.

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

– I should not have troubled the Senate at this late hour if Senator Hardy had not indulged in what I regarded as sneers at the expense of Senators Dunn and Rae, whom we regard as the representatives of the Lang party in this chamber. I do not see how those honorable senators could have done otherwise than vote for the Government, to protect the interests of the Australian workers. The so-called country section of torydom the representatives of the United Country party in this chamber, are Labour’s bitterest opponents. I do npt wish to make use of this occasion to say anything that may affect our relationship in this chamber, hut I will say that the Labour party was approached by a certain member of the so-called Country party with a proposal that its supporters should join with the United Country party in voting against the Government.

Senator Carroll:

– When did this happen?

Senator MacDONALD:

– The honorable senator may not be aware of the overtures, but I think a number of other honorable senators are. The incident reminds me of the story of a bad king with an even worse son. When the latter hotly denied that he was a party to a plot to take the crown from his father, the king bitterly replied, “I am not worrying Harry; they will not take my crown to give it to you.” Labour is not going to get hot and sweaty to smash the United Australia party for the United Country party. That is our position in this chamber. In Queensland we are unaware of the existence of a Country party. In. that State, there is only one anti-Labour gang, which is known alphabetically as the C.P.N.’s, otherwise, the Country Progressive National party. If the order of adjectives means anything, the so-called Country group is on top of the nationalist section of the verbal trinity of “ See Pea Hens “, and the Nationals at the bottom, with anything progressive squeezed tightly without hope of release between the upper and nether millstones. Personally, I am strongly against a multiplicity of parties, with confounding slogans and policies. Labour knows only one enemy, and it is not seeking the aid of, nor is it anxious to assist, false friends, because it knows that, while a bad motive may secure a temporary success, the straightforward course is the only short road to a victory that is satisfying and lasting. One tory senator from a southern State entered this chamber by performing the circus trick of riding the National, Liberal, and Country parties, and getting votes from each. It is a form of political dishonesty for Labour’s opponents to pose as separate parties, and coalesce at the last moment before the elections, or in Parliament, unitedly to oppose Labour on every critical issue. We have supported the Government on the tariff items because its policy was more acceptable than that of its opponents. I have been tempted to ask for increased duties on certain items, but did not do so because the Labour party had not the numbers to secure the adoption of a request, and because I know that the Government is committed to tariff revision upon the basis of the Tariff Board’s reports. It is ridiculous for the extreme wing of the non-Labour parties to attempt to reduce duties merely for propaganda purposes. Senator Hardy cast an undeserved shir on the members of the Lang group. At the elections in 1928, Senators Dunn and Rae were returned as members of the Federal Labour party. Since that date the Lang group has had a difference of opinion with that party, but it was as members of the party that the electors of New South Wales entrusted Senators Dunn and Rae with the responsibility of representing Labour in this Parliament. Those honorable gentlemen are fully entitled to join with other members of the Opposition in supporting the moderately protective policy of the Government. There is no justification for the sneering statement that the Government is uniting with members of the Lang group, but I, personally, would sooner he associated with the Lang group than with the Country party which seeks Labour votes only for its. own purposes.

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

– When, during the debate on the second reading of the customs tariff, Senator

Hardy asked for the production of the Tariff Board’s report on primage and exchange, I was much impressed by what he said. But the answer of the Leader of the Senate fully satisfied me, and it has not since been canvassed. If not unanswerable it was unanswered.

Some senators have referred to-night to the Government having been saved from defeat on the customs tariff by the votes of its political opponents. I remind honorable senators that governments are not defeated in this chamber, and that fact is of extreme importance to those who have voted against items sponsored by the Government.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

Senator RAE:

– Senator Dunn and I certainly did not; other Labour senators can answer for themselves. In no circumstances could we support a freetrade policy, which would mean opening the doors to the importation of goods produced by coloured labour. I have no racial prejudices, but coloured labour is utilized for breaking down the standard of living of the white man.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

.- The party to which I belong has ample justification for the votes that it has cast to-day in support of the Government’s tariff policy. In that respect, we have been consistent, and we shall remain so. I wonder, however, how Senator Hardy, who became hysterical in this chamber about a fortnight ago in his denunciation of the Government, and particularly of certain members of it, for having broken an alleged agreement between them and the Country party prior to the last election, can justify the votes which he and his colleagues have given here to-day, in view of a statement made by Mr. C. L. A. Abbott, who, according to Senator Hardy, took a prominent part at the conference between representatives of the United Australia party and the United Country party. In to-day’s Sydney Morning Herald, Mr. Abbott is reported to have said -

The conference was unanimous on this, and it was undoubtedly implied that tariff revision should be carried out by an impartial tribunal, such as the Tariff Board, but not by Parliament.

Yet to-day we have had the spectacle of Senator Hardy and his Country party colleagues consistently voting for tariffmaking by the Parliament, ignoring the appeal of the Government to wait until reports on the items had been received from the Tariff Board. It is not we, but they, who have changed their front.

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

[10.55].- I thought that I had fully dealt with the subject of exchange, which has been mentioned by Senators Badman, Carroll and Hardy. If those honorable senators read my speech, they will realize that it is impracticable to deal with the exchange position in connexion with individual tariff items. I distinctly pointed out, and, I think, proved that it would be necessary to apply a formula or formulae to the tariff as a whole. At any rate, I was under the impression that I had thoroughly satisfied the Senate on that point.

Senator Hardy:

– The only reason why we brought the matter up was to avoid the recommittal of the bill.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– We have heard some interesting revelations to-night, and I desire to say a few. words regarding some of the reflections of Senators Hardy and Badman upon the association of the Labour party with the Government in support of the tariff schedule. Honorable senators of the Labour party have given their reasons for this. They have voted in accord ance with their party’s policy of protection, and because the requested amendments were for the reduction of the amount of protection afforded. For that action members of the Labour party will answer to their own constituents. I can only express my surprise that the Government was not supported by members of the Country party, for I say, advisedly, that we had far more right to expect the votes of honorable senators of the Country party on the divisions that have taken place during the last two days than those of any other section in this chamber.

Senator Hardy:

– Why?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Because practically every item on which we have had a division provides for a duty that was either introduced by the Bruce-Page Government, or was on the statute-book during that Government’s term of office, and that Government could not have lived for a day without the support of the Country party. That ministry always included four members of the Country party, and those members were equally responsible for the items with which we have been dealing to-day. If the Bruce-Page Government had not received the support of the Country party in another place, it could not have continued in office for a day, and could not have placed those duties on the statute-book or retained them there.

Senator Hardy:

– But the exchange position was not the same then as it is now.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The Country party is just as responsible as the Nationalist party for every one of the items on which we have voted to-day ; but we have had the spectacle of members of the Country party voting to reduce items sponsored by a government that was kept in office because of their support. We have every right to expect the support of the Country party for a government whose only crime is that it has asked for the continuance of duties that were imposed or retained by the BrucePage Government. Therefore, I think that Senator Hardy’s criticism to-night might better have been directed to his own party than to members of the Labour party.

Senator Barnes:

– We were endeavouring to save Australian industries.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– To Senator Hardy it is, apparently, heinous for the Labour parly to vote strictly in accordance with its principles, and support the Government, as it has done, during the last few days; but it would be a praiseworthy act if Labour senators had listened to the blandishments of Senator Hardy, and voted against’ their own convictions for a reduction of duties. Labour senators are taunted because they are voting in accordance with their own principles, which on this occasion happen to coincide with the attitude taken up by the Government, and that is precisely the attitude taken up by the Bruce-Page Government on. each of the items voted upon to-day.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at11 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 June 1933, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1933/19330621_senate_13_140/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate21 June 1933

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY ECONOMIES

Senator SAMPSON:TASMANIA

The PRESIDENT:

Senator SAMPSON:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator COLLINGS:QUEENSLAND

The PRESIDENT:

Senator DUNN:NEW SOUTH WALES

The PRESIDENT:

Senator BARNES:VICTORIA

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Collings:

Senator MacDONALD:QUEENSLAND

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator MacDONALD:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator MacDONALD:

QUESTION

FEDERAL LAND TAX

Senator GUTHRIE:VICTORIA

Senator Sir WALTER GREENE:Assistant Minister (Treasury) · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

TRADE RELATIONS WITH NEW ZEALAND

Senator RAE:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Sir WALTER GREENE:Assistant Minister (Treasury) · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

BRITISH DEBT TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Senator DUNN:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

QUESTION

CUSTOMS TARIFF DEBATE

Senator RAE:

PAPER

Papua - Annual Report for 1931-32

QUESTION

INTEREST ON FOREIGN AND BRITISH LOANS

Senator DUNN:

SALE OF AUSTRALIAN BUTTER IN ENGLAND

Senator DOOLEY:NEW SOUTH WALES

QUESTION

DISGUISED?

The PRESIDENT:

Senator McLACHLAN:Minister in charge of Development and Scientific and Industrial Research · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator DUNN:

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

FILM DUTIES

Senator DUNN:

QUESTION

FRIVOLOUS QUESTION

Senator BRENNAN:VICTORIA

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO WHEAT-GROWERS

Senator E B JOHNSTON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

QUESTION

AUSTRALASIAN PERFORMING RIGHT ASSOCIATION

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

QUESTION

RACE-COURSE AND SHOW GROUND AT CANBERRA

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

QUESTION

WIRELESS BROADCASTING PROGRAMMES

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator McLACHLAN:UAP

QUESTION

ARTICLES ON FINANCE BY MR. F. W. EGGLESTON

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

QUESTION

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS AEROPLANE

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD’S REPORT ON PIPES AND TUBES

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Sir WALTER GREENE:Assistant Minister (Treasury) · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

Senate
21 June 1933

Senator SAMPSON:
TASMANIA

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator DUNN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

Senator MacDONALD:
QUEENSLAND

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA

Senator Sir WALTER GREENE:
Assistant Minister (Treasury) · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Sir WALTER GREENE:
Assistant Minister (Treasury) · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DOOLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McLACHLAN:
Minister in charge of Development and Scientific and Industrial Research · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator BRENNAN:
VICTORIA

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

Senator Sir WALTER GREENE:
Assistant Minister (Treasury) · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator J B HAYES:
TASMANIA

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

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

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator BADMAN:
South Australia

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

Senator Sir WALTER GREENE:
Assistant Minister (Treasury) · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Sir WALTER GREENE:
Assistant Minister (Treasury) · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

Senator RAE:
New South Wales