House of Representatives
4 March 1926

10^th Parliament · 1^st Session

ABSENCE OF MR. SPEAKER
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
QUESTION
- OPENING OF PARLIAMENT AT CANBERRA
QUESTION
- TUBERCULOSIS
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
PRESS MESSAGES TO QUEENSLAND
QUESTION
- YASS-CANBERRA RAILWAY
QUESTION
- BUSH FIRE SUFFERERS
BOUNTY ON RAW COTTON
- Tariff Board’s Report
QUESTION
- KERBSIDE PETROL PUMPS
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURES
QUESTION
- SALE OF UNHEALTHY FOOD
QUESTION
- COMMUNIST AGENT
QUESTION
- WAR SERVICE HOMES
PAPER
- New Guinea Act - Ordinance of 1926 - No. 5 - Advisory Council
TARIFF
QUESTION
- COMBINES AT WORK
ELECTORAL LAW
- Joint Committee of Inquiry
ADJOURNMENT
- Personal Explanation

page 1316

ABSENCE OF MR. SPEAKER

The Clerkannouncedthat in the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker (Hon. Sir Littleton Groom), the Chairman of Committees would, under Standing Order No. 22, take the chair as Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bayley) thereupon took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1316

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Mr. PROWSE, on behalf of the chairman, presented the fourth general report of the Public Accounts Committee.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1316

QUESTION

OPENING OF PARLIAMENT AT CANBERRA

Mr WEST:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Some few weeks ago I brought under the notice of the Prime Minister the question of the opening of the National Parliament at Canberra, and requested that the opening day should be the 26th January, the anniversary day of Australia’s foundation. The right honorable gentleman was good enough to intimate that he was not opposed to the suggestion, but I see that in one of the speeches he made during the Eden-Monaro election campaign he referred to March, 1927, as being the time when Parliament would sit in Canberra. I ask whether he has abandoned the idea of having the opening ceremony on 26th January, 1927, and if we are now to understand that the Parliament will be opened at Canberra in March of that year.

Mr BRUCE:
Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

– In the speeches which I made recently I dealt with the time when the Seat of Government would be permanently transferred to Canberra and the legislative and administrative functions of the Commonwealth would be carried on there. I made no reference to any particular date which might be decided upon as appropriate for the official opening of the Parliament at Canberra. I did not say definitely that the transfer of the Seat of Government to Canberra would take place in March next, but that I hoped it would be in March or in the early part of next year. It is obvious that the Government cannot make any definite statement as to this date, because should anything intervene to prevent Parliament from sitting at Canberra on that date it is possible that certain individuals might claim compensation from the Commonwealth. No such definite announcement canbe made, but all the indications are that we shall go to Canberra early next year.

Mr West:

– My reason for asking the question is that I believe that visitors from the other side of the world as well as from other parts of Australia will desire to be present at the ceremony of the opening of Parliament at Canberra, and the fixing of a particular date would give them an opportunity to make necessary arrangements.

Mr BRUCE:

– The honorable member, of course, refers to the official date of the ceremonial opening of the Parliament. I quite agree with the honorable member that we should, at the earliest possible moment, let it be known when that historic function will take place so that arrangements to be present may be made by those who desire to be there.

page 1317

QUESTION

TUBERCULOSIS

Dr. Smalpage’s Treatment

Mr D CAMERON:
BRISBANE. QLD · NAT

– I ask the Minister for Health whether it is correct that supplies of Dr. Smalpage’s serum have been distributed to the specialists selected to make tests of his treatment in the different States?

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
Minister for Defence · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The serum was distributed on Tuesday last for the purpose of being tested by the specialists.

page 1317

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I wish to address a question to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, though it is possible you may not be in a position to answer it off-hand. If I had had time before the House met I would have consulted you in regard to the matter. My inquiry concerns a question to be put by myself to the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Pratten). That question has been subedited to such an extent that as it now appears on the notice-paper I can scarcely recognize it as the question which 1 put, yesterday without notice to the Minister. I should like to know whether I offended against any of the rules governing the way in which questions should be stated - the absence of argument, inferences, epithets, or hypothetical matter. I was asking for an investigation, and not for a definite reply from the Minister. I asked -

Willhe instruct his investigation branch to make inquiries -

) As to what organization is behind the present agitation against Australian industries?

How much money has been spent on this nefarious propaganda?

How many foreigners and how many Australians are engaged in the anti- Australian campaign?

The occupation of the individuals employed, and their emoluments?

The question as it now appears on the notice-paper reads -

Will he instruct his investigation branch to make inquiries -

As to whether any organization is behind the apparent agitation against Australian manufactures ?

As to whether any money has been expended in this propaganda?

I wish to know how much money has been expended in it.

As to whether any foreigners and Australians are engaged in this apparent anti-Australian compaign ?
What are the occupations of the in dividuals if thus employed, and their emoluments?

I have no objection to the omission of the word “ nefarious “ from the second paragraph of my question, or to the way in which the paragraphs have been renumbered. But I contend that in other respects my question has been watered down in such a way as to quite fail to convey the meaning which I intended.

Mr Watkins:

– Did the honorable member write the original question himself?

Mr FENTON:

– I did. I should like to know exactly what privileges honorable members have in putting questions? I should like, for the information of honorable members generally, to know whether, when a question is couched in definite terms, and the honorable member putting it has a reason for the selection of those terms, it can be sub-edited almost out of its original meaning before it is allowed to appear on the notice-paper ?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bayley:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– It will not be possible for me to reply to the honorable member’s question until I have had an opportunity to peruse his question on notice in its original form.

page 1317

PRESS MESSAGES TO QUEENSLAND

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– In view of the number of complaints received from country newspapers in Queensland of the great delay which takes place in the Telegraph Office in getting press messages through to the Brisbane Courier and Daily Mail agents for the country press, will the Postmaster-General have immediate inquiries made to ascertain whether any great improvement has taken place, as compared with the conditions prevailing a few weeks ago, in the dispatch of press messages to Queensland to the Brisbane Courier and Daily Mail.

Mr GIBSON:
Postmaster-General · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · CP

– The honorable member will probably have received a letter from the Brisbane Courier expressing satisfaction at the way in which messages are going through at the present time. Investigations were made, and messages are now going through in time for the newspapers.

page 1318

QUESTION

YASS-CANBERRA RAILWAY

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Prune Minister if the Government has come to any decision with regard to the construction of a railway from Yass to Canberra?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– No decision has been arrived at. Naturally any such decision would be announced to this House.

page 1318

QUESTION

BUSH FIRE SUFFERERS

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

– In view of the statement that assistance would be given by the Defence Department to those suffering from the bush fires, I wish to know whether the Minister for Defence would be able to supply military tents if an application for them were made by local authorities ?

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
NAT

– I have said before that the Government has set aside a great number of tents and other equipment for the use of the bushfire fund. Any application received from the official bodies will be immediately attended to.

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

– The applications must then come from Melbourne?

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:

– They must come from the official bodies administering the funds raised for the relief of sufferers by the disastrous bush fires.

page 1318

BOUNTY ON RAW COTTON

Tariff Board’s Report

Mr FORDE:

– When will the Tariff

Board’s report on a bounty on raw cotton be made available to honorable members ?

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I am not able to answer the honorable member’s question beyond informing him that the inquiry is proceeding. Several witnesses have yet to be examined, and until the taking of evidence is completed the Tariff Board cannot present its report.

page 1318

QUESTION

KERBSIDE PETROL PUMPS

Mr FENTON:

– Has it come to the knowledge of the Minister that the Vacuum Oil Company has now placed orders within the Commonwealth for the manufacture of kerbside petrol pumps?

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That information has not come to me officially, but I have heard rumours that the position respecting the manufacture of petrol pumps in Australia is now much more satisfactory than it was a month ago.

page 1318

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURES

Mr FENTON:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Will he instruct his Investigation Branch to make inquiries -

As to whether any organization is be hind the apparent agitation against Australian manufacturers ?
As to whether any money has been expended in this propaganda?
As to whether any foreigners and Aus tralians are engaged in this apparent anti-Australian campaign ?
What are the occupations of the in dividuals if thus employed, and their emoluments ?

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I have to inform the honorable member that there is no official information in my department which would enable me to answer his question, and also that it is considered that an inquiry such as is suggested is outside the duties of the departmental officers.

page 1318

QUESTION

SALE OF UNHEALTHY FOOD

Tubercular Pigs

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

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice -

Has his attention been drawn to the press reports that tubercular pigs may be sold to consumers ?
Has the Commonwealth Government any power to prevent diseased or unhealthy food being sold to the people ?
If not, will he bring under the notice of the Government the necessity of combining the powers of the Commonwealth and State Departments of Health to prevent diseased and unhealthy foods being sold to the people?

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
NAT

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

Yes.
This is a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of State Governments.
Before this suggestion could be made the subject of action, it would need to be dis- cussed between the departments concerned. The first suitable opportunity for such discussion will be taken.

page 1319

QUESTION

COMMUNIST AGENT

K. M. Baxter

Mr FENTON:

asked the Prime Min- ister, upon notice -

Is it a fact, as reported, that a communist agent, Kenneth McLean Baxter, was recently sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment in New Zealand, for having had A.B.C. and Communism for sale and distribution?
Is it a fact that sentence was suspended on his giving an undertaking to proceed to Australia, permission being given for him to reside in Australia by the Minister for Home and Territories?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

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

One Kenneth McLean Baxter was recently sentenced in New Zealand for having communistic literature in his possession.
The sentence was suspended by the magistrate in New Zealand on condition that he left the Dominion. When it was brought to the notice of the Minister for Home and Territories that Baxter intended leaving for Australia, authority for his entry was refused, and notification telegraphed to New Zealand. This man, however, had made all his arrangements for departure, and had his furniture on board a vessel just about to leave New Zealand for Australia, and was unable to get the furniture off the vessel. He had previously resided in Australia for seven years, his wife being a native of the Commonwealth. He arrived from New Zealand with his wife a few days later, when full particulars regarding his antecedents were obtained by the department. He was restricted from landing, but in view of the state of his wife’s health, which involved a serious operation at an early date, he was permitted to land on a temporary exemption for six months during which period the department will be in close touch with his movements.

page 1319

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Cost - Arrears

Mr MACKAY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Works and Railways, upon notice -

What is the total number of War Service Homes provided to the end of the year 1925?
What is the average cost, including administration, per home?
What is the percentage of arrears of payments for the year 1925?

Mr HILL:
Minister for Works and Railways · ECHUCA, VICTORIA · CP

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

28,186.
1. The average cost of homes is extracted each financial year, and the figures to date are -

The cost of administration is a contribution by the Government to the housing scheme for returned soldiers and their dependants, and is not charged against the successful applicants for homes. The figures shown above are, therefore, exclusive of the cost of administration.

The percentage of the instalments in arrear as at 31st December, 1925, equalled 1.43. The figures for the States are -

page 1319

PAPER

The following paper was presented : -

New Guinea Act - Ordinance of 1926 - No. 5 - Advisory Council

page 1319

TARIFF

Customs and Excise Duties

Incommittee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from 3rd March (vide page 1279), on motion by Mr. Pratten -

That the schedule to the Customs Tariff 1921-4 be amended as hereunder set out, and that on and after the fourth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, Victorian time, duties of Customsbe collected in pursuance of the Customs tariff as so amended.

That, excepting by mutual agreement or until after six months’ notice has been given to the Government of the Dominion of New Zealand, nothing in this resolution shall affect any goods enteringbe Commonwealth of Australia from the Dominion of New Zealand(vide page 1228). . . .

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

– I compliment the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Mann) on the speech he delivered in this chamber yesterday afternoon. Whether honorable members agree with him or not, they must feel that he dealt with the tariff proposals in a manner which did credit to himself and to this Chamber generally. I cannot say the same of the speech that followed. I have never heard the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) deliver a more floundering speech. He evidently was in anuncomfortable position. He had vivid recollections of those days whenhe held the same views as were uttered by the honorable member for Perth yesterday. One would hesitate to repeat now some of his previous speeches in this chamber. He tried to base his remarks on figures that had manifestly been supplied to him from an interested source, and not from one that would give a properly balanced view of the subject. The sum total of his reckoning was that Australia was in an excellent position; that our primary producers were benefited by the high tariff; and that, generally speaking, they were now infinitely better off than at any other time in the history of this country. I suppose the right honorable gentleman’s fiscal views are influenced by his constituency and the interests he represents. Probably he signed the letter sent to all parliamentary candidates by the Australian Industries Protection League. The letter was sent to me, and I regarded it as almost an insult that the paid agents of the big combines, that are protected by the legislation of this Parliament, should try to bamboozle candidates to undertake, under pressure of an implied threat, that if returned they would vote for high protection. This is the letter I received -

Dear Sir,

As a candidate for election, and a possible member of the Federal Parliament, your views upon the fiscal question are extremely important.

At the moment, the protectionist versus freetrade issue is more or less obscured by the conditions under which the election is being fought. But seeing that the recent tariff has not yet received the assent of Parliament, those who are elected in the present contest willbe called upon to determine its fate.

If, as is expected, other tariff changes are recommended, the new Parliament will also be charged with the responsibility of dealing with a further number of items.

In the circumstances, if a supporter of the protectionist policy, will you kindly sign and return the attached letter at your early convenience.

The . league is a non-party organization. It will not, therefore, recommend or support any particular set of party candidates. But it will, within a reasonable distance of polling day, publish the replies received.

Waiting your favour,

Yours faithfully,

Hume Cook.

P.S. - in the event of this letter remaining unanswered, it is proposed to set against your name: “No Reply.”

The letter accompanying it was -

The Secretary,

Australian Industries Protection League, 372 Flinders-lane, Melbourne.

Dear Sir,

In reply to your communication of the 15/10/25, I beg to state that I am a protectionist, and if returned to Parliament, will vote for adequate protection to Australian industries.

Yours faithfully.

Candidate for the constituency of

Mr PROWSE:

– It may be very mild, but if that document was signed by many members in this chamber, as doubtless it was, even the able speech delivered last night by the honorable member for Perth must prove futile. I can understand that the right honorable member for North Sydney spoke under great difficulties. When he represented the constituency of Bendigo he professed to realize the handicaps imposed upon the primary producer by the tariff, but last night he denied that there were any handicaps, and argued that high protection was wholly to the advantage of the primary producer. He buttressed his argument by figures which had doubtless been supplied to him by Mr. Hume Cook, but he did not tell the committee that whereas in 1890 the number of sheep in Australia was 97,881,220, in 1920 the number was reduced to 77,897,555, a reduction of 20,000,000 in 30 years.

Mr Fenton:

– How does the honorable member account for that?

Mr PROWSE:

– It must be obvious that a decrease of 20,000,000 sheep represents a corresponding diminution of wealth, and I shall show that the rabbit pest is mainly responsible, and that the policy of high protection prevents the pastoralist from dealing with that pest. Of cattle the number in 1890 was 10,299,913. In 1920 the total had reached 13,499,737, a pitiable increase of 3,200,000 in 30 years. The number of sheep per head of population in 1890 was 14.86, and in 1910 13.88. The right honorable member for North Sydney quoted quantities or values as either suited his argument : but he must have been aware of the fact that the apparent prosperity of the wool and wheat industries is due to the high prices that have prevailed during recent years. Those prices are in no way attributable to the fiscal policy of Australia or to Federal or State legislation. They are governed entirely by the world’s conditions, and the legislation of this Parliament does not affect them one iota. The wheat-growing industry is practically stationary; certainly the area under crop is not increasing. Great prosperity might have been expected to follow the introduction of improved cultivating and harvesting machinery, but that has not occurred. The right honorable member for North Sydney spoke of the time when wheat was reaped with a sickle or a scythe. He omitted to mention the fact that in those days Australia was engaged almost wholly in the production of gold and wool, and grew only sufficient wheat to feed . its own people. The advent of modern machinery should have meant a rapid increase of wheat production and export, thus bringing new wealth to the country, and replacing the fading mining industry. Agricultural methods have improved as rapidly in Australia as in any other country, but the fact must not be forgotten that all other wheat-exporting countries have adopted all the mechanical inventions and advantages which the Australian producer enjoys. The machinery employed in other industries also has been improved. Whereas formerly the farmer could reap 1 acre of wheat with the sickle he can now, in the same time, reap 20 acres. Only by the cultivation of increased areas and the export of greater quantities of wheat to pay off the national debt can Australia derive the maximum advantages from the adoption of labour saving machinery. During the general election the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) said that if the Governments had paid half as much attention to the development of the primary industries as they had paid to the secondary industries, the wealth of Australia would be three times what it is today. The wheat industry is not progressing because of the enormous load placed upon it. That high protection is responsible for the increased cost of production is confirmed by the Melbourne Age, which in a recent issue published this article -

page 1321

QUESTION

COMBINES AT WORK

Forcing up Prices. Soaring Cost op Living. Will the Government Act?

Is it not time that the Commonwealth Government took a definite and decisive action to curtail the vicious profiteering which is being practised. Almost every branch of trade concerned with supplying the necessaries of life to the public is under the do mination of combines which seem to have a direct dispensation to plunder the people at their own sweet will. Throughout the city and suburbs, and, indeed throughout the Commonwealth, there is such a marked similarity between basic prices charged that householders have long since come to the conclusion that prices are arbitrarily fixed by associations of manufacturers, wholesale merchants, and retailers, which peremptorily forbid members to sell below the ordained rates. This deplorable condition of affairs is a legacy of the war. It should have died with the war, but instead it has continued to flourish without exciting the attention of the Governments, which are supposed to be guardians of public rights and interests. The present Commonwealth Government has an excellent opportunity to distinguish itself by taking prompt and effective action to prevent profiteering, and clip the wings of the great combines which are daily becoming more powerful.

That newspaper has been largely responsible for the present state of affairs. It says that I am sound in some aspects of my policy, and I return the compliment. The Melbourne Age was on sound lines when it published that article. Combines are at work under shelter of the high tariff wall that has been built round Australia. Protection is a veritable cornucopia for trusts and combines, and industrial unions. I say, with the Melbourne Age, that this is an excellent opportunity for the Government to act, and prevent these people from further fleecing the publics - to compel them to give a reasonable opportunity and a fair deal to the average citizen. This tariff schedule is a one-sided arrangement, enabling one section of the community to fleece the people. That the manufacturers themselves are not too sure of their ground is evident from the following statement made by Mr. Wilson Gray, the chairman of the Chamber of Manufacturers, on the 18th October, 1924: -

The Australian manufacturer had arrived at the stage when a larger market must be found. The one method was to increase our population,but the present progress was quite inadequate to fulfil the demand. The only alternative was overseas, and there the manufacturers were denied admission owing to the cost of protection.

I invite honorable members to ponder over that thoughtful and considered statement. It is clear that our manufacturers want overseas markets, which they are unable to enter because of high production costs in Australia due to high protection. Recently I had a conversation with one of our boot manufacturers. When I asked him how the industry was progressing he informed me that it was in a bad way. “ But,” I said, “ Have you not enough protection to enable you to carry on? “ “ Oh, yes,” he replied, “ we have ample protection. As a matter of fact we are doing 96 per cent. of the Australian trade. If we had double the present protection we could not, and would not, go after the remaining 4 per cent., because it represents fancy work, and it would not pay us to get that class of business.” “ Then,” said I, “ why do you not employ more hands, and sell your products abroad ? “ His reply to that question was significant. “ Our trouble in Australia,” he said, “ is that production costs are too high.” It would appear then that under protection certain of our secondary industries have reached the adult stage, and are quite helpless so far as production for overseas markets is concerned. ‘The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr Hughes) last evening quoted figures relating to the production of wealth by our secondary industries. Those industries do not bring a shilling of new money into Australia, and I repeat that high protection is placing an undue burden upon the backs of our primary producers who, besides producing cheaply for the people of Australia, sell their surplus products abroad, and bring new money into the Commonwealth. That is the difference between the two types of industry. I have no objection at all to the boot industry, the steel industry, or, indeed, any other secondary industry. Like all good Australians, I would like to see them established in this country if they can justify their existence, and prove of real service to the community. The right honorable gentleman invited us to consider the wages bill paid by these secondary industries. But who pays the wages of Hugh McKay’s employees? Undoubtedly the man who buys the output pays the wages bill, and enables Hugh McKay and other employers in the secondary industries to enjoy substantial profits under cover of the protective tariff. They are not in competition. The Melbourne Age was perfectly justified in its criticism of this profiteering. When first I entered this House, honorable members opposite were indulging in a campaign against profiteering; but they are now singularly silent on the matter. Why ? Because they are supporters of the combines. I also am opposed to profiteering.

Mr PROWSE:

– And the honorable member, dealing glibly in economic shibboleths, talks frequently about “ new protection.”

Mr Fenton:

– The importers of Flinderslane are the greatest exploiters in Australia.

Mr PROWSE:

– The honorable member and his friends talk about the “ new protection ‘’ without any intention of doing anything. Mr. Gisbome, writingin the Edinburgh Review, refers to the “ new protection “ as one of the most rigorous instruments of its kind in the world. In that article he also stated -

Manufacturers and trade unionists, notwithstanding their incessant bickerings over wages, have combined to form a solid phalanx in defence of the policy of high protection against the still rather languid attacks of the supporters of freetrade. Both parties to this sinister alliance recognize that the consumer must be despoiled in order to provide high wages for the operative, and high, or at all events moderate, profits for his employer. About fifteen years ago, certain artful political strategists, fearing lest the intelligent public should become restive when subjected tothis system of disguised brigandage, invented a convenient economic monster known as the new protection. It was proclaimed with gravity that only those manufacturers who sold their goods at “ reasonable “ prices, and paid “ reasonable” wages, would receive thebenefit of the import duties. But as this attractive epithet was officially construed as meaning high when applied to wages, and low when applied to prices, the manufacturers soon perceived that they were worse off than they were before, and even the politicians awoke to the fact that it was impossible by means of a tariff to keep wages artificially high and prices simultaneously low. The new protection, therefore, speedily perished, and its early demise was attended by more hilarity than lamentation.

I wish again to refer to the speech of the right honorable member for North Sydney. It did not suit his purpose to speak of the rise and fall of the goldmining industry, but I have figures relating to the output of that industry for the years 1903 to 1924, to which he referred. The value of the gold output of Australia in 1903 was £16,302,900, but in 1924 it was only £3,131,583. I recognize that the whole of that decline was not due to the increased cost of production. Gold having been taken out ofthe ground, there is less of it left. The increased cost of production, however, has had its influence, and many lowgrade mines have had to close as a result of it. The high tariff has increased the cost of living to the working man, who has to be paid correspondingly higher wages. I do not call it a high standard of living, because his higher wages do not purchase more

– I quite agree with what appears in the Age, and regard the views referred to as sound. Following are extracts from remarks of Mr. Dafoe, which appeared in the Melbourne Argus on 13th February last -

The Australians are “ whole-hoggers “ in the matter of tariff protection; the most ardent protectionists in Canada and the United States would be faint-hearts in contrast with them. Labour is in favour of protection, and still more protection; and while there is not the same unanimity in the Nationalist party, it is consistently protectionist in its policy.

Those statements are tolerably true, I believe. The report proceeds -

There is a Tariff Board which will recommend an increase in duties for the benefit ot an existing industry or the imposition of new duties at the solicitation of parties anxious to start a new industry if any kind of a colourable argument can be made. The result is that the burden of the protective system upon primary production grows steadily all the time.

The interview concludes as follows -

Summing up, Mr. Dafoe says that those social and economic experiments will work themselves out one way or another. If they are mistakes, the Commonwealth is young and vigorous enough to survive them. Perhaps, subject to the modifications of experience, they will prove to bo stops forward. Australia is a huge social and political laboratory; its experiments may involve risks to Australia, but they should prove of value to the Englishspeaking world, whatever their outcome.

– If I were, I should try to do what the Canadian Government did. I have in my hand a press report, which roads as follows -

The Prime Minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, and the Acting Minister of Finance, Mr. James A. Robb, have succeeded in carrying their Budget proposals by a majority of 1 12 on a vote of 223. It is thus clear than the Government has triumphantly succeeded in achieving the purpose which it had in mind - that is to say, the capture of the lower tariff Progressive or Western farmer members, by means of reduction in the Customs schedules. In concluding the debate, just before the final vote the Prime Minister not only justified the cutting down of the tariff on agricultural implements and other articles, but he went so far as to pledge his administration to a continued policy of tariff reduction on the necessaries of life.

That is along the lines suggested by the Melbourne Age. The report proceeds as follows -

He added that the Government proposed shortly to add to the Finance Department a body of experts that might be termed a tariff board, to advise members in respect of tariff changes. He further indicated that the appointment of an expert board to advise the Government on general taxation was under consideration by the Cabinet, but he made it clear that the appointment of neither board nor experts would relieve the Government or Parliament of full responsibility for the tariff and taxation in general.

– Hear, hear!

Mr PROWSE:

– These are the men who, to protect a secondary industry, would take the sugar out of a baby’s milk. The Labour Minister distributing the grant in Western Australia instructed his under-secretary to communicate the facts to me, and I quote the following letter, dated the 25th November, 1925: -

Dear Sir,

By direction of the Hon. the Minister for Lands, I forward herewith a statement of the activities, so far as this State is concerned, in connexion with moneys made available for the purchase of wire netting under the provisions of the Advances to Settlers Act 1923.

A copy has been forwarded to each Western Australian member of the Senate and House of Representatives in the hope that the facts may be of use when occasion arises.

He gives a great deal of information, the whole of which I do not purpose to read, although it might all be read with advantage. T draw special attention to this statement -

The Commonwealth Government decided that only wire netting of Australian manufacture was to bc supplied out of funds made available under the Act.

He proceeds to deal with the prices at which wire netting was purchased, and works out the total cost of wire netting supplied at Australian prices, plus handling charges, at £43,340, absorbing almost the whole of the grant. He mentions the fact that tenders for the supply of English wire netting were received, and that the last tender received was for 254 miles of 17 x 1^ x 42, and the fact that the . Australian article of this type was priced at £5 9s. 3d. per mile in advance of the English price, exclusive of duty, for netting of similar quality. He says -

The Commonwealth Government restriction as to the use of Australian material is the determining factor in purchasing, but, apart from this, the imposition of the anti-dumping duty would prevent any advantage being taken nf the English price. . . . 290 miles of English netting could be purchased, if duty free, at the same price as 254 miles of Australian netting of the type referred to.

The difference equal to the cost of 36 miles of fencing was extracted from the down-and-out settlers to run a factory in Australia, and the rabbits must continue to eat out our farmers. The statement is made in the communication from which I quote that -

The difference of 36 miles would be sufficient to supply about eight additional settlers.

By taxing wire netting we add to the costs of the primary producer. Rabbits threaten to destroy a settler; he cannot secure a penny advance from his banks and he is compelled to give £5 9s. 6d. per mile of wire netting to a factory in Melbourne or in Sydney. The thing ia economically unsound. I ask the Minister to say whether it is a fact that this industry has received bounties to the tune of £200,000, and is selling wire netting more cheaply in New Zealand than the down-and-out settlers in our own country. Who is the foreign trader in these circumstances ? Australian manufacturers are selling wire netting in New Zealand 2 per cent, cheaper than the price charged to Australian settlers who are down-and-out because of the devastation caused by vermin. The whole business is hypocritical.

Mr PROWSE:

– I have already referred to that. If honorable members had taken the shackles off the dairymen of this country they would not have driven them to band themselves together and organize to defend their hearths and homes. The people in these big cities clamour and shed crocodile tears because of those who have been burned out by bush fires, whilst they permit women and children under age to do the dairying work of the country, and then contend that butter should be cheaper, without any regard to the cost of production or to the vagaries of the seasons. What chance have dairymen of producing butter cheaply in such a season as the present? I should like to direct the attention of the committee to the opinion of people who can help us. It is foolhardy to fall out with friends who can help us. Sir Frank Heath has been on a mission to Australia and other Dominions to report to the Imperial Government, which has in a friendly way decided that if it can be scientifically advised as to the way in which it can help the Dominions by the investment of money it will provide cheap money for the purpose. Sir Frank Heath was deemed to be qualified to advise the British Government on the subject. He has visited Australia, and has now, I believe, gone on to New Zealand. He did not pretend to make his report here, because he said that must be left until he returned to the Old Country; but he said enough while he was here to indicate the policy we should adopt. I quote the following concerning his visit to Australia -

Sir Frank Heath, Secretary to the British Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, has almost completed the investigations which he was invited by the Prime Minister, Mr. Bruce, to undertake. These investigations, which were begun in October, relate to the possibility of closer co-operation between the British Department and similar institutions in

Australia. It is expected that the development, of both countries will be aided as a result and that Imperial trade will be promoted.

Dealing with primary and secondary industries Sir Frank Heath said -

I have heard a great deal about the interests of primary and secondary industries, and one hears people talk about the competing interests of those industries. I have already pointed out elsewhere that in my judgment the needs of the primary industries must stand first, because it is the exportable surplus of the primary industries which is paying for the interest and sinking fund of your large external debt.

Let, honorable members put that in their pipe and smoke it. He went on to say -

Now n large part of that debt, excluding the war debt, is a credit which has been placed at the disposal of Australia chiefly in the interest of the primary producers.-“ The whole of your transport or railway systems and a number of other important “works are really works which depend on our secondary industries so far as they exist in this country. If that is so it is of the utmost importance to the secondary industries that that credit should remain available. This can remain available only if the lender is assured that interest on the sinking fund can be provided for, and this depends on the primary industries. If you can increase the productivity of your primary industries, you are making it easier for your secondary industries to develop. Therefore your manufacturers should help in all things to improve the primary industries of Australia. There can be no question of rival interests.

I suppose that no man is better qualified to sum up dispassionately the position in which Australia is placed than is Sir Frank Heath. He naturally recognizes and says that the money that is derived from our wool, wheat, and other primary products, amounting to 96 per cent, of our total production, goes to finance the credit of the whole concern, and that it is upon the success of the primary industries that our secondary industries depend. It must be clear to honorable members that if we close down those primary industries-

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We do not want to do that.

Mr PROWSE:

– Honorable members are doing it without wanting to do it”. It should be our first care not to hobble them, and not to impose unnecessary duties and burdens upon them. Let the man who is producing have at reasonable cost the wire netting he requires to keep vermin off his holding, and do not let us try to make a profit for an industry out of his misfortunes. The majority of the people of Australia who are concentrated in the big cities will not. recognize their true interests in this matter, but insist upon the imposition of higher tariff duties. When the last tariff was submitted and Mr. Massy Greene expressed Utopian views as to the way in which things were to flourish and industries to increase in Australia, some one asked him whether imports would still keep up. He said that the volume of imports would not be so great, and that revenue from that source would decrease. But the fact is that the revenue from imparts has materially increased. The higher we raise the tariff, the more we place ourselves in the hands of the enemy. The cost of goods is becoming prohibitive. The working man must buy in dear markets, and is, therefore, compelled to approach the Arbitration Court for increased wages. This tariff schedule will be another burden upon him. When higher wages are paid to the workmen, the manufacturer decides that it is time for another increase iu the tariff, and so the vicious circle continues. Our manufacturers have told us that we cannot sell our manufactures abroad. Are we aiming to keep ourselves like blackfellows? I have admired the Prime Minister in his desire to promote trade with, and to give preference to, the Mother Country, but I am. afraid that these tariff proposals will wreck his good intentions. The Prime Minister went to England with his idea of preference. He visited Leeds, Leicester, and other places, aud he put an excellent case before the manufacturers there. They became impressed with his idea of eating Empire products, and the House of Commons set aside £1,000,000 to further the scheme. What is the present British view of our tariff ? The Sydney Morning Herald published the following statement by a British manufacturer with whom an Australian business nian, conversed : -

Well, I suppose you find that Australia is not in very good odour here after that last tariff of yours. You know we feel that Mr. Bruce has not played the game. He caine to Leicester, talked about the consumption of Australian fruits, Australian butter, and the rest, and fairly rammed Australian produce down our throats. He goes back to Australia and puts a prohibitive tariff on the very goods we make. I use the word “ prohibitive “ advisedly, because many of the articles we produce are now taxed from 100 per cent, to 200 per cent., and in certain instances even more. Look at the duty on cheap cotton undervests and infants’ dresses. To cite one specific instance : We make an infant’s silk and wool dress, costing 3s. (jd. each. I understand that this would now be rated as a “ costume,” and the duty would amount to 8s. or 9s. each.

That is not protection. That is prohibition. If your Mr. Bruce permits Mr. Pratten to do things like that, he will get a few borne truths the next time he comes to Leicester. A friend of mine, a manufacturer of cotton undervests, went to Edinburgh, a few days ago, and the first thing he saw was a great advertisement, “ Eat Australian apples.” Eat Australian apples - not if I never eat another apple as long as 1 live !

That is the feeling that is being engendered in England. We are not reciprocal in our sentiments in any shape or form. A French trade delegation came here after the war, and its members most courteously pointed out to us that the French people could and did make certain articles used in Australia, but not made, here. They also pointed out that the trade relations between France and Australia were £7,000,000 to £1,000,000 in our favour. We seem to think that we are the only pebbles on the beach. We continue to talk about this country being self-contained. There never yet was a self-contained country. Trade relations must exist. It would be possible for us to pay off our national debt by the exercise of a saner policy respecting the development of our national resources. I am afraid that the Prime Minister’s hopes for Australia’s advancement will be dashed to the ground if the Minister for Trade and -Customs takes the bit in his teeth aud gives full effect to these tariff proposals. As against the speech delivered by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), I wish to quote the speech that was made by the present Postmaster-General (Mi’. Gibson) when dealing with the previous tariff. Rel erring to the settlement of returned soldiers on the land in’ New South Wales, he said -

The duties alone, on the cheapest set of agricultural machinery that these men can get, amounts to £130. Therefore, honorable members are placing on every man who is being put on the land a tax of £130. The honorable member for Newcastle (Mr. Watkins) has a son who is going on the land to grow wheat. That, young man will have to put his hand in his pocket to the extent of £130 to meet the extra charge on his machinery over and above what he would have to pay if the articles could be obtained at the old rates.

The rates on agricultural machinery have been still further increased. Are not the State Governments, as well as the Commonwealth Government, in collaboration with the Imperial Government with a view to settling some of the British surplus population on the land in Australia?

Is it a sane policy to levy a tax of at least £130 upon these settlers in order to assist our secondary industries? The tax on a settler on a fairly substantial farm would be much higher than that. It is a severe handicap upon him, and will inevitably lead to the abandonment of his holding. He will then return to the city, but not because, as was stated by the right honorable member for North Sydney, the work was made uninteresting to him. Our primary producers cannot, under present conditions, successfully compete in the world’s markets. Not one honorable member of the Opposition will say that this is unfair. We should give the men on the land a chance to make good, and not load him with a tax of £130 on his agricultural machinery to benefit our secondary industries. Our Australian sons are more fit to go on the land than a “ new chum “ from England. I am not speaking disparagingly of the British immigrant, but he does not know our Australian :ways. He comes here in the hope of making a home in the bush, but bis efforts are futile because of his ignorance of Australian conditions. He is not half as capable as a young Australian, who knows too much to take on the job. We cannot find profitable markets for the produce of our settlers, and because of this our group settlement system is not the success that it should be. The young settler is taxed to the extent of £130 on his machinery, yet the Melbourne Age protests when he asks 3d. a pound more for his butter. Unless these conditions change, I agree with the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Mann) that the day of reckoning must soon come. If we refuse now to calculate the consequences of such a policy, then I am sorry to say that we must learn our lesson by bitter experience.

Mr MANN:
Perth

.- As the general debate on the tariff proposals appears to have ceased, I presume that we are now to discuss the first item. I know that one or two other honorable member.^ desire to speak.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bayley).The first item is under discussion at present. The tariff items in the amended schedule are numbered to agree with the items as they stand in the original tariff. The first item under discus sion is marked item No. 3, and corresponds with item No. 3 in the original schedule.

Mr MANN:

– I understand that the first item is really item No. 3 of the tariff, dealing with spirit duties. I wish to speak in opposition to that item-

Mr Bell:

– Do I understand that the general discussion will still continue?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Perth will be in order in discussing this item without interfering with the general discussion.

Mr Fenton:

– We should be clear on this matter. I know that in tariff debates generally considerable latitude is allowed. I understand that the honorable member for Perth said that the general discussion having ended, he would now deal with the first item of the schedule. Then you, Mr. Chairman, said, in reply to the honorable member for Darwin, that the honorable member for Perth would be in order in discussing the first item without trespassing on the right of other honorable members to take part in the general discussion.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is so. I understand that the honorable member for Perth said that he did not wish to speak on the specific item if other honorable members desired to continue the general discussion.

Mr MANN:

– That is so. I do not wish to speak at this stage.

Mr BELL:
Darwin

Mr CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr Mathews:

– But it paid engineers only 7s. a day.

Mr GREGORY:

– Still the wages paid here were higher than those paid in the Old Country at the time. I read some time ago of a firm in Great Britain that was weaving a magnificent quality of linen from yarns received from Belfast. Some Belgian manufacturers offered it a yarn much better than that supplied from Belfast, and at a lower price. The firm realized that if it did not purchase the Belgian yan some competitor in France or in Germany would do so. It, therefore, decided to purchase that yarn, and was able to supply a better quality of linen than it had previously supplied. The Belfast yarn manufacturers were indignant at the loss of a trade which they had held for generations. If they had been in Australia they would simply have gone to the Minister for Trade and Customs of the day and secured the imposition of a duty on yarn. They could not adopt such a course as that, and what they did was to send a couple of men over to Belgium to make investigations. These men found that the magnificent Belgian yarn- was being made by machines manufactured in England’. They installed similar machines iia their factory and; were shortly able to supply a better yarn than the Belgian yarn at the same price, and recovered their lost trade. The practice that we have adopted ki connexion with the imposition of duties has led us into a vicious circle-. The Broken Bull Proprietary people are again asking for increased duties om iron and steel.. If these duties are imposed the cost of all manufactures using iron and steel will be increased. Those carrying on such manufactures, which we should like to> see established here, will have to ask for increased duties on similar manufactures imported into this country. The cost of production must be still further increased, and this will mean bad times for the primary producers of this country. I have referred to the increase in the percentage of British labour or material required to secure preference for British goods under our tariff, and in this connexion let me say that for the manufacture of wire and wire netting British manufacturers were able to get rods much more cheaply from Belgium than in Great Britain. They were thus able to keep their factories going, continue the employment of numbers of people, and carry on against competition from other countries of the world. Our tariff legislation has been open to serious objection. If we pass a law here for the imposition of a certain duty it should be effective. It should not be within the power of the Minister to vary it in the slightest degree without coming to this Parliament for authority to do so. There is no reason why the Minister should have the extraordinary powers that he has. . A proposal by the Minister is submitted without sufficient information, and accepted by the great majority of honorable members. When the tariff schedule was presented the duties on textiles were at once imposed until validated by the Parliament, and had to be collected. Yet the Minister issued an instruction to the Controller of Customs dated the 29th October, 1925, in these terms -

Cotton tweeds for which firm order was actually placed with overseas suppliers on or before the 2nd September,, 1925,. and which are entered for home consumption in Australia on or before the 31st December,. 1925, are to be- admitted under tariff’ item 404- free from United Kingdom;- 10 per cent, foreign.

I do not think the Minister should have such a power. We should consider the exercise of such a power in relation to its effect upon trade with foreign countries. The present Minister for- Trade and Customs will realize that I am not reflecting upon him; but we might have a Minister in his position who would’ do something gravely offensive to another nation in regard to the trade between the two countries. If a quarrel takes= place between: a trader here and another in Japan or Canada, the issue is confined to them, a>nd their respective countries are not brought into conflict. But when the government of a - country takes action damaging the trade of another country very dangerous consequences may ensue.

Mr Mathews:

– Even if the action taken by that government is .to prevent injury to the trade of its own country?

Mr GREGORY:

– What I am contending is that the Parliament alone should have the power to take such action.

Mr Jackson:

– The Minister for Trade and Customs has nothing like as much power as the President of the United States of America.

Mr GREGORY:

– I do not approve of the power vested in the President of the United States of America, which, however, is the same as that of our GovernorGeneral in Council, and not that of the Minister. I do not think the honorable member would approve the acceptance here of the standard of morality said to be associated with tariff matters in America. The powers given to the Minister for Trade and Customs here are altogether too great. On the 29 th July, 1921, when the measure conferring these powers was submitted, the Melbourne Age, which is a great protectionist journal, said -

Tariff making by officialdom and executive act is a degradation of representative government. The resolutions ought to be withdrawn and recast with the object of eliminating both the Tariff Board and the excessive ministerial power-.

If that could be done a great improvement would be effected. I do not object to a Tariff Board, but I want one different from that we have now. I want a Tariff Board appointed by this Parliament, and with the duty to report to it. Its chairman should not be associated with the Trade and Customs Department, thus coming in some degree under the control or influence of the Minister. The chairman should have the qualifications of a judge, and should know how evidence should be taken and received. He should be assisted by two specialists. If we had such a board reporting only to Parliament, the position would be much better than the present position. I am not here to make reflections. I do not know who is responsible for what takes place, but I can never forget the action of a previous government in connexion with the duties on sulphur. A heavy duty was imposed, which had the immediate effect of increasing the price .of superphosphates by from 6s. to 7s. per . ton. This was done at the instance of the Broken Hill, Mount Lyell, and other big companies. A few months later they were able to import thousands of tons of raw sulphur which was admitted free under item 404, whilst the manufacturers of superphosphates here had to pay the duty on the sulphur they used. The Minister also said that the tariff has brought about no restraint of trade, but my information proves the contrary. . I draw special attention to the action of Lysaght Limited, in connexion with pastoral supplies. I have with me direct correspondence sent to the Customs Department showing that this manufacturer in one instance refused to supply wire netting to a firm because it had advertised that British wire netting was better than the Australian article. Whether it did so or not I do not know; but surely the Minister should have been able to judge whether the advertisement was in good taste. Why should a manufacturer to whom we are giving a bounty of £100,000 be able to supply one man and not another? Lysaght Limited refused to supply wire netting to one firm at Dalby. These huge corporations are able, not only to restrain trade, but also to fix prices. The wholesale price of iron and steel is fixed by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company, and we know that the price of wire netting is fixed by Lysaght Limited and Rylands. There is not the slightest doubt that there has been restraint of trade on the part of these firms, but we have heard little of it from the Tariff Board. The first necessity in Australia is the peopling of our vast areas. We must settle people on the land if we are to build up great secondary industries in this country. We must produce more in this country, because it is the overseas market that we wish to obtain. We do not want our industries to be in the position of the boot trade. The boot manufacturers have captured 96 per cent, of the Australian trade, and they do not bother about additional manufacture. That industry should have been built up to establish an export trade. The Government should adopt a statesmanlike policy to enable us to people our vast areas and to induce immigration to this country, even if it means enlarging the loan policy. We cannot settle people hare without borrowing money, but great care needs to be exercised so that there shall be some limitation of loans. Every effort should be made to increase production, whether primary or secondary, and I shall show directly that we can increase our secondary industries without doing the grave injury to the primary industries that will result from the operation of this- tariff schedule. The great balance wheel of our production is the export trade, and we must help that trade in every way. The Country party has clearly laid down its policy. On the 13th of March. 1925, 350 delegates from various branches of the Victorian Farmers Union met in Melbourne and unanimously carried the following resolution: -

That this conference considers the Australian Commonwealth tariff unnecessarily high, and that its incidence is hurtful to the great primary producing interests, and also to the welfare and progress of the Australian community as a whole, and this conference further considers that a percentage reduction should be made annually on all tariff items dealing with the staple necessities of primary and secondary industries.

Mr Stewart:

– Every honorable member who attended that meeting is bound by that resolution.

Mr GREGORY:

It is of vital importance, for the successful development of our manufacturing industries, that raw materials for the purpose of manufacture should be made available at the least possible cost.

Mr Maxwell:

– Was that the Tariff Board*

Mr GREGORY:

– It was the Interstate Commission acting as a Tariff Board. It consisted of Messrs. Piddington, Swinburne, and Lockyer. The report continued -

That cannot in every ‘case be realized if the encouragement of the local production of raw material takes the form of import duties. Snell a method cannot but unduly enhance the cost of manufacture, and hinder the efforts o’f the manufacturer in Iiia competition with imported goods. ‘On this reasoning, encouragement for the local production ‘of raw material should, where practicable, be by means of bounty, and not , by import duty.

The chairman then said -

I see nothing in the evidence to justify the assumption that some form of fiscal assistance will lie permanently inevitable. On the contrary, the richness of Australian ore deposits compared to those of other countries - the Iron Knob ore yields OS per cent, of iron as against uC per cent, profitably worked in Germany - anA the freight charges borne by our nearest competitors, make it probable that Mr. Delprat’s original view that the industry can stand on its own footing in Australia will prove right once output is secured, and with it low production cost. Hae adage “the ore goes to the fuel “ is complied, with in the Australian works. The manager of the Newcastle Steel Works reported in 1912 -

I find that you can assemble at Newcastle the iron ore, coke, and limestone for pig-iron production -at a lower cost per unit per ton than is possible for the United States Steel Corporation, the largest and cheapest producer in the country. (Publication of the company. June, 1915, at page 16.)

In ibc. publication just quoted from the amount of ore necessary for 1 ton -of pig-iron in different countries is given as follows: -

When the company issued its prospectus it told the people what a glorious investment its shares would be, and pointed out that over 2 tons of ore were required in Great Britain to produce a ton of pig- iron, which could he obtained from 1 ton of ore in Australia. Ill 1912, Mr, Delprat, the then general manager of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company, in giving evidence before a select com mittee of the New South Wales Parliament upon the bill which was afterwards passed, to enable the Newcastle Steel Works to be started, gave this evidence : -

1. 1 presume you are going into these works believing that you- “can compete succesfully, so far a.s iron .and steel are concerned, with the markets of the outside world?
Yes.
1. I suppose you will not ask that any import duty bc put upon iron and steel to assist you in your industry?
No. We have decided that if wo cannot carry on without government support or assistance, we shall not proceed with the works at all.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He soon changed his tune.

Mr GREGORY:

– Of course he changed his tune when he learned that the honorable member and others, who voice the shibboleth of high protection, are prepared to accede to every application for an increase of duties. In 1914, when the Labour party introduced an amending tariff, which left these items free, the honorable member and others were satisfied to grant the duties that were asked for. In 1920, when further enormous increases in duties were made, honorable members were again satisfied to yield to the manufacturers’ requests. And now the secondary industries are asking for still further assistance. Their greed is insatiable, and some honorable members are prepared to give them anything, so long as it is given in the name of protection. That magnificent captain of industry, the late Mr. Hoskins, of Lithgow, “ made good “ under conditions that were scarcely better than freetrade. For some years he had the assistance of a bounty of 12s. a ton on pig-iron made from Australian ore, and 12s. a. ton on steel. Later, the duty on pig-iron was reduced to 8s. a ton. Se built up a huge fortune in spite of difficulties.

Mr Watkins:

– He made his money out of government contracts mid the manufacture of pipes.

Mr GREGORY:

– The local manufacture of stee’l rails has cost Australia hundreds of thousands of pounds. The people do not realize the price they are paying for the encouragement of local industries. I made a calculation in regard to the contract given to Thompson and Company, of Castlemaine, for ten locomotives for the Oodnadatta line. Allowing compound interest at 6 per cent, on the margin between the local and foreign tenders, and a sinking fund of 1 per cent., which would pay off the added cost in 35 years, the actual cost to the Commonwealth of the preference given to Thompson and Company would amount to £570,000. Mr. Hoskins, when giving evidence before the Interstate Commission, said, in reference to galvanized iron -

The bounty method could be substituted for my duty -proposal if desired

And speaking of the proposed alteration of duty with regard to steel rails, he said -

When the bonus was initiated it was for the purpose of establishing the industry, and it has done so. We can now do with less assistance, and I am, therefore, asking for a lesser amount.

Unlike the Broken Hill Proprietary Limited, he did not establish his works on the seaboard so that big ships could load alongside the mills: he went 100 miles into the interior aud, in the face of troubles and disabilities, “made good.” He wanted no duty on steel rails; he could compete successfully with other countries.

Mr West:

– The industry was started by Sandford before Hoskins took it over.

Mr GREGORY:

– I am merely pointing out how Mr. Hoskins developed the works under what was practically freetrade. In 1921 I prepared some statistics which showed that the new duties in item 136 alone represented, on the basis of the imports in 1913, over £700,000, and that in respect of the iron and steel industry generally, about £1,500,000 extra, plus retailers’ profits, was being taken from the pockets of the Australian people. Thus a very big burden is being placed upon industry. I cannot understand the stupidity of Labour members who delude themselves into the belief that these high duties are beneficial to the workers. About 8 J per cent, only of the bread-winners of Australia are engaged in the highly protected industries. In the boot-making industry, which has enjoyed high protection for many years, the average wage is less than that of a bricklayer’s labourer. Generally speaking, the average wage in the unprotected industries is greater than that in the highly protected industries.

Mr Jackson:

– The honorable member will admit that in many of the highly protected industries great numbers of girls are employed.

Mr GREGORY:

– I am quoting the statistics in regard to male labour only; female labour is dealt with separately. In 1922 the average full-time weekly earnings in the blooming mills in the United States of America were, for heaters, 62 dollars ; for rollers, 71 dollars ; and for heaters’ helpers, 43 dollars. In 1919 and 1920 heaters’ wages were nearly 82 dollars, or £16 a week. In manufacturing and jobbing shops machinists were receiving as high as 55 dollars, and machinists’ helpers up to 38 dollars a week. Yet the Americans can sell their machinery in Australia at half the cost of the locally-manufactured article.

Mr Jackson:

– The price at which it is sold in Australia is not always the price in the country of origin.

Mr GREGORY:

– I think it is; certainly the prices I have quoted for reapers and binders are those at which these machines are sold to the farmers in Canada and the United States. I am desirous of doing everything possible to build up the secondary industries, but we cannot ignore the fact that some Australian manufacturers are making enormous fortunes. Honorable members opposite must be aware that the promises made to the workers in 1908, when the new protection was introduced, have never been fulfilled. If we could induce our workers to join forces with the manufacturers, accept a share interest in the industries, and be paid according to their output, they would be able to produce, not only local requirements, but a surplus for export. It is a monstrous system under which I and the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Yates), who is a much younger man, must be paid the same wage in a workshop. Such a system must bring the good worker down to the level of the slowest of his fellows. In the United States of America and Canada, most of the higher-grade artisans have motor cars, and generally enjoy a higher standard of comfort than do the men engaged in similar occupations in Australia. We have the right to demand efficiency from manufacturer and artisan alike, when we agree to subsidize their work. I should like to deprive- the Minister for Trade and

Customs of the power to alter duties. This Parliament should establish a Tariff Board composed of two specialists, independent of protectionist and freetrade interests, and a president who would have the status of a judge. That body should investigate all industries, and advise Parliament as to how they could be helped. I believe that if Parliament were supplied with reliable information from such a body, even honorable members opposite would not be so ready to do everything possible to put more profits into the hands ,of the manufacturers.

Mr YATES:
Adelaide

.- Throughout the speeches of those honorable members who prefer any goods to those produced in their own country, is the implication that the Australian workers are not so good to-day as in day3 gone by, and that generally they are not giving fair value for the wages they receive. The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) referred to me, and I shall show that the reference was unfortunate for his argument. My father was imported to work in a protected industry. In his early days he was a shoeing smith in an English mine, but finding the work too strenuous, he became a maker of fireproof safes, and was eventually engaged to come to- Australia. Possibly he would not have had the opportunity to come to Australia, but for protection, and I, being his son, followed him in the factory where he was employed, so I am well acquainted with factory work. I say unhesitatingly that, having regard for their rights as human beings, men in many factories have to work far too long at laborious occupations.

Mr Prowse:

– I suggested piece-work.

Mr YATES:

– And I know what piecework means. It was the proud boast of my employer that his establishment was thoroughly up to date, and, as he put it, the best factory of its kind . south of the line. Under the piece-work system, and prior to the introduction of our factory legislation, I saw piece-workers pitted one against the other, and the rates of pay gradually reduced until a man had to work like a galley slave to make a decent living. I challenge contradiction by any honorable member who cares to get into touch with those who have worked in factories where piece-work rates obtained. In the factory- which I have in mind, tub. bucket, safe, and oven makers had to go for their lives under the piece-work system. Apprentices in the last two years of their apprenticeship were given what were called half piece-work rates. Some of them, being expert in their particular branch of the trade, were able to earn more than the best journeyman in the place, but, month after month, the reducing process went on until at last it was almost impossible for even the most expert bucket-makers to make a decent living at the piece-work rates offering. In some instances a man was given what was called a “good” job together with a “bad” job so that he could make a living. Men engaged in the making of rain-water tanks were in the same position. Piece-work rates were cut because the output of the factory had to be marketed in competition with imported articles. Luckily I was employed in a shop that did not adopt the ‘ piece-work system , but on several occasions there was agitation for it. I was always opposed to the principle, not because I was afraid of it - I can say, without egotism, that I was as clever at my trade as any young man in the shop, and piecework would have paid me - -but because I believed that it was wrong to pit one man against another in any industrial establishment. I realized that eventually a man’s health must break, and I feel sure that if the piece-work system is ever universally adopted in Australia, we shall, as is the case of the United States, have to look for our middle-aged men in our cemeteries.

Mr Prowse:

– What does the honorable member suggest?

Mr YATES:

– I suggest that we should apply the tariff scientifically, so that in its incidence it will bear equally upon the entire community. If, as has been urged, the tariff in its operation will retard th, development of this country, let us apply approved corrective measures. Above ali, let us be Australians. Let us have, as our goal, the production in Australia of everything required for the development of this country. Honorable members who are opposed to the tariff have had something to say about our wealthy manufacturers. I remind them that wealthy manufacturers are also to be found in America, Great Britain, Japan, and other countries. In Australia we have a splendid . monument in our system of democratic government : and I care not from what angle we regard the position of this country - whether from the point of view of its productivity or the stamp of individual that we breed - we have good reason to be proud of it. I saw Australians tried in the most severe test that could be put upon the men of any race, and they came through with flying colours. I deprecate this attempt to whittle away our protectionist policy. On the contrary, it should be tightened up, even if we have to pay a little more for articles of Australian production. Unfortunately, the working man cannot get much out of the tariff. If prices of commodities decline the working man will not benefit, because down will come his wages. Honorable members who object to the schedule know that immediately a drop occurs in the cost of production the “ bosses “ come along to the Arbitration Court with an application for a reduction of wages in keeping with the decline in the cost of production. They are the people who are in the vicious circle. It was truly said last night that any concessions that have been secured by the workers in Australia have been won from employers at the point of the bayonet. Honorable members who favour a reduction in tariff items would have us believe that their object is to ease the burden on the working classes. Their reasoning is quite fallacious. The country, we are told, is going to the dogs, and’ all because of the high protectionist tariff. Unfortunately for their line of reasoning, the figures are against them. The Year- Book of Australia completely refutes the argument of our free-trade friends. The livestock statistics are a complete answer to their pessimism, and I remind them that the workers of Australia have never been spoon fed or fostered to the same extent as the pastoralists. who have had gifts of wire netting and bounties on meat intended for export. As for the worker, it matters not if, owing to a fire at his factory be is unemployed, the landlord knocks at the door on a Monday morning and must get his rent. We never hear of £150,000 being voted for necessitous workers, although, as has been shown so clearly, they contribute just as much as the pastoralists and others to the creation of community wealth. Their position is being inquired into by the National Insurance Commission ; but if we may judge by previous experience, anything that the worker is likely to receive in the way of unemployment insurance will be in the nature of a charity dole. He will have to strip himself naked to prove his claim be fore he gets anything. The Labour party has never protested against any attempt to assist the primary producers of this country. The honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Foster) many years ago was Minister for Public Works in the South Australian Government. He will remember when the first Seed Wheat Act was passed to assist necessitous farmers in that State. He must also remember that in the following year another bill, consisting of one clause, was passed to postpone repayment of seed wheat advances ; that a similar measure was passed in the next year, and finally the entire liability was wiped out. Working men never get this kind of assistance from Parliament. There have been “ poor “ funds instituted by the press and philanthropic institutions in the various States. People have been invited to assist necessitous working men, but never has there been a straightout grant, as in the case of our primary producers. I do not say that this form of legislative assistance is wrong. I have voted for it because I realize how essential it is to keep our people on the land. The honorable member for Wakefield will also recollect, no doubt, that the late Mr. T. Price, when Premier of South Australia, threatened to import wire netting in the interests of the farmers unless the importing merchants released wire-netting supplies within the State at a reasonable price. Mr. Price also threatened to import superphosphates unless the importing and manufacturing interests ceased selling sand instead of superphosphates to the farmers. The capitalists, who are looked upon as men of probity, have a nice code of honour where profits are concerned. The trade unionists of the Commonwealth have never dipped their hands deliberately into the pockets of the people.

Mr Gregory:

– I spoke strongly against the operation of trusts and combines.

Mr YATES:

– I agree with the honorable member. But what was his attitude when we attempted to alter the Constitution in such a way as to authorize the Commonwealth Parliament to deal with these trusts and combines? We do not wish Australia to be peopled with wealthy capitalists, and we . do not propose, by means of tariff reductions, to enable capitalists in other countries to increase their wealth at our expense.

– Every enactment which can be claimed to be an advance on the past has had its origin in the utterances and efforts of reformers, who, no doubt, had the same stones thrown at them as are thrown at us to-day. I do not know much about biblical history, but I believe there was a time when the people cried, “Release unto us Barabbas !” They did not realize that the Christ was there for them : they knew nothing of the wisdom of His teaching, or of His sacrifice.

There are those who pray for these things, but they fall a long way behind when they are asked to put them into practice.

Mr Maxwell:

– Who does the honorable member say “they”; why not “ we “?

Mr YATES:

– I am referring to those who are hostile to the policy I enunciate. I intend nothing personal in my remarks.

Mr Foster:

– There was no tariff in biblical days.

Mr Fenton:

– Mathew was a tax collector.

Mr YATES:

– If we lived under natural laws, and according to the plan I suggest, no tariff would be needed. When man puts into operation the golden rule - “ Dounto othersas you would be done by,” restrictive tariffs will be superfluous. Let me return to theYearBook. The number of live stock in this country is compared in theYear-Book with the population. Per head of population in 1890 the number of cattle was 3.27, the number of sheep 31.06, and the number of pigs 0.8. In 1923 the number of cattle was 2.31, of sheep 13.88, and of pigs 0.16. Those figures do not show any substantial decline in prosperity, especially when one considers the development that has taken place in city areas. When we compare the progress made in this country in the short time we have been here with that made in other countries, we have reason to be proud. The rearing of sheep is probably a greater industry than the rearing of cattle, and in that industry Australia is first among the countries of the world, with the Soviet republic second. Among the other countries mentioned in theYear-Book are the Argentine, United States of America, France, and Italy. Australia must have progressed when she can maintain that position ahead of all other nations. In the cattle industry we are tenth on the list. If sheep production does not reveal the wealth of a country, perhaps wool production does. The two industries are correlated. In 1919-20 the quantity of wool produced in Australia was 663,249,164 lb. I am stating quantities rather than values, because the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) said’ that as prices fluctuated they did not always disclose the true position. If, however, the quantity of wool is produced, the work has been done, whether the price is obtained or not. In 1923-4 wool production fell to 590,820.185 lb.

There may have been reasons for that decrease, which, however, was so small by comparison with the fluctuations that occurred before we had a tariff, that the tariff cannot be blamed for it.

Mr Prowse:

– What does the honorable member mean by that ?

Mr JACKSON:

– Representatives have been returned to this Parliament who were nominally, if not actually, freetraders, but in recent years they have changed their fiscal opinions. When the vote on this tariff is taken, the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) will learn who they are. I do not know of any case of a man who has turned from protection to freetrade, but there have been notable instances of freetraders becoming protectionists. One was the greatest of freetraders, the late Sir George Reid, at one time Prime Minister of this country, who, before he died, became a firm protectionist. The right honorable member for North Sydney is another instance of a converted freetrader. For many years he fought the freetrade battle, but last night he said, “ We must change our opinions according to circumstances.” The circumstances in Australia to-day are such as to warrant the continuation of the Protection policy which this country adopted years ago. The honorable member for Perth referred to the power of the Minister for Trade and Customs under the tariff, but the powers of the Minister are as nothing when compared with the powers of the President of the United States of America, under the tariff of that country. This is shown by the following quotation: -

Whenever the President upon investigation of the differences in costs of production of articles the growth or product of the United

States, and of like or similar articles the growth or product of competing foreign countries, finds it thereby shown that the duties fixed in the act do not equalize such differences., he shall ascertain the. differences and determine and proclaim a rate of duty which will equalize the same.

The President must do that within fifteen days. The honorable member for Perth said there was no such thing as unfair competition. But the Tariff Act of the United States of America, which in population, production, and wealth is an infinitely greater country than ours, says that there is such a thing as unfair competition -

Section 316 makes unlawful unfair methods of competition and unfair acts of importation which have the effect or tendency to injure or destroy an industry in the United States efficiently and economically operated, or to prevent the establishment of such industry.

– The honorable member said that the industry was flourishing.

Mr Yates:

– I deny that.

Mr PARSONS:

– The bill to which I have referred provides that repayments may be made in two instalments, spread over a period of two years. Clause 10l reads -

Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the Minister may, upon the receipt of a report from the board appointed under this act, release any grower either wholly or in part from his indebtedness in respect to an advance made to him under this act.

That is a proof that the industry is not in a flourishing condition. Its production has certainly been great, but it has really suffered from over-production, and the growers have not been able to sell their products at a profitable price in the markets of the world. The generally accepted reason is that, from various causes, the cost of production in Australia is so high that the growers cannot compete with other countries in which the cost of production is lower, and the distance to the markets of the world shorter. Similar conditions exist in the wine industry. The information that I shall place before the committee was obtained by me from persons who are engaged in the industry. The honorable member for Adelaide said that the production of wine in 1923-4 was 14,500,000 gallons. For his information, I may mention that in the year 1924-5 the production declined to 12,500,000 gallons, because of climatic conditions. The normal consumption of Australian wine is 9,000,000 gallons. It will thus be seen that there has been over-production in that industry also. The grape-growers were not able to carry on, and the industry was in a state of collapse. The Commonwealth Government had to come to their assistance. Let me show what this industry has done. Originally there was an excise duty amounting to 6d. per proof gallon on fortifying spirit. The sole reason for the imposition of that excise was to secure funds with which to cover the cost of supervision. That was found to be insufficient, and the excise was raised to 9d. In 1915 revenue was badly needed, and the excise was raised to 6s. per proof gallon purely for war revenue. The producer’s were led to believe that they would obtain -some relief after the

– Quite recently. I have only given up my business in the last two or three months to take on the political job of representing Angas in this House. I am not trying to mislead the Minister. I am speaking in quite a friendly way, because it is my desire to see the tariff an effective one, and one in which there are no silly mistakes harmful to the workers as well as to the primary producers of Australia. In general, I agree with the tariff, but there are one or two defects which I should like to see removed from it. To me, speaking with the experience of a lifetime in the soft-goods trade, these seem to be absolutely ridiculous. I do not think the Minister wants to impose a schedule of duties which will afterwards be a laughingstock in Australia and. elsewhere. Therefore, I appeal to him to give these matters serious consideration. In that respect I am sure I shall have the support of the honorable member for

Wakefield (Mr. Foster), who has had longer experience in the soft-goods trade than I have had, and whose opinion the Minister will respect.

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Will the honorable member change his opinion if it can be proved that the Australian factories can supply the whole of the requirements of the community ?

Mr PARSONS:

– Even if that were possible, I do not think the Minister wants to impose a duty of 2s. 6d. against Great Britain on an article which can be produced in Australia for 9s. 6d. a dozen. That is a duty I would impose to prohibit the importation of goods produced by coloured labour. At any rate, it is an impost which is incompatible with our general attitude towards Great Britain. The Minister, and also the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) have emphasized the fact that we have a preferential tariff in favour of the Mother Country, but there is nothing in favour of the Mother Country in a duty of 2s. 6d. on an an article which can be bought for 4d. Therefore, for empire reasons, even if the Minister can show that all these children’s vests can be produced in

Australia, and that the demand can be met in March, when the goods are wanted, and not in October, I do not think we should have such a prohibitive tariff as 2s. 6d. on an article which can be produced at 9Jd. in Australia. With all due respect to the right honorable member for North Sydney, one or two of his remarks in regard to the fanners were rather unfortunate, and I do not think that, upon renconsideration, he would repeat them. At any rate, they are contrary to the facts. I admit that the farmers owe a great deal to the inventive genius of those Australians who have produced their agricultural machinery.

Mr Stewart:

– We question that.

Mr PARSONS:

– .Yes ; very often the ideas which the manufacturers have incorporated in their machinery have come from the brains of the producers. The right honorable member for North Sydney, in support of his argument, went so far as to say that, whereas some years ago 50 men were required to produce a certain amount of wheat, one farmer, by the use of machinery, could do the same amount of work to-day. I could not quite follow the right honorable member, but it seemed to me that he thought the other 49 men should live on the odd farmer who did the work. It is true that the farmer is employing machinery where, years ago, he made use of the scythe and sickle, and that, as a consequence, there is a larger number of people engaged in the manufacture of agricultural machinery than was required to make scythes and sickles. For that reason, I am quite agreeable to foster the manufacture of agricultural machinery in Australia by a suitable protective duty, but always on the assumption that the farmers of Australia, of whom I represent a large number, get a fair deal from the manufacturers. In season and out of season the manufacturers should endeavour to produce the machinery required at the lowest possible price, because our primary producers have to market their products at world’s parity, and, therefore, must keep down production costs. All classes of the community are interested in this problem. It should be our purpose to make the best possible use of this country, and do all in our power to produce at prices that will enable us to compete with the rest of the world. I have no desire to set party against party. I have lived for many years in a country town, and I honour and respect my fellow man. I hope I shall never be an extremist. During the debate we have heard the diverse views of the honorable member for Perth (Mi1. Mann), on the one hand, and the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Yates), on the other. I do not agree with either, because both are extremists. I shall endeavour to quote the title of one of Sir Phillip Gibbs’s book, to keep in * the middle of the road,” and out of the freetrade and prohibition ditches. This country needs an effective protective tariff in the interests of its primary producers, as well as of those engaged in secondary industries. The right honorable member for North Sydney in his speech last evening was unfair to Australian farmers when he compared them with the primary producers of Denmark and other European countries. As an Australian I was surprised to hear the right honorable gentleman casting aspersions upon our farmers. They get excellent results from the soil, sometimes under the most adverse conditions, and I say, without hesitation, that their methods of production are equal to those adopted by any other country. It is true that very many of them have to work exceedingly long hours. For some years I had a brother engaged in farming in the Pinnaroo district of South Australia. He was doing fairly well until, unfortunately, he met with an accident. One year I arranged to forego my Christmas holidays to help him. After travelling for nearly 48 hours, I reached Pinnaroo late in the evening. The following morning he called mo - at 5.30. He and the other farm employees had had their breakfast, and were yoked up for the day’s work. We worked all that day, and returned to the homestead at a very late hour. This was the daily round for several weeks, and, as it is the life of the average farmer, bc is entitled to enjoy a well-earned rest if and when he retires. Progress reported.

page 1364

ELECTORAL LAW

Joint Committee of Inquiry

Message received from the Senate, intimating that, having considered message No. 12 from the House of Representatives, it had agreed to the following resolutions in connexion therewith: -

That the Senate agrees to the appointment of a joint committal to inquire into the law and procedure in relation to -
1. enrolment on the Commonwealth electoral rolls;
2. postal voting at Commonwealth elections ;
3. signed articles;
4. polling facilities;
5. donations or gifts by members or candidates; andto report on any additional safeguards necessary to prevent impersonation and duplicate voting.
That Senators Payne,Plain, Graham, and Thompson be appointed to serve on such committee with members of the House of Representatives.
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, to move from place to place, and to sit during any adjournment ofthe Parliament.
That two members shall be the quorum of senators present to constitute a sitting of such committee.
That the time and place of the first meeting of the committee shall bo 10 o’clock a.m. on Thursday, 18th March, in the Senate Committee Room.

page 1365

ADJOURNMENT

Personal Explanation

Motion (by Mr. Pratten) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MANN:
Perth

.- Yesterday, when speaking upon the tariff, I referred to the cost of obtaining copies of evidence taken before the Tariff Board The gentlemen whose business it is to prepare those copies called upon me to-day, andsaid that the newspaper report of my speech appeared to indicate that the board was making unwarranted charges for copies of evidence. I have perused the Hansard report of my speech, and, as I thought, my words did not convey that impression, nor did I intend to do so. I urged that the cost of transcripts of evidence should be borne by the Government. Nothing was further from my thoughts than to suggest that the gentleman responsible for the reporting of the evidence was making undue charges for transcripts.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 March 1926, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1926/19260304_reps_10_112/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 4 March 1926

ABSENCE OF MR. SPEAKER

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

QUESTION

OPENING OF PARLIAMENT AT CANBERRA

Mr WEST:EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

Mr West:

Mr BRUCE:

QUESTION

TUBERCULOSIS

Mr D CAMERON:BRISBANE. QLD · NAT

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:Minister for Defence · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Mr FENTON:MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr Watkins:

Mr FENTON:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bayley:OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

PRESS MESSAGES TO QUEENSLAND

Mr FORDE:CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr GIBSON:Postmaster-General · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

YASS-CANBERRA RAILWAY

Mr E RILEY:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

BUSH FIRE SUFFERERS

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

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:NAT

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

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:

BOUNTY ON RAW COTTON

Tariff Board’s Report

Mr FORDE:

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

KERBSIDE PETROL PUMPS

Mr FENTON:

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURES

Mr FENTON:

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

SALE OF UNHEALTHY FOOD

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

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:NAT

QUESTION

COMMUNIST AGENT

Mr FENTON:

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Mr MACKAY:LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr HILL:Minister for Works and Railways · ECHUCA, VICTORIA · CP

PAPER

New Guinea Act - Ordinance of 1926 - No. 5 - Advisory Council

TARIFF

Customs and Excise Duties

Incommittee of Ways and Means:

Mr PROWSE:Forrest

Dear Sir,

The Secretary,

Dear Sir,

Mr PROWSE:

Mr Fenton:

Mr PROWSE:

QUESTION

COMBINES AT WORK

Mr PROWSE:

Mr Fenton:

Mr PROWSE:

Mr Fenton:

Mr PROWSE:

Mr Stewart:

Mr PROWSE:

Mr Yates:

Mr PROWSE:

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

House of Representatives
4 March 1926

Mr WEST:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:
Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

Mr D CAMERON:
BRISBANE. QLD · NAT

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
Minister for Defence · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bayley:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr GIBSON:
Postmaster-General · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · CP

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

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

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
NAT

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

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

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

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
NAT

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr MACKAY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr HILL:
Minister for Works and Railways · ECHUCA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr MANN:
Perth

Mr BELL:
Darwin

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

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

Mr CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT