House of Representatives
29 November 1921

8^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PAPERS
QUESTION
- STARVATION IN RUSSIA
QUESTION
- ANTI-DUMPING LEGISLATION
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION
QUESTION
- NEW GUINEA
QUESTION
- DEFENCE DEPARTMENT: DISMISSALS
QUESTION
- THE ROWAN COLLECTION
WAR SERVICE HOMES
- Complaint of Faulty Construction
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL: SENATE’S REQUESTS
WAR SERVICE HOMES
- Surplus Stores
QUESTION
- EXPORT OF GOLD
QUESTION
- FRUIT POOL
QUESTION
- ALLEGED CRUELTY TO NATIVES AT RABAUL
QUESTION
- RECONSTRUCTION OF THE MINISTRY
QUESTION
- CLOSE OF SESSION
QUESTION
- NEW LIGHTHOUSES
QUESTION
- TRADE WITH ORIENT
QUESTION
- BATTLE-SHIPS
SOLDIERS’ DEPENDANTS
APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1921-22
ESTIMATES, 1921-22
- Ordered -
- Treasury Department

Mr. Speaker (Hon. Sir Elliot Johnson) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 13309

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Customs Act-

Proclamation (dated 16th November, 1921) revoking the Proclamation (dated 2nd July, 1916) which prohibited the exportation - of all goods to (late) German New Guinea.

Proclamation (dated 16th November, 1921) revoking the Proclamation (dated 24th September, 1919) which prohibited the exportation of rabbit skins.

Proclamation (dated 16th November, 1921) revoking the Proclamation (dated 14th August, 1918) which prohibited the exportation of sausage casings.

Regulations Amended - Statuory Rules 1921, No. 218.

Norfolk Island - Ordinance of 1921- No. 5 - Prevention of cruelty to animals.

Northern Territory - Ordinance of 1921 - No. 15 - Foreign marriage.

War Service Homes Commission - Further correspondence in the case of Mr. J. T. Caldwell, and also relating to charges made by Mr. T. R. Ashworth.

page 13309

QUESTION

STARVATION IN RUSSIA

Commonwealth Assistance

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Prime Ministerable to say now what is the intention of the Government in regard to relieving the distress occasioned by the Russian famine?

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · NAT

– The Government has decided to co-operate with the Governments of other civilized nations in the relief of the famine-stricken populations of Central Europe and Russia, and has been in communication with the authorities of Great Britain with a view to making a donation in kind, with meat and wheat, to the value of £50,000.

Mr Charlton:

– Will that meat and wheat be supplied from Australia or from stocks that may bo held abroad?

Mr HUGHES:

– The wheat must, 1 think, in any case, be supplied from Australia. But as time is of the essence of the contract, and as these people are starving, we propose, if possible, to take the meat from England. If that is not possible, we must send it from here.

NEW GUINEA

Flogging of Natives

Mr MAHONY:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the serious allegation that natives are being flogged at Rabaul, will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of appointing a Committee of members of this House for the purpose of thoroughly investigating the whole matter?

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– If members wish to visit Rabaul, no obstacles will be put in their way by the Government; but it is surely not necessary to invent for the purpose such an investigation as is suggested. ‘ Members can go at any time and make all the inquiries they desire. The Government does not admit that the facts are not as they have been set out. Speaking for myself, and for myself only, I am not in favour of that kind of administration that considers merely the natives and not the white population. The other day, when replying to a question, I said that if natives had been flogged they had been flogged because they were prowling about and molesting white women. Does this House wish the Government to tolerate that sort of thing? If it does, let it say so. I added that those who ordered the floggings had been dismissed. That disposes of Government complicity in the matter. I do not propose to allow people, whether they be black or white, to prowl about, molesting and frightening white women.

– I want to know how many “brass hats” have been dismissed? Mr. SPEAKER. - Although the Standing Orders make no special provision for the asking of questions without notice, and questions without notice are never invited, the opportunity to put such questions occurs when notices of motion are called on, but they are supposed to deal only with matters of urgent public importance. If this practice of constantly heckling Ministers, while they are endeavouring to reply to questions without notice, is to be continued, the House will have to seriously consider the whole position, since it gives rise to an irregular debate which is clearly opposed to all parliamentary procedure. If honorable members desire information, and Ministers are willing to supply it in response to questions without notice, then, as a matter of common courtesy, Ministers should be allowed to give their replies without interruption.

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:

– In continuation of my reply to the questions put by the honorable member for Brisbane, I wish to say that, unfortunately, this cutting down must apply to the temporary employees of the Department, and that, as amongst the temporary employees there are no senior officers, it cannot apply to them. It applies at present only to the temporary staff, but if,when we go into Committee on the general Estimates - and I do not say this by way of a threat - a further attempt is made to apply the “meat-axe” to the Defence Estimates, there will probably have to be a reduction of the permanent, as well as the temporary, staff.

page 13312

QUESTION

THE ROWAN COLLECTION

Mr BLAKELEY:

– Will the Prime Minister state whether the Government intend to carry out their promise to purchase, on behalf of the Commonwealth, the valuable and historical Rowan collection?

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– As I have not, the papers at hand, I must speak from memory. The matter was submitted to the art advisers of the Government, and I think their report was to the effect that the paintings of the Rowan collection were of great scientific, educational, and artistic value. Some of them, as the honorable member is, perhaps, aware, are pictures of the flora and fauna of other countries besides Australia, but the great majority of them relate to Australia and New Guinea. It was proposed by the Committee that £2,000 should be given for such of the paintings as applied to the fauna and flora of Australia and New Guinea. As that would amount to something like £2 or £3 per picture, the price seemed to be absurd. In view of the declaration of the Committee that the collection is of great artistic, scientific, and educational value, the Government is of the opinion that such an offer would be an insult to Mrs. Rowan. Mrs. Rowan is prepared to take payment in Papuan lands for the greater part of her collection, and it will be for the House to express an opinion as to whether we should acquire it on those terms. It has been my good fortune to see the collection, and I think it would be a very great pity if Australia did not acquire it. I, however, am not going to offer Mrs. Rowan £2,000 for her life’s work. If the House thinks that we should acquire these paintings, we should offer Mrs. Rowan a fair price for them. She has asked, I believe, £21,000 for the collection. Whether that is fair or not I am unable to say, but an offer of £2,000 would obviously be absurd.

page 13312

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Complaint of Faulty Construction

Mr LISTER:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Has the Assistant

Minister for Repatriation seen the statement made by Mr. Turnbull, President of the Victorian Branch of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia, with regard to the faulty construction and bad drainage of certain War Service Homes at Northcote? If so, is the honorable gentleman in a position to inform the House what he contemplates doing in the matter?

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– I have not only seen the statement, but have inquired into it. Early this morning I sent for the Deputy Commissioner and the branch architect, and they inform me that there is no War Service Home in Northcote in the condition described by Mr. Turnbull. Only two Victorian cases have been brought under the notice of the Department. One is that of a house at Coburg, which was built by the Commonwealth Bank on land bought by the soldier himself. The Department has carried out the work of drainage, but as to that the person complaining is silent. The second case is that of a house in Herbert-street, Preston. That, I believe, is the house referred to by Mr. Turnbull. In that case also the Department is carrying out the necessary drainage work. I regret to say that statements of this kind would make it appear that nothing had been done by the Department, whereas the fact is that the remedy has been applied.

page 13312

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL: SENATE’S REQUESTS

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– In view of the very great importance of the constitutional issue at stake, will the Prime Minister mention to the House on what day the Government will indicate their attitude regarding the Senate’s action in pressing certain requested amendments to the Customs Tariff Bill? Honorable members would like to know the day on which this matter will be considered, so that they may be in their places to discuss it.

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

– There are very many matters of great importance to be considered and, therefore, it would be to the interests of the House and the country if honorable members were in their places every day. Amidst such a galaxy of important questions, it ia not for me to single out any particular one for special notice. Although the question of whether or not certain rights of this House are being invaded is very important, still, I do not know that the country is aching to hear a discussion on the subject, or that its many and great troubles would be sensibly relieved by a decision one way or the other. All I have to say is that if honorable members who are interested are in their places every day they will reoeive notice of an opportunity to discuss this question before the House is prorogued.

page 13313

WAR SERVICE HOMES

QUESTION

NEW LIGHTHOUSES

Palm Passage, Great Barrier Reef

Mr STORY:
for Mr. Bamford

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Will he state upon what new lighthouses and apparatus the amount allocated under the

Loan Appropriation Bill, namely, £10,404, will bo expended, and the estimated cost of each new light?

Willhe say whether, in framing these estimates, consideration has been given to the advisability of providing lights to permit of the safe navigation of what is known as Palm Passage through the Great BarrierReef?

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are: -

The lighthouses affected are as follow: - South Brook, Hannibal Island, Albany Rock, Ince Point, Eborac Island, and HammondRock ; the estimated cost of each new light being £5,320, £5,500, £3,800, £4,500, £4,275, and £1,150 respectively. Apparatus will be provided for Cairn Cross, Hannah Island, and Bestoration Bock at a total estimated cost of £3,200.
This question has received full consideration, with the result that it has been decided that it must stand over until more urgent work in Queensland waters shall have been completed. It may be mentioned that two vessels only have arrived at Townsville direct, and three via Cairns, using Palm Passage, during the last two years.

page 13314

QUESTION

TRADE WITH ORIENT

Commissioner’s Report

Mr MAXWELL:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice-

Whether he has received a report from the Trade Commissioner in the East (Mr. Little) ; if so, what is the nature of such report?

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– A report has been received, the nature of which can be ascertained by reference to pages 15 to 18 inclusive of the annual report issued by the Bureau of Commerce and Industry, a copy of which has been sent to each honorable member. This portion of the report was compiled from the report received from the Trade Commissioner and correspondence which has taken place with the Commissioner. Mr. Little has been instructed to report fully at frequent intervals.

page 13314

QUESTION

BATTLE-SHIPS

Approximate Cost

Mr RILEY:
for Dr. Maloney

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

What is the approximate cost of the latest up-to-date capital ship, including its full equipment?

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
Minister for the Navy · DENISON, TASMANIA · NAT

– Approximately £7,000,000 sterling.

page 13314

SOLDIERS’ DEPENDANTS

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
NAT

– On Fri day last the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) drew my attention to the case of the dependants of a soldier who was gassed and injured on active service, and who has since had to enter a mental hospital. I have made inquiries regarding this case, and find that the matter is one for the consideration of my colleague the Minister for Repatriation, to whom I have accordingly forwarded the honorable member’s representations.

page 13314

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1921-22

Assent reported.

page 13314

ESTIMATES, 1921-22

In Committee of Supply (Considera tion resumed from 25th November, vide page 13307) :

Department of the Treasury.

Ordered -

That the further consideration of the votes under the Department of the Treasury be postponed until after the consideration of postponed divisions 24 to 27a.

Department of the Prime Minister.

Postponed division 24(Commonwealth Shipbuilding), £24,253.

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister and Attorney-General · Bendigo · NAT

– I do not propose to address the Committee at length now, but it will be recollected that on the 16th instant, when I had the honour of setting out the position in regard to the Commonwealth Line of Steamers and Commonwealth Shipbuilding, I said that an offer had been made, if I remember right, in 1919 to purchase the Commonwealth Line of Steamers, and that I had reason to believe that we could sell our ships now if we desired to do so. I have here a cablegram dated 17th November, which is of so much importance that I propose to read it to the Committee. Mr. Larkin, the General Manager of the Commonwealth Line of Steamers, has cabled to me conveying the following message from Lord Inchcape, which his Lordship wished him to forward to me: -

I realize that prospects of shipping all over the world for several years to come are extremely bad. Americans have overbuilt them- selves at high costs, Germany is building at low costs, while tonnage at present laid up is more than can be profitably utilized for some years. The Conference Lines to Australia must keep their ships running even at serious loss, utilizing their accumulated reserves to take up deficiencies. I recognise, and admit quite freely, that Australian Government, with taxpayers behind it, can go on indefinitely, and that Conference Lines may eventually be ruined. I am prepared to recommend Conference to come to an agreement with Australian Government, either to buy its ships on reasonable terms, or to suggest they should sell their ships to Australian Government, and leave latter a free field. If you decide to adopt the first alternative, I feel sure an arrangement satisfactory to you could be arrived at; and I may say the same if you decide to adopt the latter.

– I understand that is what is suggested by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Watt).

Mr Hughes:

– No.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– For a long time most of these matters have been only nominally under the Department of the Prime Minister.

Mr Atkinson:

– But are they building boats more cheaply?

Mr.Mcwilliams.- The disquieting aspect, to , my mind, is that the Royal Commission could not get from a single officer the slightest indication that there would be any reduction in the cost of ship construction in future. The evidence was not published, but it is available. The great Inchcape Combine governs British shipping, and the Morgan Trust controls American shipping. Those two great Combines are practically working in unison, and it may be news to some honorable members to know that they own a very considerable portion of the shipping plying on the Australiancoast to-day. For instance, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which bought out the Union Company, has joined the Inchcape Combine. The Union Company is in partnership with Huddart, Parker, and Company, and several of the other lines have been bought out, so it is exceedingly difficult now to find lines of steamers which are not in this Combine. My complaint is that the Commonwealth Line has not hitherto proved a check on the rates of freight charged between Great Britain and Australia.

Mr Poynton:

– That is not correct.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is a complaint against the management, and is not a valid objection to the principle.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I remember recently reading a statement by Mr. Larkin that it was not his intention to enter into a war of freights with the Conference Line. Information came to us the other day that there was a prospect of certain freights being reduced. It was stated that one company was prepared to reduce freights, but that the others would not agree to do so, and the one that was prepared to make a reduction was not the Commonwealth Line.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– To which company do you 2’efer?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The name was refused me, but I shall make an attempt to’ obtain it for the Minister.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I should like to have it. Mr. McWILLIAMS.- I have mentioned previously that prior to the war the fruit freight to Great Britain from Australia, including Tasmania, ran from 2a. 3d. to 2s. 9d. pex case. While the war was in progress, the then Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Jensen), after going closely into the figures and facts, permitted a charge of, I think, 3s. 6d. per case, which he said was a fair price. That was when the insurance rates were high, owing to war risks. Now, with the war over, the charge has been increased to 8s. for a bushel case. The honorable member for Grampians (Mr. Jowett) has repeatedly brought under notice the freight on meat. The cost of running ships must, of course, bo taken into consideration. I put a question, I think, to the Prime Minister some time ago, and he told the House that the cost of running a boat from Australia to England was now 285 per cent, higher than before the war. This Parliament must make a choice deliberately and quickly, unless the primary products of Australia are to be shut out of the world’s markets. We must either reduce the cost of running ships and the cost of building them, or we must make a deliberate vote in order to meet the added .cost. We have already agreed to p.. duty of 25 per cent, on vessels, and that increases the capital cost by onefourth. Running costs having increased 285 per cent, as compared with the figures of seven years ago, we must either deal effectively with this serious situation, or Australia’s primary products will not be able to reach the markets of the world. Australia, is 12,000 miles from the Mother Country, and we have to compete with Canada, the United States of America, the Argentine, and Europe, from any one of which countries it is not half so far to Great Britain a& it is from Australia.

Mr Mahony:

– Would it help f.. if we disposed of the Commonwealth Line and ceased to build ships?

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– I am trying to put the case fairly and moderately. So far as the running of ships by the Government is concerned, I can see Scylla on the one hand and Charybdis on the other. The main justification for the Commonwealth acquiring a line of steamers at all was that it would prove a check on the’ Combine, but the Commonwealth Line has failed in that respect.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I can assure the honorable member that it has not failed.

Mr Gabb:

– Why are these people willing to buy our ships if the Commonwealth Line is no check on them?

Mr Mcwilliams:

– it is my deliberate opinion that, in regard to every line of freight, there is a gentleman’s arrangement between the management of the Commonwealth Line in England and the management of the combined companies.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is a very serious thing to say.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

– It is a serious matter.

The Prime Minister stated the other day that he would resolutely refuse to allow politics to be brought into the management of the Commonwealth Line. That would be a very good stunt if it were carried out, but it is not carried out. This is one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Seacarriage of Goods which investigated shipping matters some three years ago -

Your Committee has been advised that changes have been made in the agencies of the Commonwealth Line of Steamers dlt Australian ports by the establishment of branch offices at various ports. Your Committee recommends that, wherever possible, this policy should be extended and the oversea agency taken out of the hands of firms who are also agents for privately-owned steam-ship companies.

The management of the Commonwealth Line of Steamers enforces everywhere but in Hobart the very wholesome regulation that no one who is an agent for the steamers of the combined companies shall act as agent for the Commonwealth Line.

Mr Atkinson:

– Who has the agency of the Commonwealth Line at Hobart?

Mr mcwilliams:

– Sir Henry Jones and Company; the very firm that should not have it. Last year, that firm tried to crush out a local co-operative company in regard to a shipment of fruit by a vessel for which it was agent, and that action in itself should have determined the Government that it must no longer represent the Commonwealth Line. It is, however, the only one of the agents for the combined steam-ship companies that has been allowed to retain the agency of the Commonwealth Line. i think it was the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Richard Foster) who moved the insertion in the report of the paragraph that i have read. The firm that i have named used its opportunities last year to the prejudice of a local cooperative company, and should not be allowed to retain the Commonwealth agency. It is malting a special charge for shipping arrangements which should not he allowed. I have spoken of this matter here before. The honorable member for Wakefield and others who were on the Committee know that the management of the Commonwealth Line expressed its disapproval of the arrangement. I was asked to advocate the handing over of the agency to a co-operative company, but I replied, “No. There is a State-owned steam-ship company in Tasmania, and it should be the agent for the Commonwealth Line. If it were the agent, all who approached it would get a fair deal.”

I differ from the Prime Minister on the subject of the wooden ships that were built for the Commonwealth. Those vessels failed, not because they were wooden but because they were badly constructed. The pumps had to be used all the way to Australia on the first of the wooden vessels that* came here from America to keep her afloat.

Mr Poynton:

– That was not the vessel.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– The statement applies to nearly all the wooden vessels built in America. One of them, when loading at Hobart, had to discontinue taking in cargo which was waiting for it, long before its hold space was fully occupied, because the water was pouring in between the top planks. The Prime Minister quoted me as having favoured the construction of wooden vessels, and it is because of that quotation that I am referring to the matter now. Immediately after the war broke out I advocated the construction locally of two Dieselengined fore and aft schooners of 1,000 tons, or a little more, each. The price was to be £25 per ton, and a builder was willing to bind himself under an enormous penalty to construct the vessels within twelve months. The “Government made a very great mistake in not haying those vessels built. No one complained when steamers were taken away from Australia to assist the Empire elsewhere in the conduct of the war ; but the dearth of coastal shipping which resulted caused produce to rot, and timber to warp, everywhere in Tasmania.

Mr Laird Smith:

– Where would you have got the Diesel engines?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Finlayson, of the Mersey, offered to supply them.

– Did they include the whole of the machinery ? While we have warships, we must make provision for repairing them, and must keep employed the staff needed for that service. If the figures given by the honorable member are correct, there is about £250,000 worth of material at Cockatoo Island.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– Three hundred and fifty thousand pounds’ worth.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– If we have on hand £350,000 worth of material for the construction of ships, then probably the best course would be to complete those now being built. I hope, however, that there will be a complete cessation of shipbuildingas it is now being carried on by the Government, because a vessel is no sooner completed and ready to be put into commission than she has to be tied up for lack of cargo. The Prime Minister has said that there is something like 11,000,000 tons of shipping over and above the ordinary requirements of the world to-day, and that statement, according to my reading, is by no means exaggerated. [Extension of time granted.] It is impossible for the Government to go on building ships at a cost very much in excess of their actual value when launched unless we are to have a millstone tied for all time round the neck of Australian trade. The one objectof building our Tariff wall higher and higher is to put a stop to importations. If our ships have to depend for their revenue on only one-way cargo, and if, in addition, we are to have these increased capital costs, and an increase of 285 per cent. in running costs, it will be impossible for our primary products to compete in the open markets of the world.

One of the great difficulties with which one is always confronted in reducing public expenditure is that it means to many loss of employment. Every department introduced creates vested interests. To set out on a policy of retrenchment, a man should have no heart. No one desires to see men thrown out of employment; and it makes one’s heart ache to learn that, because of the retrenchment already decided upon, 400 or 500 returned men have been thrown out of work. If the Government are to discontinue shipbuilding, thousands of men will be thrown out of employment. This Committee, however, must sooner or later face the position, and must cut down expenditure wherever it can reasonably do so. We cannot continue building ships at three times their value solely to create work. If the Commonwealth Line of Steamers is to be run in competition with other lines, the manager must be given a fair run. When giving evidenoe before the Committee appointed to inquire into the Cockatoo Island Dockyard, the Manager of the Commonwealth Line of Steamers said that he could not compete with the shipping of the world if in the construction of his ships his capital cost were overloaded. I know the Manager of the Commonwealth Line, and believe that the Government have been exceedingly fortunate in securing his services. He served in a good school - he was for years with the old Union Steam-ship Company - and knows the whole question of freightage from A to Z. He tells us deliberately that he cannot compete with private shipping companies if we overload his capital cost in the building of ships for. the Commonwealth Line as we are building them to-day.

Mr Hughes:

– It is impossible.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

-Quite so. If the Committee makes up. its mind that the Commonwealth shipbuilding programme shall be continued under existing conditions, then unless the export of our primary products is to be utterly destroyed, we shall have to make such financial arrangements as will enable that work to be carried on. We cannot build up the capital cost of our ships, increase the running costs by 285 per cent., and carry our primary products more than twice as fax as the produce of other countries has to be carried, unless we make special arrangements to bridge the financial chasm. The Prime . Minister has asked that the feeling of the Committee shall be tested. I think it should be. I therefore propose to move -

That, the proposed vote foe reduced by £1 as an instruction to the Government that the Committee does not consider that shipbuilding should be continued under present conditions except where such large sums have been expended as would justify the completion of the work,

– If .it represents the policy of the Government, then there can be no objection to placing on record the fact that it is also the policy of the Committee. As it has been pointed out, however, that to submit such an amendment now would be to restrict the debate, I shall allow it to stand over for the present.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

– I do not think much is to be gained by referring at this stage to the shipbuilding and ship-purchasing operations of the Government during the war period. Much to which we could have objected, and against which I strongly protested as the time, was done ; but while the war was in progress emergent conditions were constantly arising, and the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, had to be left free to a large extent to do what they considered to be best for the proper defence of Australia. The honorable member who has just resumed his seat has referred to the establishment oi what was known as the Shipbuilding Tribunal, which managed in a very extraordinary way to settle the disputes which arose from time to time by practically conceding the demands made without any consideration for the Government. Whether the disputes were right or wrong, those who created them - the workmen immediately concerned - were the men in whose favour the decisions of the Tribunal were invariably given. Such a one-sided “ Heads I win, tails you lose,” sort of Tribunal was no commendation to the Commonwealth shipbuilding policy. I am glad that the Government have intimated their determination to put an end to Commonwealth shipbuilding. That decision does not mean that the industry is not to be carried on in Australia. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) has indicated very clearly that he wants to offer every facility to the development of the shipbuilding industry by any private individual or firm that chooses to commence operations here. He has said that, as far as possible, the docks and machinery of the Government will be placed at the disposal of such people. In addition, the Government have deliberately imposed a duty of 25 per cent, to protect and encourage the shipbuilding industry in Australia. If the industry is to be a profitable one, then the Government offer every facility for its development. If it is going to be an unprofitable industry, that is a special reason why the Government should at once bring it to an end. If we are to continue the ownership^ of the existing Commonwealth Line of Steamers it may be necessary to some extent that we should at least have in the Commonwealth repairing yards, apart from those controlled by private enterprise. Assuming that we are going to continue, the ownership of the Commonwealth steamers, ship repairing yards must be available to the Government at any time.

I applaud the decision of the Government. I am distinctly opposed to the continuation of the industry by the Government itself. The exigencies of the war have passed. The circumstances which might then have justified the Government in entering upon the industry no longer exist, and the time has arrived for us to survey the whole position, and to say how best we can get out of it. I admit that the sudden discharge of a great number of workmen must give rise to difficulties, and it must be left to some extent to the Government to make the change as gradual as possible, so that there will be no undue hardship.

Mr Atkinson:

– They must ease down the position.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

Mr Hughes:

– It evidently includes the “ Austral “ ships at their book value

Sir ROBERT BEST:

Mr Corser:

– There is no doubt about that.

Mr POYNTON:

– The honorable member, as a business man, knows that the Line was able to bring down prices, which others would not do.

In order to remove the impression some seem to have that Mr. Farquhar, who is in charge of shipbuilding, is incompetent, I take this opportunity of placing that gentleman’s qualifications on record. He has had fifty years’ experience in commercial and naval shipbuilding. As a boy he passed through the drawing office, and then the mould loft and yard. He then became, in turn, assistant draughtsman, chief draughtsman, naval architect, works manager, general manager, and director. For thirteen years he was manager and director of the well-known firm of J. Samuel White and Company Limited, of the Isle of Wight. He is a member of the Institute of Naval Architects. I have a book with me which honorable members can peruse. It shows the class of naval ships turned out in works of which he has had control. Some of the vessels have put up wonderful records. I think that this statement of Mr. Farquhar’s qualifications as a naval architect will dispel any fear that he is not qualified to complete the unfinished vessels at Cockatoo Island.

Provision is made on this year’s Estimates for an expenditure of £3,000,000 upon ship construction. The bulk of this money will be spent on ships which are being constructed overseas. It is anticipated that the payment to Vickers Limited for the period will be £1,267,000. We hope that the vessels they have under construction will be practically completed during the twelve months. It is also anticipated that £900,000 will be paid this year to Beardmore’s. These two amounts leave but a small balance for the construction of ships in Australia. These payments swell the Estimates for this year, but as a result of the completion of the vessels overseas this item for construction will practically disappear next year. In Australia there are three further vessels of the E type to be launched; two during December, and one in January next, which will leave only two others of that type still to be constructed out of the original contract; one by Poole and Steel, of Adelaide, and one at Williamstown, which is to be put together from material supplied by Walkers Limited, Queensland. At Cockatoo Island we have the material and a large portion of the engines for two 12,800-ton ships, which will provide about 350,000 cubic feet of refrigerated space.

Mr Riley:

– I understand that all the machinery for those vessels is nearly complete. *

Mr POYNTON:

Ihave to acknowledge receipt of your favour of the15th inst. enclosing account for £722 2s.1d., for which I enclose herewith my company’s cheque, and would ask you to accept our thanks for the skilful and expeditious manner in which the work was completed - only one week from start to finish.

The work was a large shaft for a winding engine. The letter continues -

I am pleased to state that since the installation of the shaft the engine has been giving every satisfaction. . . . We express our sincere appreciation of the excellent work performed, and shall have no hesitation in recommending Cockatoo Island for work of a similar nature.

Mr.Fenton. - This is private enterprise testimonializing Government enterprise.

Mr POYNTON:

– That testimonial came unsolicited from a person who is carrying on business in rather a large way.

Something has been said about the losses incurred in connexion with wooden ships, and a quotation on the subject was made some little time ago from the publication Fair Flay. I am going to quote also from Fair Flay an extract from, a speech delivered by the Chairman of the American Shipping Board. He said, in the first place, that America lost £79,000,000-I am reducing the dollars to sterling - in her war shipping undertakings. He said at the close of his speech that they lost no less than £65,000,000 on wooden ships. But do they talk about closing down?

Mr Fowler:

– They have closed down on Government shipbuilding.

Mr POYNTON:

– Let honorable members listen to this statement by the Chairman of the American Shipping Board -

In other words, the Shipping Board is not disheartened. The very purpose, startling as these figures are, proves to us that with patience something can be done, and out of this wreck, like Phoenix from its ashes, a real American merchant marine can arise that will be worth all the penalties that we have suf fered, and when prosperity comes to the world, that marine will be the greatest insurance that America will get its full share.

Mr Bruce:

– When did he say that ?

Mr POYNTON:

– Quite recently. The quotation is taken from Fair Play for the 4th August of this year. I make the quotation in order to show the spirit with which they are facing the position in America. Here we are cavilling over a few pounds.

Mr Charlton:

– Japan is also giving every encouragement to shipbuilding.

Mr POYNTON:

Mr PROWSE:

– If the increase had been limited to 50 per cent., I would be inclined to say that that margin was no more than fair. The Commonwealth shipping authorities, however, were influenced by the Inchcape interests. Freights upon fertilizers imported to this country were inflated far above pre-war rates. During the war Australia was short of petrol supplies with which to run many of her industries. Those industries were exploited by inordinate freight charges. The Minister for Home and Territories1 (Mr. Poynton) made reference to the conveyance of stock between the various States. Had more sympathy been shown with respect to the transport of fodder for Australian stock; Lad the Government done more in that direction, instead of permitting their vessels to carry petrol across the seas at profiteering rates, Australia would have benefited infinitely more. Much stock would have been saved in New South Wales which perished because fodder, which was available in some of the_ States, could not be shipped in adequate quantities to the drought-stricken areas. My main complaint is that the Commonwealth Line is only an appendage of the Inchcape interests of to-day. The Commonwealth vessels are having no effect upon the Combine.

The Government has tried to cut in, while running in agreement with the Combine. There is an understanding with the Combine regarding rates. I hope that, when the Committee has de cided that the Government shall not build any more ships than .those for which the keels have been laid down, we shall then consider Lord Inchcape’s offer. I want to hear more about that offer; although it has been made, it is too indefinite in its present form for the Committee to consider. The full nature of the offer ought to be disclosed. I take it that it is an alternative offer, and if Parliament and the people are sincere in a desire to have a fleet in Australia, here is an opportunity of having the trade to ourselves uninterruptedly. I am opposed to Government control; I have seen enough of it recently, and the Australian taxpayers are paying enough for it, and will continue to pay for it. We have an opportunity to buy Lord Inchcape’s section of the Australian Fleet, or, as an alternative, he to buy our fleet. I want to know what the terms of the offer are. Will Australia be guaranteed sufficient tonnage and insulated space ? I think the farmer will be more inclined to listen to those who are his friends than to those who have other interests than his at heart. I do not think that we should allow the offer to rest where it is. I think it would be infinitely better to sell the ships, even if they have made a profit in the past which would liquidate their cost, and leave something to spare, than to now lay them up for barnacles to fasten to them. I would regard the opportunity to sell the ships almost as a godsend. The statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), and of the Minister controlling shipping (Mr. Poynton), show clearly that the nations of the world have rushed in to shipbuilding, and that there is now an excess of tonnage over that required. Therefore, costs are down to zero. Ships are being built in other countries for one- third of what they are costing in Australia. No honorable member can say in those circumstances that we should assist Australia by building ships here. After all, the main thing is to get closer to the market, but by increasing the cost of ships we are getting further away from the world’s market. Whilst I may be persuaded to vote - although I think it is a bad proposition - for the completion of those ships the keels of which have been laid down, I think the Government should not undertake any further shipbuilding. If any one feels that the facilities for obtaining iron, coal, and other shipbuilding materials in Australia are such that they can profitably undertake shipbuilding here, let us, by all means, give them every opportunity. In my opinion, it was extremely unwise to put a duty on ships.

– That does not matter. There was one amount of £180,000 written off on one occasion, but i presume this has been restored to make up the £2,993,000. i have safeguarded myself by using the Prime Minister’s figures. We should endeavour to ascertain the value of the Shipping Line, what the profits are, and at what figure we could sell and get back our capital expenditure” without making any loss.

Sitting suspended from, 6.30 to S p.m.

Mr BRUCE:

– -rue ore tha adjournment I dealt with the position of the Commonwealth Shipping Line, the wooden steamers, and to a certain extent with the figures that have appeared in regard to the Austral Line, and the exenemy ships. I now wish to deal with the actual position of the ships we own, and the value at which they stand to the Commonwealh. In my figures I shall quote those used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), which deal with the cost of the vessels, the profits made, and their present capital cost to the Commonwealth. The actual position as shown by the statement of the Prime Minister is as follows : -

In those figures I have dealt with the “ D “ and “ E “ ships in commission and in course of construction, and have in- eluded the whole number in contemplation. The amount I have given as the original capital is that at which these ships stand, or which they are estimated to cost when completed. In connexion with the Austral Line I have taken into account the ships sold, and in regard to those lost the cost recovered from the underwriters. Against the original capital cost of £10,706,976 there are certain profits made both by the Austral Line and the ex-enemy ships, and the profits given by the Prime Minister the other day are the net profits earned to the 30th June, 1921, without making deduction for interest and depreciation. Certain depreciation does appear in the balance-sheet, and I am under the impression that that has been restored to the balance of profit and loss, and that is how the total of £2,900,000 is arrived at. The figures concerning the profits given by the Prime Minister were: -

If the value of that profit is employed in writing down the present value of the ships held by the Commonwealth, they stand in to the Commonwealth at £3,265,157. But to that amount interest on the money employed - the amount, again taking the Prime Minister’s figures, of £382,000- has to be added. That means that the fleet stands in the books of the Commonwealth at £3,647,157. The Prime Minister’s figures give the amount as £3,527,157, which shows a slight difference, which is accounted for probably in the additions, because the figures appear quite plain in the statement. If we take the Prime Minister’s figures, these ships stand in to the Commonwealth Government at £9 5s. per ton dead weight, which is, apparently, quite correct. I have heard that figure challenged, but I do not see how that can be done, because if we take the total dead-weight tonnage, and divide it into the capital value, the result will be found to be £9 5s. It seems to me, however, that the point on which, there may ba some difference of opinion is whether some of the steamers are worth that figure per ton. Some may be worth more, and some less, but the point we have to arrive at is whether £9 5s. per ton is a fair basis on which to value the asset. We have to take the different types of steamers into account, and the obvious place where one has to begin is on the Austral steamers still in commission. I have a list of these steamers showing the name, the year of construction, age in 1921, and the tonnage. It is as follows : -

The principal point which we have to consider, and one in which, I think, every one is. interested, is the average age, which is shown as thirteen years. ‘ The actual position is really worse than it might appear, because the average age is not a fair basis on which to work. According to the statement the Australport is only six years old, and the Australmead nine years, and these two have had a considerable effect in reducing the average age, which is shown as thirteen years.

Mr Bayley:

– What is the other extreme ?

Mr BRUCE:

– The Australpeak and the Australpool are fifteen years old. It is difficult to deal with the question of tonnages. The only tonnages that can be ascertained, so far as I can gather, are the gross tonnages; and I wish to make it perfectly clear that the figures in the statement are gross tonnages, and not dead-weight tonnages.

The average age of the eighteen exenemy ships is 14.61 years, and, for the information of the Committee, I submit the following table showing the name of the vessel, when built, age, and the tonnage : -

The point we have to determine is the value of the steamers to Australia andwhat is a fair price. In arriving at the value of the steamers, the only basis that can be relied upon is the price which we could obtain for them. If we are to consider this enterprise and endeavour to ascertain whether it is on a sound basis or not, we must look at that fact.

Mr Charlton:

– We should not have to do that.

Mr BRUCE:

– We must; and I shall give my reasons for doing so. We have to realize what ships of this character are worth. Recently, a sale of the Western Counties Shipping Company’s vessels was held, and the following table gives details which are of interest : -

The total gross tonnage is 33,572, and the dead-weight tonnage 56,275. The ships realized £266,200.

That brings me to the question of whether we are to go on with the shipping venture or have nothing further to do with it. So far as I have been able to understand, a majority of the members of this Chamber are prepared to go on with the Line for one reason, and for one only, and that is that they fear the machinations of the great Shipping Combine, if it is left unfettered in the Australian trade. They are desirous of seeing the Commonwealth Line kept in existence for the sake of maintaining competition with that Combine. In order to ascertain whether the Commonwealth Line would be of real value in future for the purpose of restraining that combination, we have to look at the records of the past when we had our vessels in operation under very favorable conditions. The war period was not a very difficult one for the shipping companies. There are only four things that have been claimed on behalf of the Commonwealth Line. The first thing Mr. Larkin has claimed is that our ships prevented the Conference Lines from increasing the general cargo rates last year, as they had done in other places. This, it is claimed, has saved us an increase of 25 per cent. That is one of the things that can never be ascertained with certainty, but there is, very possibly, some justification for the assertion. The second claim is that the Commonwealth Line has benefited shippers by incorporating the Commonwealth Sea Carriage of Goods Act provisions in bills of lading, and that various lines have followed with a clause tantamount to this. I think the Commonwealth Line can claim to have had a considerable effect in this direction. In the third place, it is said to have been of advantage to shippers by giving opportunity for shipping from other British ports. Finally, it is claimed that the Line has increased the bill of lading valuation limit. With regard to the lastnamed point there is not a shadow of doubt that the Commonwealth Line had a very considerable influence in that respect. The Conference Lines were refusing to accept liability for anything over £100 per package, but they have had to come into line eventually and increase that amount. It i3 open to question whether it was the Commonwealth Line which brought that about or whether it was obvious that the Conference Lines would have to increase the amount owing to the general increase in prices. I think, however, that the Commonwealth Line is entitled to claim some credit for what was done. Something has been achieved, I admit; but it is not very great, and I do not think that it is sufficient to justify the continuance of a Government venture for the specific purpose of checking the Conference Lines, if that is all we can do. Personally, I have great doubt if there is very much that we can accomplish. The first point to remember is that we have only sixteen steamers. Even when all the “ E “ and “ D “ class boats and the Bay steamers are completed, the Commonwealth Line will be in no sense equipped to compete with the Combine. The Australs and ex-enemy ships are finished with. Their rate of speed is about 7 or 8 knots, and, therefore’, they cannot compete with the shipping of the world. The vessels of the “D” type built here are too small. Their carrying capacity is not enough to make them serious competitors against privately- owned vessels. This leaves only the eleven “ E “ steamers and the five “ Bay “ steamers. These sixteen vessels cannot affect the Combine seriously, because there are not enough of them. We must recognise that the Commonwealth has, not fifty-one, but only sixteen, steamers with which to carry on a freight fight, and we must have many more to make an effective impression.

Mr Charlton:

– It would be better to have more steamers than to allow the Combine to regulate everything.

Mr Maxwell:

– Have you estimated the number of vessels required to effectively challenge the Combine?

Mr BRUCE:

– :No ; hut a large number would be needed, because at some seasons of the year you would want them coming one way, and at other seasons the reverse way. Competition cannot be worked effectively on a narrow margin. There must be a large number of ships which, at a. given moment can be diverted in a specified direction. But the path of the Combine in the immediate future is not going to be so easy that it will be able to do exactly as it pleases in the Australian trade. I am under no delusion as to what its policy would be if it could do as it wished. It has suffered great losses in the last year or two. It has seen its fleets depreciate, but has had to go on trading although losing money. If it had the opportunity it would no doubt try to get back what it has lost. Whether that would or would not be justifiable business procedure is not for me to say now. The question for us is, What could we do to stop it? I ‘am sure that we could not do anything without a very largie fleet. But I ask the Committee to consider whether the Combine will have an opportunity to do what it would like to do. The surplus shipping of the world amounts to about 10,000,000 tons. Ships are very expensive to run now, and for some time to come the rates of the Combine will remain high; but, should it carry them still higher, to a point at which it would get back the profits it has lost, there would be attracted to the Australian trade part of the shipping that is now lying idle. We have heard of what America hopes to do, and we know that the Scandinavian countries, Holland, Italy, and other countries are trying to get more ‘of the shipping business of the world. I do not think that the

British Shipping Combine will be able to raise freights to any figure it likes, because of the surplus shipping of the world, which will be a more effective control, upon its operations than we oan impose. Indeed, I am not at all sure that we can achieve control by continuing to run our ships. Moreover, one has to look at the matter as it affects the Australian taxpayer. Will it be possible to continue to inn the Commonwealth steamers without losing money on them ? Can they be run on a basis on which they will pay their way without the taxpayers of this country being called on to find large sums to make good their operations? I see no hope of that for some years to come. The shipping trade is depressed, and things will not right themselves within a year or two years; it will probably be much longer before the depression ends. The record of the working of our most successful shipping branch, the Austral Line, indicates the position. In 1917 it made £327,335; in 1918, £576,164; in 1919, £1,160,055; and in. 1920, £137,959. It reached the maximum of profit, and has since, like every other shipping ‘concern, been falling back. I think that for some years to come we can look for nothing but loss on our shipping venture, and I do not see what is to be gained by continuing it without compensating advantages. I do not think any one of us wishes to be a party to the running of these ships if they can be run only at a heavy loss, and at the expense of the general taxpayers, without reducing the cost of carrying our primary products below the prevailing rates. If we are going’ to run our vessels for some years merely to lose money on them, I see no reason for continuing in the business.

Mr Charlton:

– Which would be the cheaper to the taxpayer - to abandon the Line, and allow the Combine to increase freights, or to run the risk of making a profit? We have made the ships pay so far.

Mr BRUCE:

– If it were certain that by continuing to run the Line we could do something to check the Combine, that would have to be seriously considered as a factor in its favour; but my attempt has been to show that with the sixteen vessels to which I have referred we cannot do anything to check the Combine. If honorable members will review the history of the venture they will admit that it has not hitherto had a great effect in checking the Combine.

Mr Charlton:

– I do not think that the honorable member is justified in putting aside the vessels of the “D” and “E” type built in Australia, because the Combine uses vessels of the same capacity as tramp ships. Quite a number of them are trading here. They come to Newcastle regularly when there is a demand for them.

Mr BRUCE:

Mr Bruce:

– The figures which the right honorable gentleman gave the other day.

Mr HUGHES:

– I propose’ to confine myself to an examination of the honorable member’s argument as directed t© the Commonwealth Line of Steamers. Analyzing the different classes of ships that the Commonwealth. Line controls, the honorable member arrived at the conclusion that there were only some sixteen vessels that could be seriously considered, and that, for one reason or another, the others must be disregarded. I am afraid that I cannot accept that statement of the case. I think that, upon careful examination and inspection of the ships that come into the various ports of this country, he will see that a very large number of those which he has ruled out are quite equal to many of the ships that trade regularly to and from Australia. If that be so, it appears to me that it vitiates the honorable member’s argument which led him to the conclusion that the continuation of the Line served no useful purpose to Australia, and probably would involve us in very heavy loss. If we are to look at the Line from the stand-point of a business proposition, we ought to apply that test by which men judge their own business affairs. It was, indeed, through those glasses that the honorable member declared he looked at it. He says that if he could be persuaded that this Line served a useful purpose - that it stood between Australia and the unrestricted operations of the Combine, as a shield protecting the producer, and assuring him as far as possible that freights should be fair and reasonable, he would, perhaps, be in favour of its continuation. Udt he cannot see what the sixteen vessels, which he says are all that can be seriously considered, could do.

Taking the points of the honorable member’s arguments as he set them out, I say, first of all, that I do not admit that there are only sixteen ships in the Commonwealth Line. There are a good many more. As to the point whether the Commonwealth Line is of such value to Australia as to deserve continuance, let us apply the supreme test by which affairs are judged by men of business. The honorable member says he does not think the Line does or can affect the producer. I laid on the table of the House to-day an offer by the greatest shipping master in the world to buy this Line. Are we to believe for one moment that that offer, which is bond fide and direct, is made for any other purpose than that which is suggested by its terms? Supposing that honorable members were engaged in a certain business, and a competitor said to them, “ I will buy your business, or you can buy mine,” one naturally would ask, “ What is the reason for this offer, other than a desire to secure a monopoly of the trade ? “ What other reason could there bc? What other reason could have induced the head of the Conference Lines to make this offer, except to secure immunity from that competition which he regards as harmful to his business? Does the honorable member suggest that any business man makes such an offer except for such a reason? The motive in this case is obvious. The honorable member says that Ave cannot do the Conference Lines any harm. He asserts that our competition is to be disregarded, because it is insignificant. The answer to that is that it is so significant that our sole competitor - for there is only one competitor - says to the Commonwealth, “Your competition is such that either we must buy . you out or you must buy us out.” I ask myself what that means. .Does Lord Inchcape want to buy us out for the good of Australia, or for the good of the Conference Lines ? If we buy him out, do we buy him out for the benefit of the Conference Lines or for the benefit of Australia? Let us put it that way. This Avas a double-barrelled offer - “ I will buy you out, or you shall buy us out.” Let us put aside the first part of the offer, and consider the reasons that exist as to why we should buy him out. If we are to buy him out, it is because we should extinguish competition and substitute for shipping over which we have no control shipping that we would directly own and control. If this argument applies in the one case it Will apply in the other. And so I say that the honorable member’s main argument, that he cannot see his way clear to support the Commonwealth Line because it serves no useful purpose, and that its competition is negligible, fails in the face of this offer of our competitor, who says, in effect, “ Your competition is so material that, having behind you, as you have, the taxpayers of Australia, you may go on and we shall be ruined. Rut if we buy you out we shall not be ruined.” Why not? What is going to save them? The answer is obvious: the shippers of this country are going to save them from ruin. That is so obvious that it needs no argument. So tried by the test that all business men apply to business transactions, it is quite clear that, in the opinion of the head of the Conference Lines, the Commonwealth steamers, so far from being a negligible factor, exercise in fact a salutary restraint upon the Conference Lines. The honorable gentleman’s argument did not convert me, nor; in the face of the facts, will it convert others. While I am perfectly prepared to accept the decision of the Committee, as I said when I was speaking on this matter originally, I shall raise my voice and record my vote against the sale of the Commonwealth Line.

Mr Gregory:

– Were there any negotiations by the Government, or. their agent, with Lord Inchcape which led to this offer being made?

Mr HUGHES:

– None whatever. Lord Inchcape is a man whose word I accept without reservation, and I have no doubt that if we decided to sell we should receive a reasonable offer that we could accept. It is only fair that honorable members should have that clearly before them. That fact in itself, to my mind, is an added argument why we should not sell.

I said when I was speaking on this subject before that I would not agree to the Commonwealth Line of Steamers being conducted other than on business principles, and with much that the honorable member for Flinders has said on this aspect of the question I am in entire accord. I said it was not fair to load the Commonwealth Line of ships with a value of £30 to £32 per ton when their actual value was only, say, £15 per ton. If the vessels of the “D” and “E” class are to be loaded on to the Line, the Line should be charged, not their cost price, but their real value, whatever it may be. I think the honorable member put the value as £15 per ton, and I accept that as being sufficient, at all events, for the argument. Having said so much on one side, let me say a word or two on the other, because I want the Committee to register its decision only after very careful consideration. I do not agree with the honorable member in that part of his argument to which I have referred ; but in one respect I agree with him entirely. He showed by a citation of the profits of the Line over different years how we had climbed up until, in 1919, I think, we had reached the top of the peak, and since then had been sliding down. That is not singular to the Com monwealth Line; it is an experience common not only to the shipping companies of the whole world, but to all trading concerns. And so I say to the Committee and the country that the fact that we are in for a period of lean years must not be overlooked. If honorable members expect this Line to make huge profits in the future, then they will register a decision under a misapprehension. It will do nothing of the sort. By careful businesslike management it may make both ends meet. But it can do that only if we write down the ships to their fair value. That is why, in presenting this case, I did what all business men would do, and what I think Lord Inchcape himself has done. I wrote the values down by taking into account the profits earned. Although the profits of the Conference Lines at present were such that their fleets did not pay - ‘that the cost of many of their vessels was vastly in excess of prewar prices - still, by taking in their reserves, they could write down the book value of their tonnage to a level that would enable them to make both ends meet. It is precisely that course which the Commonwealth Line ought to follow. But when it has done all that, it is not a profitable venture that I invite the Committee to contemplate. Like every business firm, we shall have to trim our sails to the breeze in order that we may make both ends meet, and the reason why the Line has commended itself to the people of the country is that the producer who lives by the sale of his products overseas, and whose prosperity depends upon cheap and effective sea transport of produce, thinks it will be better for him, and so for Australia, that he should not be at the mercy of one tollgatherer. But for the Commonwealth Line there is no way to the markets of the world save at the price that the great Conference Lines determine. I do not say that they have extorted exorbitant freights, but I do say that the great majority of the producers of Australia are of opinion that their interests would be best served if the Commonwealth Line were continued. The honorable member for Flinders spoke of the “ Bay “ steamers as though they were not of themselves to be regarded as sufficient reason for the continuance of this Line, if we sweep aside all others; but may I remind him that the Orient Company, which has, so far as I know, only eight steamers, and is an admirably-managed Line, continues, in spite of hard times, to run its boats in such a way as to warrant its continuance. The five vessels that we are launching - indeed, one is already in the water and will, I understand, start for Australia on 5 th December, will themselves form a fine fleet. They will have a sea speed of 15 knots. They are scheduled to beat the mail steamers on the run to Australia by three days. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) said that there was no reason why these steamers should not carry the mails. The honorable member for Flinders said that he thought that that was not of itself a sufficient justification, but I remind him that they will also carry a large number of immigrants, and they will make available, at a time when it is very much needed, that added amount of refrigerating space so vital to the interests of this country. Therefore, viewing the question broadly, I am in favour of the continuance of the Line. I cannot accept the somewhat gloomy view taken by the honorable member for Flinders, and I cannot help thinking that the best proof of the value of this Line lies in the eagerness of its competitors to absorb it.

I turn now to a brief consideration of shipbuilding. When speaking on . this subject before, I said that the policy of the Government was to discontinue shipbuilding but to complete the vessels which are now in course of construction. The honorable member for Flinders indorsed our policy nearly all the way. He expressed some doubt as to which of the new vessels had been advanced so far in construction as to make it more profitable to build than to discontinue building, but, broadly, he accepted our policy so far as it related to ships on which a considerable initial outlay had been made. In reply to those who say that we should cease shipbuilding altogether and not even complete those ships which are under order or partly built, let me say that this matter must be considered in its national aspect. I do not hesitate to repeat, what I said when addressing the Committee previously, that some encouragement must be given to this great industry. Such encouragement is profitable to the whole com- munity. Britain, one of the greatest manufacturing nations of the world, is so because for a considerable period of her existence she adopted a policy of Protection which was carried to a point far beyond what we in Australia have adopted. Whatever there is of Empire, whatever .there is of control of the sea by the British mercantile marine, and whatever there is of manufacturing greatness, she owes to the fact that for three centuries or so she adopted the most rigid navigation laws, and sedulously encouraged shipbuilding. Had Britain not pursued such a policy there would have been no Empire, for there would have been no ships, and so no command of the sea, and, therefore, no opening for seamen. We must remember that Australia is an island continent, and that it possesses almost unlimited quantities of some of the best iron ore in the world. We must, if we wish to develop our resources and become a great nation, encourage the iron and steel industry, and there is no better way than by the making of ships, which an island continent, whose market is 12,000 miles away, must have at all hazards.

The subject of unemployment has been mentioned, and it lias been said that it is most unprofitable to build ships at £30 per ton to provide employment for people if, when the work is completed, its value is only” £15 or £16 per ton. I do not deny that for a moment. The shipbuilding industry has been labouring under very great disadvantages, but it is not fair to charge it with all those added costs of material which will not necessarily recur, at any rate, not to the same extent as in the past. But, in any case, this is not the time to throw thousands of men idle. If we do that we have to consider who is to maintain them. Hearing some people speak of unemployment, any one would imagine that by throwing tens of thousands of men out of work the State had rid itself of all responsibility. But when we have thrown out of work thousands of men, we shall still have to maintain them and their wives and children. In a barbarous state, or even in the condition of society a century or more ago, the unemployed man and his wife and children could have been allowed to starve, but we cannot do that to-day. So there is thrown upon us as a civilized community the responsibility of maintaining them, either by work or by doles. In Great Britain a system of doles is in operation, and no one can say that it is very satisfactory.

Mr Charlton:

– And our men do not want doles; they want employment.

Mr HUGHES:

– Quite so. I accept the position, which indeed I myself set out, that we cannot continue an industry which turns out an article worth only 10s. for every 20s. spent in its production. But I will be no party to an abrupt and almost criminal abandonment of the shipbuilding industry at this moment, when we have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in massing material, and when we have trained men to such a pitch of skill and experience that they are much better workmen now than they were three or four years ago. So we are all agreed that for every reason it is best that we should bring to completion the ships in course of construction, and then leave to private enterprise the business of carrying on the industry. 1 do not know that there is any reason to emphasize that point, because in substance we are all agreed upon it.

In regard to the Shipping Line, there may be a difference of opinion. I am strongly in favour of its continuance. If, however, it is to be sold, we must face the position which will be created. It is quite true that if we continue the Line wo shall have to pass through a period of lean years, and it may be that this time next year we shall have before us figures showing that the Line has barely paid its way, and that may continue for two or three years or more, but it will only continue for as Jong as it continues for private companies. That is one alternative; the other is to sell. In that way we shall avoid a loss in the immediate future, but we shall sell at the expense of the producers of this country. I am very certain that there can be no other reason why the Conference Lines are prepared to purchase the Commonwealth Line than that by absorbing it, they may be able to make that which is now unprofitable1 profitable by raising freights. I leave the .matter now, and I hope that the Committee will come to a decision at a reasonable Hour!.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

.- Of the honorable members who have spoken for and against the proposal to sell the Commonwealth Line of Steamers to the Shipping Combine, I have not heard one endeavour to show how freights from Europe may be stabilized for our ships. I propose to place before the Committee a plan whereby our ships will be insured of payable freights from Europe for the next twenty years. If my proposal be accepted we can snap our fingers at all the Shipping Combines in the world. Lord Inchcape is one of the men who have been most unswerving in their control of the market of the world. For what have the sailormen, or the merchants whom he compelled to pay unfair freights, to thank him? The Commonwealth Line of, Steamers has stabilized freights, and, though, oh account of the increased cost of operations during the war, it had to raise its freights somewhat, it did not raise them to the same extent as did the shipping companies of whose operations we get glimpses through the newspapers. -The only vessels that did not raise their rates of freight during the first three years of the war were those owned by the “Western Australian Government; and, although many people in “Western Australia are opposed to Stateowned ships, I do not know that any honorable member of the State Parliament would care to advise giving up the ships now owned by their Government. In my lifetime, Japan has made marvellous strides in shipbuilding. It has done what Australia cannot do, what even England or the United States of America have not done. It has built a 40,000-ton up-to-date capital warship. No other nation can show such a record. Has the British race in Australia become decadent that we can be beaten by a nation whose warriors in my lifetime fought with bows and arrows and wore something like shell armour? It was ridiculous for the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Bruce), who is so well versed in the affairs of Flinderslane, to suggest that the Commonwealth Line of Steamers should be sold for whatever they would fetch. Would any firm in Flinders-lane in a time of depression sell their stock for what it was worth, even if prices fell to nothing? No merchant would do so. He would hold on as long as he was not compelled to sell.

And there is no compulsion on Australia to sell its ships’. The wealth of the Commonwealth in 1913-14, before the war, was £1,200,000,000. According to Knibbs, it had increased by the 30th June, 1915 - ten months after the declaration of the war- to £1,600,000,000. Our debts to-day total £860,000,000, upon which we have to pay interest. The value of the German mark to-day is about 1,000 to the British sovereign.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Fleming:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– How does the honorable member propose to connect his remarks with shipping?

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I propose to show that we shall have “plenty of money to spend on ships, and that we are not so much in debt as honorable members would have us believe we are. The value of the British sovereign is 1,000 German marks, so that it “has now fifty’ times the nominal value it had before the war. However, we may estimate that the cost of the production of goods in Germany is now five times what it was before the war. My purpose is to show that we can make enough by the freight we earn on the shipment of goods from Germany to Australia to pay not only our war debt, but also the cost of the finest fleet of vessels that ever sailed the seas. Our war debt is a curse that will lie upon our children and our children’s children, even /upon the children of the men who died at the Front; but I am not for repudiation of debts. Even Sir Robert McC. Anderson is talking about the national forgiveness of debts, but he does not realize where such a thing would end. As I have said before, I wish to goodness all debts were debts of honour. It would be very much easier for some people if they were. However, to return to my figures, I have made my calculations on the basis of 710 marks to the sovereign. If, instead of the £50,000,000 worth of gold- our share of the indemnity - we take from Germany goods not capable of being manufactured in Australia to the value of 50.000,000 sovereigns, we would receive goods of an actual value of £1,700,000,000, and thus, not only be able to pay the whole of our war debt, but also able to provide enough freight to* keep our ships employed for the next twenty or thirty years. The first question to be considered in the building of a railway is whether the prospective passenger and goods traffic outward from the city to the interior, and backward from the primary producers to the centre of population, will pay not only working expenses, but also interest and sinking fund on the cost of construction. The railway history of Western Australia should be taken to heart by every honorable member. The State has done far more than has any other State in the matter of building developmental railways. I have travelled for 80 miles from. Kondinin to Narrogin along one of the narrow-gauge lines of Western Australia, and seen at each station and siding stacks of wheat ranging from 3,000 to 10,000 bags where before that line was built there was not one bag of wheat to be seen. In the same way we ought to estimate the possibility of providing for our primary producers means of carrying their produce from coastline to coastline. 1 have the interests of the primary producers at heart. I do not want to see them at the mercy of any Combine. They cannot deny that Government railways have been a God-send to them. Why should not Government steamers also be a God-send to them? If honorable members will da me the honour of reading a speech I delivered in 1912,. in which I prophesied the outbreak of war, they will see that I showed how the trade routes should be kept clear for our primary producers. The purchase of the Commonwealth steamers aroused a great deal of criticism, and I admit that my lips were not silent at the time, but today I am proud of the fact that we own these vessels, and I want to see the Line continued. Is there anything more absurd than is to be seen in Sydney to-day T The whole of the city tramways come to a point at Circular Quay, and private companies are then permitted to take thetraffic across the harbor to link up with the tram lines on the North Shore. But that is just the sort of absurdity the honorable member’ who represents Flinderslane has enunciated to-night. He advises us to sell these steamers at whatever price we can get, even at £5 per ton, although, they may have cost £30 or £40 per ton. He, as a keen business man in his own warehouse, would certainly not do that with his ‘own stock. He would hold on for better times. It would be interesting to get the truth lying at the back of his head about the 100 per cent, profit the’ warehousemen have been making on tweeds which, they were able to buy in Geelong for 5s. 6d. and 8s. 6d. per yard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member is not dealing with the question before the Chair.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– No. I shall expose the operations of Flinders-lane at another opportunity. Senator Guthrie has already done it in another place. The honorable member for Flinders may have had figures prepared on an actuarial basis by a good accountant, but there was too “ much comparing of tannage about them, to my way of thinking. Let us come to bed-rock upon the issue. Many attempts have been made to buy the Governmentowned railways ‘of Australia. The answer is to be found in our Library in the time-tables of the British and European railway companies. Despite the recent increase in fares in Victoria, one can travel from Melbourne to Brighton - 9i miles - on a first-class ticket at a cost which is less than the price of a thirdclass ticket for the same distance on an English railway. I am out for Governmentowned ships. In London our Line is controlled by Mr. Larkin, one of the best judges of shipping matters Australia has ever produced, and I have ample confidence in his business abilities just as I have in that of Mr. Eva, who controls the office in Melbourne. These gentlemen are endeavouring to carry on in a business-like way; but if we choose to sell the ships, the Combine will very speedily hit up the primary producers. I have made a close study for the last fifty years of the operations of Combines, and I think I know what I am talking about when I prophesy that this would come about very soon. I hope that honorable members will take advantage of the rate of exchange with Germany at the present time so that we may be in a position not only to wipe out our war debt, but also to provide money with which to secure, if we so desired, the finest fleet of vessels that has ever sailed any ocean, because we would have £150,000,000 to spend on then*.

Mr JOWETT:
Grampians

.- It is a little unfortunate that the debate should have ranged over so many different .subjects. Honorable members have discussed the history and origin of the Commonwealth Line of Steamers, and. whether we were justified in buying the vessels or not. The question of the continuance of shipbuilding in the Commonwealth has been debated, and also the question whether we should sell the Commonwealth fleet to the owners of the Conference Lines or to any one else. Whilst a great deal of attention has been given to each of these matters, the question which is of the greatest importance to the people of Australia at the present moment has hardly been touched upon. That question is whether the Commonwealth Line of Steamers should fix excessive and crushing rates of freight in accordance with those of the Shipping Ring of the world, or should fix its rates of freight to meet the needs of the people of Australia. That is the iSSUe to which I propose to confine my remarks, in the interests of the primary producers of Australia, and of many of our secondary industries as well. I should like, however, to say that I am totally opposed to the present proposal that we should sell the Commonwealth Line of Steamers. I am strongly in favour of the objects for which the steamers were purchased and the Line established. The purpose then was to serve the people of Australia, and I deeply regret that it should now be entirely lost sight of, and that the Commonwealth Line of Steamers should be run, not in the interests of the people of Australia, but;, so far as freights are concerned, in conjunction with the Shipping King of the world. I shall be able to give ample proof that this is the case before I sit down.

I wish to bring under the notice of the Committee the deplorable plight in which our primary producers find themselves to-day. It is due to many causes, but one of the principal causes is the excessive and crushing overseas freights fixed by the Commonwealth Line of Steamers in conjunction with the Shipping Ring. In April last I had occasion to move the adjournment of the House, to consider the excessive and crushing overseas freights that were being charged. There was a consensus of opinion at the time that everything possible should be done to have those freights reduced. But with the exception of some very trifling reductions in the freights on wool, practically no reduction in freight has been made since April last. I was not at first able to understand why it should be so difficult to secure a reduction in overseas freights. But within the last three weeks, in common with the rest of the people of Australia, I have become enlightened as to the obstacle in the way. I am now satisfied that this obstacle is that the Commonwealth Line of Steamers, instead of being run in the interests of the people of Australia, is fixing, freights in conjunction with the Shipping Ring.

I wish, first of all, to compare the present position, so far as oversea freights are concerned, with the position before the war. It is necessary to remind the Committee of the crushing nature of present freights, bearing in mind the fact that the values of our primary products are gradually declining to pre-war rates. There are some of our primary products the values of which, are higher than they were before - the war, but some have already declined to pre-war values.

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

– Some are below.

Mr JOWETT:

Mr JOWETT:

– The Prime Minister furnished the answer to that question. The right honorable gentleman indicated his belief that the object of the owners of the Conference Lines was to secure complete control of the shipping of this part of the world, and to prevent the Commonwealth Line from competing with the interests of the Combine in the future.

Mr Corser:

– As it does now.

Mr JOWETT:

– No; the Commonwealth Line does not now compete with the Combine in the matter of freight. But the purpose of the owners of the’ Conference Lines in seeking to buy the Commonwealth Line is probablyto prevent it from competing with the Conference ships in the future. It is true that the Commonwealth Line has not been competing with the Shipping Ring ; but surely it is equally obvious that these gentlemen in London have been fully advised of the tread of public opinion in Australia and of the pressure of that opinion upon the Commonwealth ‘Government snipping management. They have seen that the people of this country will no longer permit Commonwealth vessels to remain part of the Ring.

Mr Marks:

– In other words, Lord Inchcape has heard of the Country party.

Mr JOWETT:

– If he has not, he cannot be as well advised of what is going on as I credit him with being. It is due to the determined efforts of the Country party that the prospects of a reduction in freights are more hopeful. That party has placed the position before every producer in Australia. It has pointed out that the Commonwealth Line, for a very long time, has served the interests, not of the people, but of the Shipping Ring. Alive to the significance of the change in public opinion, it is natural that the Ring should be anxious to purchase the Commonwealth vessels, so taking care that their management shall not break away and endeavour to reduce freights.

The question has been raised to what extent, if any, excessive rates have discouraged or destroyed trade. I have received a statement from a responsible representative of the fruit-growers of Tasmania. My correspondent is one of the highest authorities upon the subjectmatter generally. He says -

Through high freights and shortage of shipping last season (1921), Tasmanian applegrowers had to leave in their orchards tens of thousands of bushels of fruit to rot on the trees and in the orchards. It is estimated on the very best and reliable authority that over 1,000,000 bushels could have been shipped to overseas markets last year, whereas only about 580,000 cases were consigned. This is practically a loss of, approximately, £500,000 to Tasmanian growers alone. Think of this great loss .to that State and the Commonwealth in the way of revenue from income tax.

I desire to give further facts concerning the extent to which excessive freights have discouraged the shipment of goods and produce and so tended’ to destroy trade. The following was issued to its clients by a firm of stock and station agents in Melbourne: -

With the hig supplies of lamb indicated ahead for the next month, which is being offered to the public at reduced prices, the prospects are not likely to improve. Therefore, in view of the abundance of feed, an owner cannot lose anything bv holding back cattle.

A few days ago a deputation of authorities in the meat trade waited upon the State Premier of Victoria to discuss the heavy reduction in values of meat.

Mr Considine:

– Was that deputation from the Meat Ring!

Mr JOWETT:

– There is no Meat Ring in Australia. Prom a Melbourne paper of 12th November I extract the following :

The deputation pointed out that, owing to the congestion in Great Britain and the low market price ruling for stock, it was advisable that producers should not forward stock intended for export to meat works until a recovery in price had taken place, or a substantial reduction in freights had occurred.

I wish to give another instance from one of the best authorities-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Fleming:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Postponed division 25 (Com,monwealth Government Line, of Steamers), £46,200.

Mr GREGORY:
Dampier

.- I have not the slightest desire to delay the Committee, but I want to get a vote on the question of the continuance of the Commonwealth Shipping Line. The matter has been discussed at very great length by the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Bruce), and there may be others who wish to put their views before the Committee. I have no desire in that direction, nor do I wish to traverse the arguments of the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) in his reply to the honorable member for Flinders other than to say that I cannot agree with his contention in reference to the offer that was suggested. I feel quite satisfied that the offer was made in good faith, and, in my opinion, if accepted, would result in advantage to the people of Australia. I think the Government would be wise to get rid of the shipping business. I have no faith in Government interference in commerce, and I have had many years of experience in connexion with Government trading concerns.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member’s statement could be applied to the Australian railways.

Mr GREGORY:

– It does apply to Government-owned railways to a large extent. Lf the honorable member can show me one railway system in Australia that is a paying concern I will withdraw..

I do not think my amendment will be carried, but I want to make my position clear. I want to get a promise from the Government that if they carry on these commercial concerns in the future they will give the fullest information to Parliament as speedily as possible after the end of the financial year. Even those honorable members who favour Government trading should support such a proposal. Surely if a concern is not being worked properly the sooner the facts are disclosed the better, so that criticism may be directed at the fault with a view to remedying it. I have in my hand a report of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. This Board supplies the people of Victoria with a full account of its operations. I do not ask the Government to furnish a report as full as this one, but Parliament ought to have a fair and square balance-sheet, with full details of the year’s operations, as soon as possible after the end of each financial year. For years past I have been asking for a balance-sheet of the Small Arms Factory, at Lithgow, I offered to bet £50, and to give the money to charities, if my statement was not correct that rifles made at Lithgow cost over £11 each, after it had been guaranteed that they were being made for £3 19s. Statement after statement was made, in this House that the Factory was a paying concern, but the Government declined to state what the rifles were costing, because, they said, it would be giving undesirable information to outside persons. Now we find that the rifles are costing over £16 each. Surely it would have been a good thing to have had that information much earlier. If the Government are going to continue conducting commercial undertakings, Parliament is justified in demanding that full and complete balancesheets should be presented at the earliest possible moment. I move -

That a reduction of £1 be made in the first item - general Manager, £3,000 - as an intimation to the Government that the continuation of the Commonwealth shipping service is not Advisable.

I am not going to discuss the matter further. We have had plenty of talk, and honorable members have made up their minds on the question.

Mr JOWETT:
Grampians

.- I am sorry to have to detain the Committee a little longer, but this is a matter of vital importance to every primary producer in Australia. I want to emphasize the importance of a Commonwealth Line of Steamers breaking away from the Shipping Ring and being allowed to fix their own rates of freight.

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Works and Railways · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · NAT

– The amendment is in favour of discontinuing the Commonwealth Line.

Mr JOWETT:

– ‘As I am not in favour of discontinuing the Commonwealth Line, I feel justified in making a few remarks.

Amendment negatived.

Mr JOWETT:
Grampians

.- Some members of the Committee are evidently not anxious to hear further argument on this question; but representing, as I do, a constituency of primary producers, I feel it my duty to put the case for them against the Shipping Ring of the world. I must, as they say in the marriage service, speak now or for ever hold my peace. When this item has been passed there will be no other opportunity, short of moving a vote of want of confidence in the Government, of discussing the question. Therefore, I consider that at this juncture the question should be fully debated by every member of the Committee who has any views on the subject at all. I intend to put the case for the primary producers, not only against the Shipping Ring, but, incidentally, against the Commonwealth Line of Steamers. I have no desire to see the Commonwealth Line discontinued or sold.

The question has been raised as to what extent the present excessive rates have discouraged the trade of Australia, and to what extent a reduction of freights would encourage it. I have a statement from one of the best authorities in the meat trade of Australia with regard to the position in Queensland. He says -

One of the results of the excessive rates of freight is that during the season now closing - one of the best ever known - very large numbers of fat cattle, instead of being killed in 1921, have been left on their pastures. It is estimated that in Queensland alone from 100.000 to 200,000 more cattle would have been killed had prices been reasonable and ocean’ freights lower. These cattle are now on their pastures, and it may be that many of them wil/ not become fat again.

The cattle, instead of being killed, were retained upon, or sent back to, their pastures; and, if a dry season comes, many of them will never go to market again. When cattle once get fat, that is the time, and the only time, to sell and kill them. If the season passes they fall away, by natural processes, and it takes a long time to fatten them again, if ever they do fatten again.

Mr Corser:

– While the honorable gentleman advocates that the Commonwealth steamers should not be tied up because they are losing money, he also says that the stations are to tie up their cattle.

Mr JOWETT:

– I do not advocate that. I regret it deeply. I think it is most deplorable that any one should have been advised or induced to keep cattle iback ‘because exporters arehoping for lower freights and better prices in future. The honorable member must know that I would not advocate such a preposterous thing. Here is another letter which I think should interest the honorable member for Wide Bay. It relates to hides, and is dated from a station near Clermont : -

I have not sent a hide to the market lately. The last lot I sent showed no profit after deducting commission and carriage.

I have also a letter from a firm of Brisbane wool-brokers, dated 4th October, whose comments should interest the honorable member for Wide Bay : -

The pelts of earlier consignments of sheepskins treated on account of the company’s stations and clients were pickled and returned to store with very unsatisfactory results, as there was not sufficient demand to warrant this expense. Consequently all pelts have since been destroyed. Even with the recently improved tone, fellmongers are still finding it inexpedient to pickle any but the choicest butchers’ skins.

Proposed vote (postponed), £1,207,280.

Upon which Dr. Earle Page had moved as an amendment -

That the proposed vote be reduced by £100,000, such total reduction to be made by the Treasurer upon such items and sub-items and in such manneras he shall deem consistent wilh economical and efficient administration.

Amendment negatived.

Mr MAHONY:
Dalley

.-I notice that gold to the amount of £750,000 has been exported to America, and I should like some explanation, in view of the fact that private individuals or companies are not allowed to export, or passengers to take gold out of Australia. This exportation appears strange, when we remember that the trade balance is in favour of Australia. If it were the other way, we could understand it.

Mr Groom:

– For some time past the Government have allowed the export of the current production of gold, to enable the miners to get the advantage of the increased price.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Progress reported.

House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 November 1921, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1921/19211129_reps_8_98/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives29 November 1921

PAPERS

QUESTION

STARVATION IN RUSSIA

Mr CHARLTON:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HUGHES:Prime Minister · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · NAT

Mr Charlton:

Mr HUGHES:

Mr MARKS:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT; IND NAT from 1929

Mr RODGERS:WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

QUESTION

ANTI-DUMPING LEGISLATION

Mr WATKINS:NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HUGHES:NAT

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HUGHES:NAT

QUESTION

NEW GUINEA

Mr MAHONY:DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HUGHES:NAT

QUESTION

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT: DISMISSALS

Mr CAMERON:BRISBANE. QLD

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:Assistant Minister for Defence · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr Blakeley:

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr Blakeley:

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr Blakeley:

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:

QUESTION

THE ROWAN COLLECTION

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr HUGHES:NAT

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Complaint of Faulty Construction

Mr LISTER:CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr RODGERS:WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL: SENATE’S REQUESTS

Mr FENTON:MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr HUGHES:NAT

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Surplus Stores

Mr MARKS:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr RODGERS:WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

QUESTION

EXPORT OF GOLD

Mr MAHONY:

Mr HUGHES:NAT

QUESTION

FRUIT POOL

Mr MACKAY:LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr GREENE:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

QUESTION

ALLEGED CRUELTY TO NATIVES AT RABAUL

Mr BRENNAN:BATMAN, VICTORIA

Mr HUGHES:NAT

QUESTION

RECONSTRUCTION OF THE MINISTRY

Mr WEST:EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HUGHES:NAT

QUESTION

CLOSE OF SESSION

Mr FOLEY:KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr HUGHES:NAT

QUESTION

NEW LIGHTHOUSES

Mr STORY:for Mr. Bamford

Mr GREENE:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

QUESTION

TRADE WITH ORIENT

Mr MAXWELL:FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr GREENE:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

QUESTION

BATTLE-SHIPS

Mr RILEY:for Dr. Maloney

Mr LAIRD SMITH:Minister for the Navy · DENISON, TASMANIA · NAT

House of Representatives
29 November 1921

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · NAT

Mr MARKS:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT; IND NAT from 1929

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

Mr HECTOR LAMOND:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

Mr MAHONY:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

Mr CAMERON:
BRISBANE. QLD

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
Assistant Minister for Defence · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Elliot Johnson:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

Mr LISTER:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

Mr MARKS:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

Mr MACKAY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

Mr WEST:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

Mr FOLEY:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr HUGHES:
NAT

Mr STORY:
for Mr. Bamford

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr MAXWELL:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr RILEY:
for Dr. Maloney

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
Minister for the Navy · DENISON, TASMANIA · NAT

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
NAT

Mr HUGHES:
Prime Minister and Attorney-General · Bendigo · NAT

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Atkinson:
WILMOT, TASMANIA