House of Representatives
23 March 1926

10^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- RECIPROCAL TARIFF TREATY WITH SOUTH AFRICA
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION BILL
QUESTION
- AMALGAMATED WIRELESS LIMITED
QUESTION
- CANBERRA
QUESTION
- TRADE AND CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- PASSPORT SYSTEM
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE CLASSIFICATION
QUESTION
- POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- LEAGUE OF NATIONS
QUESTION
- MAINROADS GRANT
QUESTION
- PORT AUGUSTA-OODNADATTA RAILWAY
QUESTION
- PATERSON BUTTER BONUS SYSTEM
QUESTION
- ELECTRIC BATTERIES
QUESTION
- TARIFF
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT
- Institute of Science and Industry - Advisory Committee

Mr. Speaker (Hon. Sir Littleton Groom) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1867

QUESTION

RECIPROCAL TARIFF TREATY WITH SOUTH AFRICA

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

-As I understand that whilst the present reciprocal tariff treaty with South Africa continues in force, the alterations proposed in the tariff schedule now under consideration by the House will have no more effect than did those which were proposed in the tariff schedule passed in 1922, can the Minister for Trade and Customs inform the House whether the South African reciprocal tariff treaty will be cancelled ?

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The honorable member’s premises are correct; but the Government has decided to cancel the treaty with South Africa he has referred to, which, I think, is dated so long ago as 1906. A bill for this purpose has been prepared, and if the state of public business permits, it may be passed this week.

page 1867

ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION BILL

Mr COLEMAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether, in connexion with the proposed Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, he has consulted the trade unions of Australia that are likely to be affected by the proposed legislation, or will he undertake to do so before the bill is introduced 1

Mr LATHAM:
Attorney-General · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · NAT

– I have already received a considerable amount of assistance from representatives of the trade union movement in the inquiries which I am making, and the work I am doing in connexion with the matter mentioned by the honorable member. It is certainly the desire and object of the Government to obtain further assistance of that character. While the House is sitting as at present, it is very difficult indeed, as the honorable member will understand, to do very much work on the subject. But when the House rises it is intended to obtain the assistance of all sections of the community.

page 1867

QUESTION

AMALGAMATED WIRELESS LIMITED

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

– Has the Prime Minister any information to give the House concerning what is being done by Amalgamated Wireless Limited? The representative of the company, who went to Great Britain in. connexion with its business, is now back in Australia., and I should like to know what has Been done.

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

– Mr. Mason Allard, the chairman of the Amalgamated Wireless Company, went to Great Britain last year in connexion with the establishment of the beam station in Great Britain, to endeavour to obtain the consentof the’ British Government to our having our own reciprocal station there, and also to negotiate with regard to the rates between the British Government and the Australian company in the event of our not obtaining a licence to work our own station. I have only within the last two or three days received areport from him, and it is now under the consideration of the Government.

page 1868

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Sale of Alcoholic Liquors

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Will the Prime Minister give the House an opportunity of discussing whether or not the sale of alcoholic liquors shall be permitted at Canberra ?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– The question is now under the consideration of the Government, and when a decision has been arrived at, an announcement will be made to the House.

page 1868

QUESTION

TRADE AND CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT

Vacancy for Ministerial Messenger

Mr MAKIN:
through Mr.Fenton

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether a vacancy exists in his departmentfor a ministerial messenger?
If so, how long has this vacancy existed, and what is causing the delay in finalizing the appointment?

Mr.PRATTEN.- The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

Yes.
Since 30th July, 1925. It is not usual, in reply to questions, to disclose reasons for the departmental attitude that may be regarded as necessary in such matters from an administrative stand-point.

page 1868

QUESTION

PASSPORT SYSTEM

Mr WEST:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether, in view of the fact that, in prewar days, passports were required only of persons desiring to enter Russia, and that under the Immigration Restriction Act there is ample power to prevent the entry of undesirable persons into Australia, is any advantage likely to accrue to the Commonwealth from a continuance of the system?
If not, will he reduce thecost of passports and reduce some of the particulars?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

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

As it is in theinterests of persons wishing to enter Australia to . know, before going to the expense of paying passages to the Commonwealth, that they will be eligible for admission, subject to health and other general requirements, and the possession of a valid passport (duly visaed where necessary) to a large extent ensures the right of entry, it is considered, as stated in the reply made on the 18th March to the honorable member’s previous question on this subject, that thereis a decided advantage to the Commonwealth and to the migrants concerned in continuing the passport system. The honorable member will be aware of the fact that practically every overseas country requires persons wishing to enter such country to be in possession of valid passports. It is, therefore, also in the interests of travellers from Australia that they should be armed with passports on proceeding abroad, otherwise they Are likely to find themselves in serious difficulties.
The cost of an Australian passport is 10s., which only covers a proportion of the expense of administration. It may be mentioned that the Australian charge for visas of foreign passports is only 2s. as compared with charges up to £3 by certain countries. It is not considered that any advantage would be gained by reducing the particulars now required to be supplied, which are regarded as essential in dealing with applications.

page 1868

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE CLASSIFICATION

Mr MAKIN:
through Mr. Fenton

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

How long is it anticipated it will ‘be before the reclassification will be finalized by the Commonwealth Public Service Board and duly gazetted in respect of the Postmaster-General’s Department in South Australia?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– Certain sections of the classification have already been finalized, and the Public Service Board is endeavouring to complete the whole of the classification by the end of 1926.

page 1868

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Wages and Allowances : Linemen, Telegraphists

Mr GREGORY:
through Mr. Masts

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

What is the average wage paid to linemen by his department, including allowances?
What is the average wage paid to telegraphists?

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

– Inquiries are being made, and the desired information will be furnished as soon as possible.

page 1868

QUESTION

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Treaty of Locarno

Mr WEST:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has he seen the following statement published by the Times of 19th January, 1926, from its Berlin correspondent: - “Ever since the “Treaty of Locarno’ was signed the nationalist press has characterized every safeguarding step of the Allies as a breach of the spirit of Locarno, and the heading, ‘Another Broken Promise,’ appears to be kept in standing type. At the same time Germany’s undertaking to enter the League is treated as an instrument for extortion.”?
Is it a fact that the German Association of Colonial Societies, at a recent meeting called to decide upon the policy to be pursued with reference to Germany entering the League, passed a resolution in favour of the mandate system, “ so long as Germany’s colonies are returned to her,” and that Germany should have a permanent seat on the Council so that she might prevent their annexation by any other power?
In view of the report that the association decided to request the German Government to convey this demand to Germany’s former opponents, and to make Germany’s entry into the League conditional upon guarantees for its fulfilment being forthcoming, will the Prime Minister state whether he has received official information of any such demand or request?

Mr.BRUCE. - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

Yes.
It has been reported in the press that the organization referred to did carry such a resolution.
The Government has received no official or other information that Germany’s entry into the League was made in any way dependent on that country’s receiving back any of her former colonies. Had such a request been made, the Commonwealth Government would have been informed of it. It is, however, a fact that, in the Reichstag, on 23rd November last, the German Chancellor referred to Germany’s former colonies, and stated that he expected that Germany’s claims to them would be given recognition. Similar language was employed in a communication addressed by Germany to the governments represented on the Council of the League of Notions in September, 1924, as well as in a memorandum to the League at the First Assembly in 1920. But, so far as the Commonwealth Government is aware, no promise has ever been made to Germany that any of her former colonies will be restored to her.

page 1869

QUESTION

MAINROADS GRANT

Mr GREGORY:
through Mr. Mann

asked the Minister for Works and Railways, upon notice -

In connexion with the Commonwealth road grant for the construction of arterial roads, is it a fact that in Western Australia the work is being carried out by day labour and that the Government refuse to employ persons who are not members of a trade union?
Does the Act provide that work of this description, when the funds are provided by the Commonwealth, must be carried out by contract?

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

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

Generally, the supply and delivery of material is by contract; forming and finishing are carried out by day labour. In regard to the question of the refusal by the State Government to employ persons who are not members of the trade unions, I am having inquiries made, and will advise the honorable member at a later date. 2.Regulation9 (2) of Regulations under the Main Roads Development Act provides -

The method of execution shall be by contract, but in special cases the Minister may approve of execution by departmental labour, provided that the work is carried out according to approved methods of construction in which modern plant is utilized to the fullest extent.

page 1869

QUESTION

PORT AUGUSTA-OODNADATTA RAILWAY

Locomotive Headlights

Mr HILL:
CP

– On the 19th instant the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Parsons) asked a question in regard to the installation of electric headlights on Commonwealth railway engines. I have received the following information from the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner : -

In the United States of America engines are provided, to a very considerable extent, with electric headlights. It is not compulsory to install electric headlights, but locomotives have to be fitted with lights which comply with certain regulations regarding illuminating power, &c, laid down by the Interstate Commerce Commission. . In Australia electric headlights have only been adopted to a limited extent. 2.No.
One locomotive on the Oodnadatta line is equipped with an electric headlight. It is not intended to install such headlights on additional engines at present.

page 1869

QUESTION

PATERSON BUTTER BONUS SYSTEM

Prices in London and Australia.

Mr ATKINSON:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · WILMOT, TASMANIA · CP

– On the 11th March, the honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney) asked the Minister representing the Minister for Markets and Migration the following question : -

Will he supply the Housewith return showing from the time of the inauguration of the Paterson butter bonus system- (a) The daily English prices per lb. of Australian butter sold in London; (5) the daily price per lb. of butter sold in Melbourne; (c) the sum per lb. paid, on Australian butter exported, with the total amount paid to date.

I am now in a position to give the honorable member the following information : -

The Commonwealth Government is in no way connected with the Paterson butter scheme, which was devised and put into operation by the dairy industry. The Stabilization Committee, however, has been good enough to furnish the Department of Markets and Migration with the following replies for the information of the honorable member: - (a) and (b) The retail prices for butter in London and Melbourne vary considerably, according to the locality in which it is retailed, but, generally, the retail price is about 2d. to 3d. per lb., above the wholesale price. The London wholesale average prices, since the 1st January last to date, were - January, 167s. per cwt. ; February, 166s. per cwt. ; and March, 166s. per cwt. The Melbourne wholesale prices for the same period ranged from 168s. to 191s. 4d. per cwt. (c) Threepence (3d.) per lb. is paid to producers on butter exported. The total paid to date is nearly £150,000.

page 1870

QUESTION

ELECTRIC BATTERIES

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– On the 19th March the honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney) asked the following questions : -

What quantity of dry cells has been imported for the twelve months up to 30th June, 1925?
What quantity of wireless “ B “ batteries has been imported for the same period?

I am now able to furnish the honorable member with the following information : -

The particulars sought are not recorded separately, but the value of dry cells and accumulators imported during the period mentioned amounted to £196,351.

page 1870

QUESTION

TARIFF

Customs and Excise Duties

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from 22nd

March (vide page 1866).

Mr PRATTEN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I move -

That the- item be amended to read -

Wood naphtha and methyl alcohol, free.

Acetone on and after the 1st January, 1927, 30 , per cent. (British), 35 per cent. (intermediate), 40 per cent. (general).

When the tariff, schedule was introduced in September last, I stated that there were 47 items in regard to which there were decreases, and that they had not yet been inquired into by the Tariff Board. This is one item respecting which the Government proposes to de crease the duties. In view of the important defence aspect of acetone and also of the possibility of its manufacture being renewed here by Cuming, Smith and Co. Pty. Ltd., for commercial as well as defence purposes, it is proposed to amend the item as indicated. Such additional duty will, of course, only operate should our practical requirements of acetone be manufactured here, and then only after report and inquiry by the. Tariff Board.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Mr MANN:
Perth

.- I do not understand why, under the tariff, egg albumen, dry, is dutiable, while egg yoke and albumen combined, is free. This seems to be an extraordinary anomaly in the tariff.

Mr.PRATTEN (Martin- Minister for Trade and Customs) [11.19]. - Under item 46 of the general tariff, the duty on egg albumen, dry, is at per lb., 2s. 6d., 3s., and 3s., and it is this item which the committee is asked to amend. Under item 47, which is not included in the tariff alterations, the duty on egg contents, being yoke and albumen combined, dry, at per lb., is 1s. 4d.,1s. 8d., and1s. 8d. We have a large importation of egg albumen, totalling 32,000 lb. weight. Of this, China supplies 31,523 lb., valued at over £7,000. The Australian poultry growers made application for an increased duty, and, after full investigation, the rates as set out were recommended. It is estimated that, to meet our own requirements of egg albumen, an additional 4,000,000 eggs would have to be used in Australia.

Item agreed to.

Mr LISTER:
Corio

.- I have already intimated to the Minister that I wish to amend the sub-item relating to asparagus. I have been informed that I am not permitted to move an amend ment to increase the tariff, and I therefore suggest to the Minister that he should move in the direction that I shall indicate. The proposed duties are as follow : -

I suggest to the Minister that these duties be altered by deleting the rates in sub-item 2b, and inserting in lieu thereof 4s.. 5s., and 6s.: by deleting the rates in sub-item 2c, and inserting in lieu thereof 6s., 7s., and 8s. 6d.; and by deleting the rates in sub-item 2d; and inserting in lieu thereof 7s., 8s., and 9s. 6d.

I ask the Minister to accept these suggested, amendments, because hitherto the Australian asparagus-growing industry has received very little encouragement. As a matter of fact, it has been confined largely to market gardeners, who, by the cultivation of a few acres, have supplied a portion of the asparagus requirements of the Commonwealth. The position to-day respecting this industry is somewhat serious, because the growers are meeting with severe competition from California. As the Australian industry is on the eve of considerable expansion, the Government would be wise to give it further assistance in the direction asked for, to relieve the growers of any unnecessary handicap. At Barwon Heads, in my electorate, a considerable area of asparagus is being cultivated. One grower, Mr. Foster, has 250 acres already planted, and this year he will be cutting for the first time. There are many other smaller growers in Victoria and in the other States. This industry is in its infancy, and requires fostering. The growers have asked for additional assistance merely as part of the policy of protection, of which we in Australia are justly proud. There are few, if any, primary industries that require so much labour as does the growing of asparagus. In California an asparagus farm of 130 acres employs for several months of the year no fewer than 108 men. This industry offers extensive employment at a season of the year when many men are looking for work. It is stated that the wages alone for every acre of asparagus . grown amount to £85. In addition, a considerable number of people are engaged in the canning of asparagus. Honorable members will, therefore, recognize the importance of this industry. The Australian growers are confronted with one great disability. In California the asparagus growing industry is carried on with coloured labour. Few white people are employed in the actual growing of asparagus. The whole of the labour is undertaken by Japanese, Chinese, Hindus, Philippines, ‘Kanakas, Mexicans, and Portuguese. TheCalifornian growers are, therefore, able to place their produce on the Australian market at a price with which it is absolutely impossible for Australian growers to compete. I ask the Minister to give this industry the necessary measure of protection.

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

– What is the Californian tariff ?

Mr LISTER:

– I do not know. I understand that it does not in any way assist the Australian industry. Our present tariff permits of dumping, and that is what is taking place to-day. I have with me a few sample tins of imported asparagus. The duty under the general tariff on a small tin of 10½ oz. is 2s. a dozen tins. The ad valorem rate increases the duty to 2s. l1/2d. a dozen tins. The article is sold at about1s. 4d. a tin. The edible contents in this 101/2-oz. tin are equal to 76 per cent, of the edible contents of the large tin, but, dutiable at the latter is 8s. 6d. a dozen.

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I cannot understand that.

Mr LISTER:

– On the 15-oz. tins the duty is 4s. a dozen.

Mr.Hughes. - How do the contents of the large and intermediate tins compare ?

Mr LISTER:

– The intermediate tin contains only what are known as “ tips,” and its edible . contents are equal to those of the larger tin. which contains a greater length of stem. The American canner pays the grower 3d. per lb. for asparagus for canning purposes, but, owing to the greater cost of production in this country the Australian canner pays the grower 7d. per lb.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Californian asparagus is grown by coloured labour.

Mr LISTER:

– It is grown largely by Japanese, Chinese. Philippinos, and other coloured labour. The Australian canner is heavily handicapped, and unless he is granted more protection, he must abandon the industry. This is practically a new primary industry, and I hope Australian people are sufficiently patriotic to pay a little more, or even a good deal more, for a local article produced under the best conditions. The quality of Gee- long asparagus is recognized all over Australia. One gentleman in my electorate has invested about £30,000 in the industry, and others have laid out large sums. Since the tariff was increased,the price of Californian asparagus hasdeclined, and the101/2-oz. tin of “tips” is being dumped in Australia and retailed at about1s. 4d. The fostering of this industry will give additional employment to tin-platers, manufacturers of containers, and printers. The first heavy crop is to be cut this year, over a fairly extensive area. I am informed that the industry only requires to be established on a firm footing, and then will be able te compete successfully with importations, and prices will fall. If I am not permitted to move an amendment to increase the duty, I request the Minister to favorably consider the request that I have made on behalf of the growers.

Mr MANNING:
Macquarie

– I support the request made by the honorable member for Corio (Mr. Lister). This industry should certainly receive assistance from the Government. If the honorable member for Corio has evidence that 10-oz. tins of asparagus “tips” are being dumped at the present time, he should bring the facts under the notice of the Minister, so that the antidumping legislation may be brought into operation against such imports. Honorable members must, recognize, however, that no matter how high the duty on asparagus, unless the Australian canner produces an equally good article the imported commodity will hold the market. Much of the asparagus that we see for sale in the shops and streets of Melbourne is not up to the Californian standard.

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

– Has the honorable member tried A.J.C. asparagus?

Mr MANNING:

– I am not speaking of the canned article. The asparagus grown on tb.p Macquarie flats is equal to the best that is imported. It is marketed in a way that is a credit to the grower, and always brings the highest prices in the Sydney market. The Australian grower is producing, under conditions which involve heavier costs than are borne by his foreign competitors, and, therefore, he is entitled to assistance from the tariff.’ The growing of asparagus entails a great deal of labour, and this committee would be well advised to grant additional assistance to the canners. If they produce an article of the same quality as the imported asparagus, they will find a profitable market; if the quality is not what it should be, the public; will still pay more for the foreign commodity.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– I heartily endorse the request of the honorable member for Corio. There is a big opportunity for Australian producers of asparagus. It is unfortunate that at big public banquets, even in this building, we have to place before our guests Californian asparagus. Considerable areas of this country are capable of producing asparagus of the very best quality, and it is a pity that the local market is not supplied by the Australian growers and canners. As the honorable member for Corio pointed out, the encouragement of asparagus canning will give increased employment in tin factories and printing and lithographic establishments. Most honorable members have a bed of asparagus in the kitchen garden, and know what a delectable article it is. Already considerable sums of money have been invested in the asparagusgrowing industry, and with the splendid soil available in Australia, there is no reason why its production should not extend very rapidly. As stated by the honorable member for Corio (Mr. Lister), the Californian product which comes into competition with the Australian article, is handled by black labour. In California, many Asiatics have obtained large areas of land which they have planted with asparagus, and, in view of the unfair competition with which the Australian producers have to contend, there is no reason why a fairly heavy duty should not be imposed in order to keep this trade in the hands of our people. As it is not competent for a member to move for an increase in duty, I trust that, in view of the general support accorded to the honorable member for Corio, the Minister will amend the schedule in the direction suggested.

Mr HUGHES:
North Sydney

– I believe that what the honorable member, for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) has said is quite right, and, if the statements of the honorable member for Corio (Mr. Lister), and those who have supported him, are correct, there can be no reason why this industry should not be further protected. The sample tins produced by the honorable member for Corio, particularly the two smaller, make it obvious that the Californian producers are attempting to evade duty by reducing the length of the asparagus stalks. Asparagus has to be eaten much like maccaroni; but how it can be so eaten when only the tips are served, I do not know. One reason that disposes me to favour the local product is that asparagus has to be picked by hand, and, as the imported product is handled in many cases by Asiatics and other coloured labour, there is the possibility that certain diseases, which are endemic among such peoples, may be communicated to the purchasers. Consequently, I prefer asparagus picked by white men. In the electorate of the honorable member for Corio, and in other parts of Australia, asparagus can be grown which will compare favorably with that produced in any other part of the world. By increasing the duty we shall be giving encouragement to an Australian industry, and an emphatic and most complete reply to the efforts of the Calif ornian producers. I propose to support the very modest request of the honorable member for Corio.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

.- I have gone carefully into this matter, particularly in regard to the suggestion that the duty on the smaller tins of asparagus should be raised. I believe that a deliberate attempt is being . made by the Californian producers to evade the payment of duty. This can be confirmed bv an examination of the specimen tins submitted this morning by the honorable member for Corio. I support the suggestion of the honorable member for the reasons for which I have always supported an embargo on sugar and bananas grown by coloured labour. It is unreasonable to allow the Californian product, fully 90 per cent, of which is cultivated by Chinese, Japanese, and Hindus, to compete with the Australian article. During the last Parliament I asked the Minister for Agriculture in New South Wales if asparagus was being canned at the Government cannery at Leeton. Six months later the Minister informed me that the work had been undertaken and a trial pack produced, but that they were handicapped in having to compete with the Californian’ asparagus, which was shipped to Australia in small tins, and at a price with which the Australian canners could not compete. “ I understand that the wages costs in cultivating asparagus amount to approximately £85 per acre. As Australians can produce almost anything from the land, there does not appear to be any valid reason why we should be importing a vegetable of this type when it has been clearly shown that it can be successfully grown in this country. I trust that the Minister will agree to an increased duty, to the extent indicated, as I understand that if a higher rate is imposed the Australian producers will not attempt in any’ way to increase the present prices.

Mr MAHONY:
Dalley

.- I trust the Minister (Mr. Pratten) will give favorable consideration to the suggestion of the honorable member for Corio (Mr. Lister). If he is favorable to the proposed increase, he should inform the committee and thus save time, because I am quite satisfied that an overwhelming majority is in favour of higher duties.

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

.- I strongly support the request of the honorable member for Corio, as I consider the present duty altogether inadequate. It is a disgrace to Australia that we have to obtain supplies of asparagus from California. I remember the day when our warehouses were fully stocked with Californian fruits, and when consumers, in what might be termed the best homes, refused to eat Australian canned fruit. We’ have, however, fortunately passed that stage, and the Australian canned fruit is now very largely used in preference to the imported article. Any honorable member who has sampled the A.J.C. brand of asparagus must admit that it is equal, if not superior, to the imported product. In these circumstances it is ridiculous to suggest that we should depend on California for our supplies. I trust that the Government will further support this primary industry, and enable Australian growers to place larger supplies on the market than they have been able to do in the past owing to the inadequate duty imposed.

Mr PRATTEN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– In view of the practically unanimous desire of the committee that a more effective duty should be imposed, I ask the committee to postpone consideration of this item to enable the suggested amendment of the honorable member for Corio to be examined, with a view to meeting the wish of the committee in a practical way.

Item postponed.

Item 57 -

By omitting the whole of sub-item (c) and inserting in its stead the following subitem: - “ (c) Maize, per cental, 2s. 6d. (British), 3s. (intermediate), 3s. 6d. (general).”

Mr HUGHES:
North. Sydney

– Honorable members will notice that an increased duty is proposed on maize. In the 1921 tariff the British preferential duty on this commodity was ls. 6d. per cental, and when this was imposed it was the belief of those engaged in the growing of maize that they would be protected to the extent of 3s. per cental, but owing, to a reciprocal trade agreement with South . Africa, it was found that South African maize could be imported under a duty of ls. per cental. The Minister (Mr. Pratten) has not told us what the Government proposes to do in regard to’ the agreement with South Africa. Is it proposed to denounce the treaty?

Mr J FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

– He said that it is to be cancelled .

Mr HUGHES:

– Very well. That brings me to the point that I want to make. If it is denounced the duty on maize will be 3s. 6d.

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Unless a reciprocal arrangement is made by which South Africa will get the benefit of the British preference.

Mr HUGHES:

– That is so. What I suggest, and what the conference of the Chamber of Manufactures asks, is that if and when the Trade Treaty with. South Africa is denounced, steps shall be taken to prevent cargoes of maize grown under black labour conditions in South Africa from being dumped into this country in the event of a shortage occurring in our supplies of locally-grown maize. To my knowledge two shipments came in last season.

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– A good many more than two came in.

Mr HUGHES:

– Even those two shipments threatened to destroy the maize industry in Australia. . According to the sworn evidence of maize-growers, it costs 4s. l0d. per bushel to produce maize. The maize-growers at Atherton say that they cannot grow it at that price, and that applies to the growers in the greater part of Queensland. Although it may be possible for maize-growers in Victoria to grow it profitably at less than 4s. lOd. per bushel, room should be allowed for a reasonable profit to be made. But if maize rises above 6s/ 6d. per bushel it does not pay the local manufacturers to use it to make maize products, and the American manufacturers, who use maize grown by cheap foreign labour, are able to com pete successfully against them in the local market. I presume that negotiations have taken place, or are taking place, for the denouncing of the South African Trade Treaty. If no satisfactory reciprocal treaty is made which will in itself overcome the difficulty that I have outlined, will the Minister give us an assurance that the whole matter will he referred to the Tariff Board immediately, so that our secondary industries will be certain of adequate protection to ensure their stability and permanence? It is necessary to protect, not only the maizegrower against importations from South Africa, but. also the local manufacturers, who use maize to produce glucose, starch, cornflour, and other maize products, against manufacturers abroad who use maize grown by black labour. Thousands of people are employed in the maize-using secondary industries in Australia, and tens of thousands of pounds of capital have been invested in them. I am sure that the Minister will see that, should circumstances arise which force the price of maize up in Australia, and so make it impossible for the local manufacturers to use it profitably, it is only logical and just that there should be a readjustment of the duty which would enable them to carry on their businesses as usual.

Dr NOTT:
Herbert

.- I was pleased to hear the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Pratten) say that steps were being taken to denounce the Trade Treaty with South Africa, but I was somewhat alarmed to hear the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) suggest that it was possible that a reciprocal agreement might be made with South Africa which would give a preference to South African maize grown by black labour. We should make it impossible for maize grown by black labour in South Africa to compete with maize grown by white labour in Australia. As the right honorable member for North Sydney pointed out, the natural sequence to protecting our maize-grower3 is protecting the manufacturers who use locallygrown maize in our secondary industries. I should like the Minister for Trade and Customs to give us an assurance that he will . earnestly consider the whole matter. If large quantities of maize are imported to Australia from South Africa, there is no doubt whatever that the local maizegrowers will be ruined. I trust that if a new trade treaty is made with South Africa there will be no provision for a preference for South African maize.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

. I agree with the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) that the natural corollary to protecting the local maize-grower against importations from cheap labour countries abroad, is protecting the local manufacturers of maize products against manufacturers from abroad who use maize grown by cheap labour. There is a very large factory making maize products in my constituency, and it would do honorable members good to pay it a visit to see the first class products that it manufactures.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– What is the good of developing secondary industries if the primary industries must be destroyed to do so?

Mr FENTON:

– I have always argued that our primary and secondary industries must work hand in hand ; and that the development of primary industries in Australia is of little use without the development of secondary industries, and vice versa. I do not trouble the Minister for Trade and Customs very often, but I have had necessity to bring under his notice the fact that a good deal of foreign glucose manufactured by black labour, and made from maize grown by black labour, is being imported. ‘ I am sure that neither Parliament nor the Minister himself stands for that kind of thing. I agree, also with the honorable member for Herbert (Dr. Nott) that no provision should be made in any new trade treaty that may be arranged with South Africa for a preference for South African maize grown by black labour. There should be an embargo on its importation.

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

– We cannot go too far with the embargo policy. South Africa takes a lot of our wheat and flour.

Mr FENTON:

– But we must go far enough to protect our secondary industries against black labour products. We have been successful in doing so up to the present, and I see no reason why we should not continue to be successful.

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Consideration must be given to the nature of our trade with South Africa.

Mr FENTON:

– In developing the interempire trade policy, we must take care that we do not consent to anything that will crush our local primary or secon dary industries. Developments are occurring in a certain part of the Empire which I will not name, which suggest to me that our wheat-growers are in danger.

Mr Stewart:

– The honorable member need not fear that.

Mr FENTON:

– If the experiments being conducted there continue to be successful, our wheat-growers will be subjected to very serious competition.

Mr Stewart:

– The honorable member need not worry about them. .

Mr FENTON:

– They may be all right for the present, but I am looking into the future. Surely honorable members who represent maize-growers desire to protect their constituents. I hope that the Minister will make a statement to the effect that adequate protection will be afforded both our primary and secondary maize industries.

Mr MANNING:
Macquarie

– I agree that our maize-growers should be protected against importations from countries with cheap labour conditions; but at the same time it must be remembered that in drought periods in Australia maize is one of our best standbys Without it we should lose thousands more head of stock. In such periods I and other honorable members have known maize to be 10s. 6d. a bushel; and even at that price the supplies were inadequate. If the wonderfully beneficial rains we have just had throughout Australia had held off for another six weeks, I venture to say that maize would have been 10s. a bushel. We should be careful that the duty on foreign-grown maize is not so heavy that in ‘drought times it will be impossible, on the score of expense, for our pastoralists and farmers to import it. Consideration for a few moments of what would happen if we were not able to obtain maize in a serious drought period, would compel even the most ardent protectionist to agree to the abandonment of the duty on it during such a period.

Mr Hughes:

– How does the honorable member suggest that a sliding scale to suit circumstances could be administered ?

Mr MANNING:

– I am merely seeking information. If Parliament were in session there would be no trouble; but I am thinking of occasions when it might be otherwise. Perhaps the GovernorGeneral in Council could be given authority in those circumstances to vary or dispense with the duty. I consider it is essential, in the interest of the stock- owners themselves, that this duty should be imposed. Otherwise many local growers would cease to produce, and when required in times of drought, supplies would not be available. I suggest, however, that, if possible, provision should be made that, in times of drought, such as occurred in 1902, 1914, and 1919, if sufficient supplies of home-grown maize are not available, the duty should be suspended. It is essential to the continued prosperity of Australia that in such periods every head of stock possible shall be saved. I should like to know whether the Minister is prepared to consider the practicability of an arrangement such as I have suggested.

Mr Hughes:

– Would the honorable member be prepared to give the Minister & general power to dispense with duties ?

Mr MANNING:

– If the Government on this, or any other occasion, did so, it would act at its own peril. If it so abused the occasion as to lose the support of the House, it would naturally suffer. The position is very acute, and requires the careful consideration of the committee.

Mr Watt:

– The adoption of the honorable member’s suggestions would not effect a cure.

Mr MANNING:

– I am not indicating a cure; I am pointing to a situation that is certain to arise. History is bound to repeat itself. This country is subject to periodical droughts, and we have just narrowly escaped one. A continuance of dry weather for another three months would have been very seripus.

Mr Hughes:

– Why legislate specially for maize? Why not apply the same policy to other products?

Mr MANNING:

– I am directing attention to a difficulty that will surely arise in the future - a difficulty which had not been mentioned before I rose - and, in directing attention toit, I am surely doing no more than my duty. If it is within the power of the right honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Watt), or the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), to provide a solution, the committee is no doubt ready to listen to them.

Mr STEWART:
Wimmera

– I support the views of the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Manning), who has raised a very important point. 1 admit that the interjections of the right honorable member for Balaclava, and the right honorable member for North Sydney, are pertinent, but the point raised by the honorable member for Macquarie, notwithstanding the difficulties surrounding it, must be considered. Two figures were mentioned in relation to the cost of growing maize. 4s. lOd. was stated as the cost of growing maize, and the right honorable member for North Sydney mentioned 6s. 6d.

Mr Hughes:

– I said that the manufacturers contended that when the price of maize rose above 6s. 6d., they could not compete with foreign manufacturers cf maize products.

Mr STEWART:

– When the price of maize, by drought or other conditions, increases to 6s. 6d., the maize-growers receive well above the cost of production. Is it not anomalous, in those circumstances, to impose a heavy duty ? The value of maize as a stock fodder in times of drought should be taken into consideration.

Mr Watt:

– Does not the honorable member admit that the stock-raiser’s extremity is the fodder-grower’s opportunity ?

Mr STEWART:

– Does not the right honorable member for Balaclava see that he is shifting his ground when he talks like that? The primary object of imposing a duty on maize is to protect maize-growers against maize grown by black labour in South Africa. Now it is suggested that the duty is to be used, not as a protection against the blackgrown maize of South Africa, but to enable the maize-growers of Australia to exploit their fellow primary producers in this country. In 1914, the duty upon wheat was suspended in the interests of the people of this country. I hesitate to give to any Minister the power to suspend duties imposed by the Parliament. I strongly protested the other evening against the imposition of a duty, under the Industries Preservation Act, on wire netting. Such a duty is wrong in principle. Surely, in our collective wisdom, we can find a way of solving this difficulty. When the price of maize rises to 6s. 6d. or 7s. a bushel, provision ought to be made for suspending the whole or part of the duty. If the price of maize goes up to 10s., and we have millions of stock dying for want of fodder, and maize that would save them is obtainable from South Africa, it is surely anomalous in such circumstances to retain the heavy duty.

Mr Fenton:

– The argument may be applied to oats and other products.

Mr STEWART:

– I am simply pointing out that the principle is wrong.

Mr Charlton:

– In a time of serious drought, would not the Government come to the rescue, and do what is right?

Mr STEWART:

– That does not remove the difficulty. Some provision should be made for automatically suspending the duty as the price rises above a certain level. The suggestion of the honorable member for Macquarie is much more sensible than that of the right honorable member for North Sydney. The right honorable member’s remedy when the price rises above 6s. 6d. is not to remove the duty, but to impose additional duties to protect the secondary industries.

Mr Hughes:

– The honorable member is looking at it from a different standpoint from that which I adopted. I was considering the necessity for doing justice to both the industries. The honorable member is suggesting that maize should be singled out, but why should not the principle be applied generally?

Mr STEWART:

– If the case is as clear in other industries as it is, to my mind, in this one, I shall be prepared to consider the general adoption of the principle. If we had a duty upon, say, oats from New Zealand, and there was a serious drought in this country, and valuable stock were dying, when the price of oats rose above 5s. it would be obviously wrong to continue the duty. I speak as an oat-grower. I hope the Minister will give careful consideration to this matter. It is difficult for me, or the honorable member for Macquarie, to propose a remedy.

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

.- Some honorable members appear to overlook one serious fact. Unless maizegrowers have a definite guarantee of adequate protection, they must go out of business in the tropical and sub-tropical parts of Queensland, where wages are high, and other disabilities have to be overcome. When inquiries were made some time ago it was found . that freight from Durban. South Africa, to Melbourne was 22 s. 6d. a ton, while from Queensland to Melbourne it was 40s. a ton. It was also found that maize was carried by rail to Durban from other parts of South Africa at a lower rate when it was destined for export than when it was to be sold for local consumption. Those facts place the Australian grower at a serious disadvantage, and there is also the very low black-labour wage to be considered. Maize will not continue to be grown here unless the growers know that they can sell it at a profit. That profit can only be assured to them by adequate protection, which has not been provided in the past. I know of a large number of growers who have gone out of this business, and of others who are considering going out of it. If a definite protective duty is imposed, so as to ensure the grower a profitable price, the production of maize will increase; but, failing such a- guarantee, the industry in Queensland will, to a large extent, collapse. I have ‘ been informed that in Victoria maize lands cost from £80 to £100 per acre, and that many of the maize-growers are returned soldiers. It is impossible, with land at such a price, to compete against the black-grown maize of other parts of the world. I, therefore, appeal to honorable members to support the higher duties on maize, and I appeal to the Minister not to give, under any circumstances, a preference to South African maize over maize from other countries.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- As the representative of a- district where a great quantity of maize is grown, I am aware of the difficulties under which maize-growers have been labouring for years. To my knowledge, many farmers have gone out of the industry because they have been unable to make it pay. They found that they could not compete with the cheaply-grown maize imported from South Africa. The protection provided in the past has not been effective. I strongly urge the Minister to insist upon the duties set out in the schedule. The maize-growing industry is of great importance to Australia. In 1923-4 it was worth £641,219 in Queensland, £1,078,460 a year in New South Wales, £329,564 a year in Victoria, £443 a year in South Australia, and £320 in Western Australia, making a total of £2,050,006 a year for the whole of Australia. The average value of the crop per acre was £6 9s. 8d. Unfortunately, inadequate protection has made it necessary for Australia to import large’ quantities of maize, the average quantity imported during the last ten years having been 1,000,000 bushels per annum. South Africa provides the bulk of our requirements. The net imports for the year 1923-4 amounted to 2,534,000 bushels, of a value of £505,000. It should be our aim to make it possible for those who are engaged in maize-growing to supply the whole of Australia’s requirements. The granting of adequate protection would have that effect. I strongly oppose preferential treatment to South Africa. I represent a number of maize-growers, hut I take a broad view of these matters. I cannot understand the inconsistency of some honorable members of the Country party, who desire to raise the protection on potatoes from £1 to £4 a ton, but, because the farmers in their electorates do not grow maize, wish to import that commodity from South Africa, where it is grown by black labour. That has been a characteristic of the Country party for years. Its narrow outlook prevented it from making any progress at the recent elections. Its members should take a broader view.

Mr Prowse:

– The Capricornia view?

Mr FORDE:

– That is more Australian than the view which is taken by the Country party, because Capricornia stands for the protection of every Australian industry, while the members of the Country party would wipe out the embargo on black-grown sugar and the. duty on bananas. This committee should not tolerate the importation of maize from South Africa. The treaty with that country should be annulled, and adequate protection should be afforded to Australian maize-growers. I am in favour of an em- bargo toeing placed upon the importation of maize from South Africa.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- A number of rather interesting points have been raised during this debate. Similar arguments were advanced during the debate on the 1921 tariff in regard to the duty on hay and imported stud stock. I then secured the removal of the duty on hay, on the ground that it was of no use to the producer, and on stud stock, because it was detrimental to Australia. I also endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to secure the removal of the duty on wheat. I was able to prove that in the only year in which the duty would’ have benefited Australia - 1914^ - it was removed. Every bushel of wheat that I grew in that year cost me £3 10s., but, in the interests of the consumers, it was commandeered at 8s. 6d. a bushel, whilst wheat from the Argentine was brought to Australia at a cost of 12s. 6d. a bushel. The honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Manning) raised what I consider to be one of the most important points, that of keeping alive our stock in times of drought. As a matter of fact, when stock are dying there is a dearth in the supply of maize and other fodders.

Mr Watt:

– Would the honorable member consider human foods as well as stock foods?

Mr PROWSE:

– Both stock and human foods could be dealt with in- the same manner. It has been said that an average of 1,000,000 bushels of maize is imported annually into Australia. That may seem a large quantity to the uninitiated, but it is really infinitesimal. In considering a reciprocal tariff with South Africa wo- must exercise care so that we shall not cut off our noses to spite our faces. I believe that that country has already passed a reprisal tariff against Australia.

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That is not so.

Mr PROWSE:

– If it is not, it was averted only by our entering into a reciprocal tariff with it.

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– South Africa has drastically diminished the preference that she used to give us.

Mr PROWSE:

– Other countries are passing reprisal tariffs against us. It has been argued that production costs in Australia have risen so greatly that our producers experience considerable difficulty in competing against other countries. Our protectionist policy necessitates assisting first one industry and then another. In the present instance we propose to assist the maize-grower. Those who convert the maize into other commodities will have to be assisted in their turn. That is not a good policy. The honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde), and the honorable member for Herbert (Dr. Nott) referred to the climatic conditions, and the excessive wages that have to be paid in Queensland. I consider that the Atherton tableland is most favorably situated for the growth of maize. We should not penalize the whole of the people of Australia in order to assist an industry that one cannot reasonably expect to thrive in this country.

Mr Stewart:

– The Australian maizegrowers would be able to compete with those of other countries if it were not for the tariff.

Mr PROWSE:

– That is exactly the point which I was reaching. Production costs justify the maize-grower in asking for protection, but that does not make the policy a right one. The position is weighing so heavily upon the producers that they will soon begin .to lose interest in their industry. Honorable members who represent Queensland constituencies have stated that if maize-growers are not given a guarantee they will cease producing. Who is guaranteeing them if it is not the remainder of the population of Australia? If wheat-growing becomes uninteresting, will that also have to be bolstered up ? The same applies to woolgrowing. There will soon be very few industries that are standing on their feet. I have experienced the difficulties of maize-growing and I can sympathize with those who are engaged in that industry. Those difficulties, however, are multiplied by the application of the fiscal policy that is in operation in Australia to-day.

Mr J FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

.- I support the proposal of the Government. I should fail in my duty if I did not congratulate the Minister (Mr. Pratten) upon the announcement that he made this morning in relation to the treaty with South Africa. By letters, personal representations, and deputations, in association with the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser), the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson), and other honorable members, I have, since 1922, urged him to annul that treaty. It was made many years ago - in 1906- - and its effect became so pronounced that in 1921 it was found necessary to introduce a considerably increased tariff. The effect of the” 1921 tariff, however, was nullified by the treaty with South Africa. The present Minister is a man of foresight and sagacity, but his outstanding virtue is that of courage. Courage was certainly needed to take this step. The huge falling off in production in the past has been due to the failure to give security to the producers of maize. In the last few years the production has amounted to over 1,000,000 bushels annually. When negotiations are resumed for a treaty with South Africa I hope that the Minister will keep prominently before him the fact that in Australia maize is grown by white men, whilst in South Africa it is grown by black labour. A result of the agreement that the Minister has announced is to be annulled was the importation of a large quantity of black-grown maize. I hope that the Australian producers will be given this measure of protection. I strongly support the contention of the right honorable member for Worth Sydney (Mr. Hughes) that glucose and other byproducts of maize should also be adequately protected. Such a policy, I feel sure, would give our primary producers the full benefit of the home market, which is their best market. I hope that instructions will be given to the Tariff Board to investigate this subject with the object of giving further protection to an important Australian industry. I- heartily approve of the action taken by the Government in increasing the duty on maize.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

– Several honorable members have referred to the reciprocal treaty with South Africa. It must be obvious that until that treaty has been finalized this item will be valueless. I regret that I was absent from the chamber when the Minister (Mr. Pratten) made a statement on the subject this morning. I should like very much to know if it is the intention of the Government this week to introduce a short bill dealing with the South African treaty, which, in respect of certain items, will override the existing tariff schedule. Under the existing treaty, maize is dutiable 6fd. a bushel, or ls. per cental. Frequently I protest against unnecessarily high duties, especially on goods imported from countries with a reasonably high standard of living. This item, I remind the committee, deals with a product grown by coloured labour. I believe in the protection of Australia’s standard of living against the black-labour products of other countries, whether the product be sugar, maize, or any other commodity. Concerning the question raised by the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Manning), I should like to emphasize that the tariff would only be operative in times of drought or scarcity, and that maize-growers are entitled to compensation, in the way of enhanced prices, to offset the disadvantages of a shortage in yield. The Gippsland maize-growers were very modest when they put their case before the Tariff Board. They suggested a British preferential tariff of 2s. 6d. per cental. Honorable members may wonder why there should be any British preferential tariff at all, because maize is not commercially grown in Great Britain. The Gippsland maize-growers desired to be fair to other primary industries, and wished the Commonwealth Government to be in a position to bargain with South Africa if necessary, by giving South African exporters favorable treatment under the preferential column if they, in turn, would treat Australian exporters of primary products similarly. It would be an advantage if the Minister gave us some definite information with regard to the South African reciprocal treaty, and stated if a bill would be introduced this week to> deal with the treaty.

Mr FOSTER:
Wakefield

.- I was interested in the statement of the Minister (Mr. Pratten) that it is proposed to discontinue the existing treaty with South Africa with a view to further negotiations, and the making of another treaty. Australia has suffered in other directions than by the importation of maize from South Africa. Under a treaty made 20 or 30 years ago with regard to brandy, all sorts of rubbish was poured into Australia to the serious injury of the Australian industry. Eventually the regulations were tightened up, and the Australian industry relieved. In seasons of drought the Government has full authority to come to the assistance of secondary industries that depend on an adequate supply of primary products. The Government has intervened on several occasions when our secondary industries have been in serious difficulties owing to the extraordinary high prices demanded for the local supplies of the raw product. As this item concerns a product grown by black labour in other countries, it should go through without debate.

Mr Gregory:

– What quantity are we exporting ?

Mr FOSTER:

– We ought to export more of our primary products. If this duty acts as an incentive to local production it should lead to an enormous increase in the business of pig-raising, because maize is essential for the successful development of that industry.

Mr Manning:

– A bushel of maize will make 12 lb. of pork.

Mr FOSTER:

– And very fine pork, too. Under the protection afforded by this item it should be possible to build up another important industry in Australia.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

.- E have been endeavouring to ascertain what the debate is about. I understood that the item was actually passed when the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), with the consent of the committee, was permitted to refer to it again, and that he mentioned that cornflour and similar products constituted the raw material of certain secondary industries. Ho fears evidently that the duty may ‘lead to an increase in the price of those raw products. I remind him that the Government has power to deal with any situation that may arise. Prior to federation New South Wales had a duty on wheat. When there was a shortage, and the entire production was required for home consumption, the farmers became socialists, and requested the Government to permit the importation of seed wheat and rebate the duty. The same course could be taken by the Government in respect of the duty imposed on maize under this item if the need arose, and I am sure that the responsible Minister would have the approval of Parliament. The right honorable member for North Sydney, as AttorneyGeneral of the best Federal Ministry that Australia has had, on one occasion in our party room declared that no law which threatened the interests of the people should be tolerated. When there was a threatened shortage of butter in Australia, the government of the day placed an embargo upon its exportation until the requirements of the people were satisfied. Similarly, if the prices of the raw products mentioned by the right honorable member for North Sydney soared to such heights as to jeopardize certain secondary industries, the Minister would have power to suspend the duty and allow maize to be imported. This practice is followed in every civilized country. Although. I am opposed to the present Government, I believe that, if circumstances demanded it, such action as I have indicated, would be taken by them in the interests of the community. We should cease chasing rainbows, and get down to real issues.

– I do not propose to enter upon a general discussion of the fiscal policy of Australia. Suffice it to say we are committed to . a protectionist policy for the maintenance of our high standards of living in this country to-day. I hope we shall always be so committed. I stand for the encouragement of secondary as well as of primary industries. I recognize that those engaged in the secondary industries possess the advantage of being able to pass on extra costs of production. That does not apply to the primary industries. Because of the passing on of extra costs those engaged in the primary industries are called upon to pay higher prices for clothing, foodstuffs, and agricultural implements and machinery. It is clear from this that the secondary industries are receiving considerable assistance and backing from the primary industries. The primary industries are carried on in the more sparsely settled parts of the country. The’ people engaged in them, together with their families, do not enjoy all the privileges, amenities, and benefits of civilization which are enjoyed by people in the large centres of population. They have fewer roads, and badly made roads at that, less satisfactory post and telegraph services, but they have to pay their full measure of taxation just the same. These things are inevitable, and I do not complain of them, nor do the primary producers, notwithstanding that they live a rougher and a harder life. But I warmly welcome the announcement made by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Pratten) that it is the ‘ intention of the Government shortly to repeal the reciprocal agreement of 1906 with South Africa. The sooner that is done the better. It is overdue for revision, if not for absolute repeal. I am doubtful if the tariff proposals in regard to maize are high enough. The proposed duty is not sufficient, and I should like to see it increased. It costs much more to grow maize under our White Australia standards than it does under black labour conditions. The South African Government gives an allowance of 6d. a bushel on all maize grown for export. The freight rates are cut, to the extent of 22s. 6d a ton from South African to Australian ports. Very different is the lot of the Australian grower of maize, who pays 40s. a ton freight from Cairns to Sydney, in addition to the railage to the coast. One can easily see that a duty of 3s. 6d. on imported maize affords no great margin of protection to the Australian grower. That maize-growing needs protection is evidenced by the fact that within recent years there has been a decreased production in Australia. The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) pointed out that the cultivation of maize has decreased in Australia by about 25,000 acres during the last 10 years, notwithstanding the large increase in our population and in our secondary industries during thatperiod. This fact is attributable, not to the price of maize, but to the importations of South African maize. In 1919-20 we imported 494,278 bushels of maize; in 1920-1, 96,536 bushels; “in 1921-2,. 45,066 bushels; in 1922-3, 1,198,673 bushels, and in 1923-4, 2,572,809 bushels. The average price of maize in 1919-20 was 8s. lid. a bushel; in 1920-1, 6s. 6d. a bushel; in 1921-2, 5s. 2d. a bushel; in 1922-3, 6s. Id. a bushel; and in 1923-4, 5s. Id. a bushel. Although the importations amounted to only one-fifth of the total maize consumed in Australia, yet they were sufficient to bring about a reduction in price. When maize grown by black labour is permitted to compete with our local product the result must be a falling market. As a consequence our maize growers - many of them returned soldiers - have suffered severely. They have had to contend with hardships . and privations, the mere thought of which would wring the hearts of our ordinary citizens. Under such conditions we are not justified in importing maize grown by black labour. This position particularly affects Queensland and New South Wales, because no less than 90 per cent, of the land under maize cultivation is situated in those States. Although there has been a considerable increase in the area under maize in Queensland, yet there has been a decrease in New South Wales. This suggests that maize is a poor man’s product, grown only on comparatively cheap land under rough and difficult conditions. The Australian maize industry should be protected, because few settlers are prepared to develop the far-back country. I am not concerned at all with the problem of the manufacturer who produces from maize such commodities as glucose, cornflour, starch, and maizena. I am satisfied that the average manufacturer who has any business acumen at all, orders his supplies and makes his contracts early in the maize season. Of course, if he waits for a falling market he does so at his own risk, and any loss that he makes is amply met by his previous profits. The Government should accept its full share of responsibility in regard to losses of stock bv drought by building the Bourke to Daly Waters railway. We should then have little trouble in drought periods, because stock could be moved from north to south or from east to west as the exigencies and vagaries of the season required. Given that, material measure of relief, stock could be conserved, and this would afford an extensive market for the maize-growers. This industry, if not given sufficient protection, must go out of existence altogether, resulting in the whole of our requirements being met by maize grown by black labour. This would not in any way assist our White Australia policy, nor help to develop our country. If maizegrowing is made profitable, a large number of Australians will be employed under satisfactory conditions, and our secondary industries will also benefit. Were it not for the maize-growers, what would be the position of our pastoralists ? They would be compelled to import all the maize that they need for feeding starving stock. The price of all commodities is regulated by the law of supply and demand, and the maize-grower of Australia is quite willing to bear with present conditions so long as he is not compelled to compete with imported maize. We owe a good deal to those who take up holdings in virgin scrub, because an immense amount of work is necessary before they are able to obtain a profitable return for their labours. I would welcome the repeal of the reciprocal treaty with South Africa made in 1906, and I hope that this will soon be an accomplished fact. As the Minister is not prepared to further increase the duties on imported maize, I shall content myself with voting for this item, hoping that later this Parliament may have an opportunity of reviewing it.

Mr PRATTEN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The Australian maize industry has an output of nearly 10,000,000 bushels annually, and is, therefore, fairly entitled to protection. During the last few years it has had a gruelling experience in competition with South African maize, and for that reason the duties on imported maize are being increased. If the committee makes reasonable progress, I promise on behalf of the Government to take steps to abrogate the South African reciprocal treaty of 1906. This will not be an unfriendly act, because the South African Government has already received notice from this Government that it proposes to abrogate the present treaty, which has caused complications in many directions, and to negotiate for a new reciprocal treaty. The Government would not have felt bound to take such action at this stage but for the fact that the South African

Government itself, last year, very materially altered the terms of preference which it gave Australia under the treaty. Therefore, the position to-day is not as it was in 1906. The point raised by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) is obvious. Any complaints or applications by manufacturers can be investigated and reported upon by the Tariff Board. The duty on glucose is already under review, but no further applications in regard to maize products have yet reached me. If such applications are made, they will receive that prompt and business-like attention that the department endeavours to give in all cases.

Mr Hughes:

– It may be that no other application has been made, but I assure the Minister that the Association of Manufacturers, while content with the present rate of duty, point out that, if it results in increasing the price of maize to 7s. a bushel, they will not be able to carry on.

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That circumstance will be met when it arises. As to what was said by the honorable member for Macquarie regarding droughts and disasters, such tragic circumstances cannot be met in advance. It is conceivable that, in a period of drought, there might even be a shortage of food, but if such a crisis arose this or any other Government would legislate in such a way as to conserve the interests of the community.

Item agreed to.

Item 84-

By omitting the whole item, and inserting in its stead the following item: - “ 84. Rennet in liquid form, free.”

Mr PRATTEN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I move -

That the Item be amended by adding the following : -

The effect of the amendment is that rennet will be admitted free from all countries, but the duties that this schedule remits will be reimposed as deferred duties. Within the last twelve months a very creditable rennet-making industry has been started in connexion with the Government meat works at Homebush, New South Wales. It is already supplying 70 per cent, of the requirements of that State, and the cost of the imported article has been reduced by almost 50 per cent. Letters which have reached me from the factories interested show that they do not object to the deferred duty, provided that the quality of the local rennet is satisfactory to them. Therefore, before the deferred duty is brought into operation, the Tariff Board will be asked to investigate and advise. The committee will agree that, in connexion with such an important primary product as rennet, the Government should have some reserve power to protect local manufacture if it should prove satisfactory.

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

.- I have no objection to the amendment, but I urge the Minister to consider the advisability of altering the system by which deferred duties are applied. If Parliament is in session, the Minister should give notice of his intention to operate a deferred- duty. In fact, I am inclined to think that no deferred duty should be operated except when the House is sitting. I have had some experience of deferred duties, particularly in connexion with sulphur.

Mr Scullin:

– And we can still smell the fumes.

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

– In connexion with the operation of the deferred duty on sulphur, there has been a wilful and discreditable distortion of facts. As a general principle, before a deferred duty is put into operation, or further deferred, the Minister should give at least one month’s notice of his intention. .

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Was the Tariff Board operating when the deferred duty was applied to sulphur?

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

– Yes; on its recommendation the deferred duty was operated - by me, and prior to its coming into operation, no member of Parliament nor any farmer made personal representations to me that the duty should be further deferred. I make that statement emphatically, and in contradiction of some who unfairly made political capital out of that item. Representations may have been made to the Tariff Board or to somebody else, but not to me.

Mr.Fenton. - I reluctantly rise to a point of order. If general principles are to be discussed on individual items, this schedule cannot be disposed of this week. Is the honorable, member for Wannon in order in discussing general principles on a specific item?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I understood the honorable member for Wannon to refer to the sulphur duty only for purposes of illustration. However, I ask the honorable member not to overtax the patience of the committee in completing the illustration.

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

– I shall not discuss the details of the agitation that was improperly stirred up in connexion with the sulphur duty, but I repeat that it would be in the best interests of Parliament, the Government,, and the conduct of public business, if the Minister were to give a month’s notice of any action in regard to a deferred duty, and if no such duty were put into operation except while the House was sitting. If that principle were followed, the duty could be again reviewed, and the House would have an opportunity to hear from the Minister the latest facts concerning the progress of the industry concerned.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- I shall not oppose the amendment if the Minister will give the committee an assurance that the duty will not be put into operation until the cheese factories have had ample opportunity to test Australian rennet, and satisfy themselves that they may use it without detriment to their industry.

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I give that assurance unequivocally.

Mr PATERSON:

– I thank the Minister. The reason for my request is that I have received a letter from the manager of one of the big cheese factories in Victoria, who says, inter alia -

We have not had an opportunity of testing the rennet which is now being made in Sydney, and in whose interests it is proposed to impose a duty. It is imperative that rennet used in the manufacture of cheese should be of quality and substance which will ensure keeping and maturing. Our previous experience with an Australian-made rennet was most disastrous - alike in regard to reputation and financial loss. Under these conditions, we consider that the rennet now being made should be thoroughly tested before a duty is imposed. We will welcome the Australian-made rennet if it will prove equal to the imported.

Another letter from the Secretary of the Associated Cheese and Butter Cooperative Factories of Victoria, reads -

We understand that rennet is now being manufactured in New South Wales, and that it is ‘being used in the manufacture of cheese by factories in that State. On a previous occasion - during the war period - a locallymade rennet was used in Victoria, with disastrous results to quality, reputation, and financially. Cheese made with this rennet was apparently good for a few weeks, and then deteriorated rapidly, with the result that when matured (five to six months old) it was almost unfit for consumption. In view of this experience, the association respectfully submits that the rennet now ‘being made in Sydney should be thoroughly tested before a duty is imposed ; more especially in regard to “the keeping qualities of cheese in which such rennet has been used. Our association desires to assist an Australian industry, and will encourage the use of Australian-made rennet which will give satisfactory, results - and ensure the maintenance of quality. Under these circumstances, I am instructed to request that the application of the proposed duty be deferred until such

Item 105 - ,

Mr PRATTEN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

.- This item covers practically the whole of the cotton piece goods, except a few comparatively minor articles mentioned in other items. It also includes cotton tweeds for human wear. Honorable members will see by a comparison with the proposals laid on the table of the House in September last that the wording of the item time as it is proven that the rennet will be satisfactory. In the meantime, the matter will be brought under -the notice of the Australian Dairy Council, and cheese-makers will be requested to make the necessary experiments with cheese manufacturer with Australian rennet. .

Accepting the assurance of the Minister that the deferred duty will not be operative until these experiments have proved the Australian rennet to be satisfactory, I offer no opposition to the amendment.

Mr COOK:
Indi

.- I have - a great deal of information concerning the duty on rennet, but I am satisfied with the assurance given by the Minister that the deferred duty will not be put into operation until the cheese factories have had an opportunity to test Australian rennet.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 96 (Unground spices, free) agreed to. has been arranged in order to give better definition and more precise classification. There has been no alteration in principle, but there has been an alteration in the wording of the item in order to make clear what is actually intended. In the tariff resolution submitted to Parliament in September last provision was made for the imposition of a duty of 5s. per lineal yard on cotton. tweeds imported

in widths of 54 inches, as was then the custom. Shortly after the duty became operative importers directed manufacturers to produce tweeds at a greater width than 54 inches, which brought the cost to more than 5s. per yard, and thus enabled them to escape the duty by importing tweeds as cotton piece goods n.e.i. No action could be taken until the present proposals were placed before the House this month. Definite steps have now been taken by re-arranging the wording te provide for precisely the same rate of duty, but on a basis of so much per square yard, which will cover tweeds of all widths, and thus prevent an evasion of the payment of duty. We have heard from all quarters that the textile industry was in a parlous position before these duties were imposed, and of the strong competition which confronted it on account of the importation of cotton and shoddy woollen goods from Great Britain, and cheap cotton tweeds from Japan and other countries. Some mills went out of business altogether, others made very heavy losses, and in many instances others were only working part time. A very thorough, patient, and complete investigation of the textile industry was conducted by the Tariff Board, as a. result of which it was ascertained that the importation of shoddy woollen and cotton tweeds, made from second-hand material and the like, was largely the cause of stagnation in the local industry. The item under discussion is designedly framed” to counteract this competition. The duties in one or two directions are so heavy that they may be regarded as almost prohibitive, and I frankly admit that I would rather see a prohibition of imports of this character than allow our own industries to face such gruelling competition as they have had to encounter in the past. Importers were also imposing upon unwary purchasers shoddy material that lasted only a little while. A good deal of the low-priced cotton tweed may be readily torn either way. The figures show that before the amended tariff was introduced the trade in cotton tweeds was almost entirely in the hands of tho Japanese and European continental manufacturers. According to the latest figures the total trade affected in connexion with the goods imported from the United Kingdom upon which specific duties are imposed amounts to only £63,329 out of a total of over £1(^000,000 worth of our trade with Great Britain in cotton goods. In response to the parrot cry that by imposing these duties we are substantially injuring British trade, I have had the figures analysed. Under the item “ (») cotton, linen, and other piece goods, n.e.i.; oil baize not containing wool - ad val., free, British; 5 per cent, intermediate; and 15 per cent., general,” I find that in 1924 Australia imported £9,870,000 worth of goods, of which £8,700,000 were British. While Britain a few years ago did approximately threefourths of the business in cotton tweeds, in the last financial year she handled only one-fourth of the business, so that the other three-fourths of the importations of cotton tweeds came from foreign countries. Only £63,329 worth of British trade will be affected, as against a total of £8,375,000 worth of foreign trade. While these specific duties apply to only £63,329 worth of British trade, they also apply to nearly £200,000 worth of foreign trade. Personally, I prefer going to Britain; but, as I have stated in this chamber on previous occasions, it must, in cases of this kind, be “ Australia first.” The approximate annual consumption of cheap cotton tweeds in Australia is from 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 yards. When the duties were first imposed, there was dislocation in the Australian manufactured clothing trade; but after full inquiry by the Tariff Board and consultation with the textile clothing manufacturers, the department decided to admit cotton tweeds ordered prior to the introduction of the tariff resolutions in September last as raw material under item 404 up to the 31st December last. After full inquiry by the Tariff Board, and consultation with the parties concerned, it was ascertained that full supplies of cotton tweeds could be manufactured by our local mills. There has been a plethora of criticism in connexion with these cotton tweed duties. In the first place, the poor working man, it was said, would have to pay more for his trousers.

Mr Mann:

– So he will.

Mr Gregory:

– Hear, hear !

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I can tell honorable members exactly how much* more a

Working man will have to pay for trousers made from good Australian cotton tweed, which will last three or four times longer than those he has been accustomed to buy. The second line of attack was that cotton tweeds could not be manufactured in Australia.

Mr Foster:

– Who said that?

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The New South Wales Retail Traders Association, and scores of Pro bono publicos and other contributors to the Argus. I have in my possession a letter sent to a member of the Tariff Board by a British firm interested in the manufacture of cotton tweed. When the British manufacturers were invited, to manufacture in this country, and thus aid our progress and development, they said that it could not be done, owing to the climatic conditions, because the workmen had to be trained for years, the industry being an intricate one, and because the machinery required could not be made in Australia.

Mr CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP; NAT from 1925; UAP from 1931

– Who said that?

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I am prepared to give the name of the writer for the honorable member’s private information. What actually happened? Within two or three weeks of the imposition of these duties, three or four mills got to work, and to-day one of the three or four mills capable of manufacturing cotton tweed required in Australia informs me that it can, if necessary, manufacture all that is required. I know of one mill in Sydney prepared to manufacture, in addition to its ordinary output, 1,000,000 yards. Another mill - I am not sure whether it is the Albion or the Abbotsford - is prepared, if these duties are ratified, to produce another 1,000,000 yards a year; and there are ten other factories here which will make cotton tweeds to a greater or less extent. The first company that I mentioned has 50 looms capable of making the cotton tweed required in Australia. But even after the honorable members who are opposed to these duties are obliged by hard facts to admit that we can make cotton tweed here, they argue that we cannot make it in sufficient quantities to. supply all our requirements, and that the British importers desire that we shall suspend the duties until we are able to do so. I say,’ unhesitatingly, that we can make all the cotton tweed we need. Seeing that the Government proposes, under the very first paragraph of the first sub-item before us, to give a clear 15 per cent, preference to British manufacturers, I repudiate, with some indignation, the suggestion that the tariff is antagonistic to British manufacturers. This one preference, as a matter of fact, will enable them to participate in £9,000,000 worth of Australian trade annually. Our objective, the achievement of which we have hardly yet begun, is the development of our Australian textile industry to the fullest extent. If I have my way, we shall go right on with our development, until ultimately we are making the whole of our cotton and woollen textiles here from our own raw material. The cotton industry is the greatest in the world. We are beginning to grow cotton in Australia, and although great developments have not yet occurred, one firm has offered to buy for its use the whole of the ratoon cotton grown in Queensland, provided these duties are passed.

Mr Foster:

– Will the Minister read to the House the report of the. Tariff Board on this point?

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The report has been laid on the table of the House, and distributed to honorable members, and they may inform their minds as to its contents if they desire to do so. I have tried to put the position concisely to the committee, and yet give them as much information as possible.

Mr PARSONS:
Angas

.- I embark upon my criticism of this item with considerable diffidence, for I have just been returned as a supporter of the Government which, through ‘ the Tariff Board, has framed it. But I am backed up by the experience gained in 27 years’ participation in the’ softgoods trade. In case any honorable member with that suspicious mind . which seems to be the peculiar characteristic of the politician, thinks that I have an axe to grind, let me say that I am not in any way connected with the trade at present. I recently disposed of the whole of my business interests, and as it was a cash transaction I am not interested in the matter even to the extent ‘ that I might be if there were money owing to me on it. My experience covered the wholesale, retail, and agency branchesof the, trade. I have had conversations with the

Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Pratten) on this item, and I wish to say, in the most cordial spirit, that I believe that he is absolutely sincere in the views that he has expressed; and I ask him to credit me with equal sincerity. I am actuated, in offering my criticism of the item, by the single desire to do the very best in the interests of Australia as a whole. . It is not sufficient that the Ministers’ intentions should be good, for, as we are frequently reminded, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Good intentions do not necessarily make good arguments. I warn honorable members that disaster is likely to overtake Australia if she persists in imposing these extremely high duties on imported goods. Early in the nineties of the last century the United States of America went tariff mad, and, as the result, the manufacturing industries of the country were almost ruined. There followed such a tremendous reversal of public opinion on fiscal issues that the extreme tariffists were routed. If we persist in our present practice of imposing unnecessary and almost unbearable duties on the things that our primary producers and people generally must have, there will be a similar revulsion of feeling in this country.

Dear Sir, - In response to your inquiry, I beg to state that the supplies of cotton tweed are not sufficient to keep my factory employed as it is normally.

I have already dispensed with 50 per cent, of my employees, and at an early date I expect to be in a much worse plight.

Yours faithfully,

H.C. andC. Dawson.

Michael-street,- Brunswick, 23rd March, 1926.

Sir, - We, the undersigned clothing manufacturers, have to inform you that the tariff at present fixed for cotton tweeds has prevented this material coming upon the market. As the greater partof our work consisted in making up of this material, our output hasbeen reducedby at least 50 per cent. Consequently we havenot been able to employ our. full complement of hands, and ourbusiness has suffered to this extent. Should this duty be continued, we are afraid that a great part of our plant will remain idle for some considerable time.

We are, Yours, &c,

Jackson & Eckersall.

e. Banks, Albion Clothing Coy.

The Sterling Clothinc Coy. 27-33 Lonsdale-street, Melbourne, 22nd March, 1926.

Dear Sir, - In response to your inquiry, we have to advise that, owing to the shortage of cotton tweeds and to woollens for manufacturing into trousers, we are working only 70 per cent, of our machinery; and find it hard to keep these going.

We ought to mention that at this time last year we had 60,000 yards of material in -hand for one firm alone, and at the present moment, when the season should be in full swing, we have hardly 5,000 yards for this particular firm.

Yours faithfully,

Poulton Clothingcoy. Pty. Ltd.

Melbourne, 23rd March, 1926.

– A well-known Geelong woollen mill. This view is evidently supported by the experience of the South Australian Woollen Company. That company did not want this duty on cotton tweeds. It produces excellent woollen goods, and has extensive business connexions in Victoria and New South Wales. The Onkaparinga rugs and blankets, manufactured by that company, are second to none in the world. Eighteen years ago my eldest brother went as an honorary commissioner for the South Australian Government to the Paris Exhibition, and took an Onkaparinga rug with him. French and British merchants who attended the exhibition congratulated him upon its excellence, and declared that the company should have no difficulty in marketing Onkaparinga rugs on the other side of the world. That is what we should strive for. We should not go in for the production of rubbishy cotton tweeds, but should concentrate on the production of high grade woollen goods from the raw material in Australia, because we should then have some’ hope of selling them in other countries. I wish to be perfectly fair to all sections of the community. I object very strongly to misleading information sent to me concerning these tariff items by representatives of both the importers and manufacturers of woollen tweeds. I am not surprised -that other honorable members, who have no personal knowledge of the trade, have been misled. These interested people are . concerned principally with the effect of the tariff upon their pockets. I should like to emphasize that the duty on cotton tweeds- was. intended to protect the woollen industry. The following is an extract from a circular sent to me concerning flannels and blankets : -

Prior to the introduction of the new tariff the woollen industry had passed through a severe period of stagnation-

That was due to some extent to slackness in delivery - due to the absence of orders, brought about to a large extent by the excessive importations, principally from the United Kingdom during the year 1922-23, and which continued, though not quite so severe, up to last year.

We have been told by the Minister that importations are on the increase, but I shall show that they are not.

Even the flannel and blanket trade, which the Australian mills haw practicality caplured, was severely attacked, the importation of flannels increasing from 1922 to 1923 by 466 per cent., and blankets by 141 per cent.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– The honorable member endeavoured to mislead the committee by misrepresenting the quality of the Australian material. The material in the sample pair of trousers which I produce would, I think, wear fairly well.

– Is it not a fact that in six. months ten mills have been started?

Mr MANN:

Mr Scullin:

– Now.

Mr MANN:

– They are not prepared to do it now. The Minister knows- perfectly well that there are firms which are vainly endeavouring to obtain supplies of these tweeds. I think that when he introduced the schedule the Minister said that one mill in Sydney had given an undertaking to supply over 200,000 yards of good cotton tweed material. If, however, the Minister denies having said that, I accept his assurance, but a statement to that effect was made in the press, and some of those who were interested endeavoured to ascertain which Sydney mill had made the statement. They found out that no mill was in a position to fill an order of that magnitude. The Minister said that the duty was necessary because of the difference between English and Australian rates of wages. On this point let me quote from evidence given before the Tariff Board by the. representative of the Australian Association of British Manufacturers -

One reason advanced for the granting of this protective duty is the higher money wages paid in Australia as compared with some other countries. Thus the representatives of the applicant company say that as regards spinning and weaving, the wages in Australia are from 25 per cent, to 50 per cent, higher than in Great Britain. Taking a similar textile industry, namely, the woollen industry, we find that in 1921-2 the industry paid in wages £845,685 on a total output of £4,096,808. If wages had been paid at the English rates, as stated, they would be respectively from £561,789 to £674,147, according to the Australian rate being 50 per cent, or 25 per cent. above. On the output of £4,096,808, the Australian wages equal 20.8 per cent; if these were 50 per cent, higher than the English rates, then the wages at the English rate would be equal to 13.7 . per cent., and if Australian rates were 25 per cent, higher than. the English the English rates would be equal to 16.4 per cent, of the output. Therefore, if the Australian wages are 50 per cent, more than English, the extra labour cost is only 7.1 per cent., and in the case of 25 per cent., the extra cost is 4.4 per cent. Therefore* the extra labour cost does not justify a duty, of 25 per cent.

We quote these figures based on previous evidence to show that the 25 per cent, or 50 per cent, higher wages do not mean a 25 per cent, to 50 per cent, increase in the total cost of an article. Wages on the average are only 25 per cent, of the value of the article produced.

– Certainly. The honorable member would not expect it to be given by the applicants.

Mr Blakeley:

– I merely wished to identify the source whence it came.

Mr Hughes:

– Did the Tariff Board recommend the duty on cotton piece goods ?

Mr MANN:

– Yes, and I am showing the nature of the evidence upon which that recommendation was based. Parliament is not necessarily bound to accept the recommendation of the board. I have contended all along that honorable members should give careful consideration to all these tariff items.

Mr Hughes:

– Is that the. whole of the evidence in relation to cotton piece goods upon which the Tariff Board based its recommendations ?

Mr MANN:

– No. The right honorable member for North Sydney would do well to study the report together with the evidence. When We are asked to approve of certain duties we should inform our minds upon the reasons for the recommendations. I have tried to do so. I have read the reports of the Tariff Board, and as much of the evidence as I could obtain. Unfortunately, I could not afford to buy the whole of it. There are serious technical difficulties in the way of establishing the cotton weaving industry in Australia, though I do not say that the difficulties are insuperable. There is, for example, the difficulty of obtaining adequate supplies of the raw material. It may be said that we are going to establish cotton growing in Australia. I am not so sure that we are, but if it is attempted it will mean more subsidies, and consequently higher prices for the raw materials for the cotton weaving industry. But apart altogether from the difficulty of securing supplies of the raw material, the successful development of the cotton weaving industry depends to a considerable extent on the profitable utilization of the secondary or by-products.’ There are also difficulties in connexion with obtain ing dyeing materials and, in the initial stages at all events, of securng the necessary expert operatives. But the chief obstacle to successful expansion will be in connexion with mass production to ensure low overhead expenditure.

Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8 p.m.

The cotton mills have been running day and night for the greater part of the past two years, and are at present employing about 500 hands. The whole operations are devoted to manufacturing yarns and piece goods (towels, canvas, calico, and cotton tweed) for the parent company. The earnings of the business transferred to the new company have been such as to (apart from the parent company’s guarantee) amply assure the payments of the preference dividend. Facts concerning parent company which guarantee dividend : The surplus assets of parent company (Geo. A. Bond and Company Limited) are over £560,000. Its profits for the year to 30th June, 1925, were over £66,000, subject to land and income tax deductions, whilst those for the present year show a very considerable increase.

When this company requires further capital it has a different story from that which it tells when asking for further protective duties. If its profits have considerably increased without this tariff schedule, what right has it to ask for further protection ? The imposition of these duties, and the blow thereby aimed at British manufacturers, are being seriously felt and gravely commented upon in Great Britain. Some honorable members will say that that does not matter, and that we have not to consider the British merchants. I have in my possession a series of private letters received by Australian firms from their correspondents in England, written in very strong terms. Although I am at liberty to read them to the committee I do not care to do so. I promise to show these letters to the Minister, or to any honorable member so long as he gives me his undertaking that the names of the writers will not be divulged, because if they were they would be placed at a disadvantage in regard to their competitors. The comments made by English traders and business men are rather startling, especially in view of the fact’ that a campaign has been started in Great Britain for advertising Empire goods, under a grant from the British Government. The proposal is to spend £2,000 a day in advertising, to push the sale of our own and other Empire goods in Great Britain. Considerable comment has been made on the fact that we are thus asking our own customers to advertise our goods, which is a rather unusual proceeding in business circles, and that concurrently with the commencement of that advertising campaign has come the imposition of these high duties, which will inflict a severe blow indeed upon British trade, and which are directly against the interests of those whom we are asking to interest themselves in the purchase of our products. Statements setting out the attitude of Australia towards British trade in this respect are being read at public meetings convened for the purpose of advocating an advertising campaign, and their effect has been very marked. The whole position” is complicated. The purpose of this item is exceedingly involved, and its effect is uncertain. T have shown that it will do many things it was not intended to do, and that it will apply a duty to a lot of articles which are not made in Australia. This, I am sure, was never intended by- Parliament. The effect of the tariff upon the community will be great, with little return, and it may possibly cause unemployment rather than additional employment. This tariff, if passed, will have a far-reaching effect, and will operate against the interests of Australia. I am prepared to move that the item be referred back to the Tariff Board and, in fact, I will move now -

That this item be referred back to the Tariff Board for further consideration and report to this House.

Mr SCULLIN:

Mr FOSTER:

– It is because I am a good Britisher that I never forget Britain, and by not ‘ forgetting her I am rendering better service to Australia. Another fallacy is that this cotton tweed is displacing Australian woollens. No more stupid statement was ever made. It can only affect Australian shoddy. Possibly it does do that, but to say that in the broad sense it displaces woollens is simply nonsensical. Its effect in displac ing shoddy is to the infinite good of the working man. There would be nothing left of a shoddy suit after a man had worked in it for a week; but the British material is properly named “ untearable.” I protest very definitely and earnestly that it is next door to a scandal for the Minister to rejoice over a duty against Great Britain which he says is “ practically prohibitive.” It will place a heavy penalty on every working man. Even if, in the future, the working man can obtain an article of equal quality, he will have to pay double the price. I wish honorable members had a little more pride in their country.

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear !

Mr FOSTER:

– All those “Hear, hears “ mean is that the 100 per cent, will soon appear as an argument in the Arbitration Court. If Australians had a little more confidence in themselves, and a little more real British courage, they would, instead of shouting “ Australia for the Australians,” make a success of this and many other industries. That, however, will never happen until we demand efficiency. Why do Foy and Gibson’s and Myers’, in Melbourne, the Tweedvale mills, in South Australia, and a dozen other mills in Geelong, rely on efficiency? They are not crying out for more duty.

Mr Fenton:

– Foy and Gibson take all the Australian cotton tweeds’ they can obtain.

Mr FOSTER:

– And they do not ask for more duties. They said that they could do without a duty, and so they could. It is about time we got down to an economic basis, and refused to impose duties for the support of industries that are limping like three-legged dogs. When an industry is on an economic basis, I am prepared to support it as enthusiastically as any member of the committee.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- If the people of Australia had the same feelings about Australian industries as the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Foster), there would be no secondary industries in Australia, because every time an effort was made to start a new industry, they would wail about the blow at the Mother Country. The proposal is to manufacture goods in Australia instead of sending raw material abroad to keep thousands of workpeople employed in other countries that should be employed here. The truly patriotic Australian tries to provide for manufacturing our requirements in our own country, thus giving employment to hundreds of thousands of additional people, and creating a wellbalanced, self-reliant community, and a permanent local market for the primary producers, who are so consistently misrepresented by honorable members in the Ministerial corner. One would think, to hear the honorable member for Wakefield, that the item we are discussing would rob Great Britain. But what are the facts ? It will rob not Great Britain, but Japan of £139,000 of trade per annum. That trade is constantly increasing. Great Britain supplies us with only £63,000 worth of cotton tweeds per annum, and that amount is constantly decreasing. Japan is rapidly capturing this market.

Mr Foster:

– The imports from Great Britain have increased this year.

Mr FORDE:

– That is not so, as the honorable member will find if he consults the statistics. From the United States of America we imported £20,000 worth; from Belgium, £20,000; from Italy, £9,000 worth; and from other countries, £568 worth, making a total of oyer £250,000 worth. Yet the honorable member for Wakefield tried to lead us to believe that the dear old Mother Country was being given a cowardly blow by being robbed of £63,000 worth of trade. The British Chamber of Manufactures stated the case for the English manufacturers correctly when it said that all the manufacturers asked for was that the duty should be deferred until Australia could manufacture the goods.. The answer was given eloquently by the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin), who pointed out that Australia can now manufacture all . her requirements of cotton tweeds. The Minister has also given that assurance. There was a very good reason why the expensive machinery necessary in this industry was not previously installed. The Australian companies had some doubt whether the tariff schedule would be passed. They were afraid of the freetrade element that sits behind the

Government, for they did not know how strong it was. They had heard a lot about freetrade propaganda, and had been told that the freetraders had a weakening influence on the protectionist policy of the Government. If these freetrade members controlled affairs, every secondary industry would be slowly and surely strangled. Large manufacturing firms have given a guarantee to the Department for Trade and Customs to manufacture the following quantities of cotton tweeds per annum : -

The Airedale Weaving Mills propose to install plant and equipment capable of turning out 1,000,000 yards per annum if this item is passed. A certain quantity will be supplied also by J. Aitken & Sons Ltd., Hobart. It will thus be seen that the Australian manufacturers will shortly be in a position to meet the whole of the local demand. It is but natural that there should be for a time a slight dislocation in the trade. Honorable members should afford the necessary measure of protection to those who are prepared to embark upon an expenditure to establish new industries, and thus give employment to Australian workmen. The honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Foster) would lead us to believe that the withdrawal of this trade from British factories will cripple them. He is obsessed with that idea. Australia to-day imports nearly £11,000,000 worth of cotton piece goods, and we propose to give to our own manufacturers only £300,000 worth of that trade, of which the bulk is now held by Japan and other countries. Being a new industry the manufacturers of cotton tweeds in Australia will have to overcome difficulties in the initial stages. The fact that they are prepared to give guarantees that they will supply the local demand within six months of the imposition of the duty is an evidence of their bona fides. Complaint has been made that in Queensland and other distant States difficulty is experienced in obtaining supplies. It is the duty of the Government to investigate those complaints. The Minister (Mr. Pratten) has given us the assurance that when the schedule is passed there will be no shortage in the supply. That is sufficient for me. Some honorable members have stated that the average price of British cotton tweeds imported into Australia in 1925 was 3s. 8d. a yard for material 54 inches wide. The statement that the working men will have to pay a greater amount for the local product is discounted by £he fact that Australian “tweeds are manufactured at 3s. 6d. a yard for material 56 inches wide. Engineers’ twist, which cost 4s. 4d. per yard before a duty was placed on cotton) tweeds, is now made in Australia at the same price. Given the necessary encouragement, our manufacturers will install machinery that will cope with every demand. Some of the British manufacturers complained that they lost the cotton ‘ tweed trade of Australia when the duties were imposed, despite the fact that they had installed at considerable cost plant and equipment that would have considerably developed that trade. The Australian woollen mills did not get any sympathy when their trade was ruined by the huge quantities of woollen piece goods, sox and stockings that were imported from Great Britain. The figures relating to imports illustrate the gradual decline in the imports of British cotton tweeds. They are as follow: -

I speak as the representative of a district that grows more raw cotton than any other electoral division in Australia. No other industry is likely to bring about greater development. We have the climate and everything else that is necessary to develop the industry from the base to the top. It has been proved that cotton grown in Queensland is equal to any in the world. As a matter of fact, Queensland raw cotton brings a higher average price than American middling cotton. The average consumption per head per annum in America is 26 lb. We can assume that the average consumption per head per annum in Australia is 20 lb., which in the aggregate amounts to 120,000,000 lb.- seven times the production in Australia. If we could overtake the demand and utilize our own raw cotton in our cotton spinning and weaving mills, an additional £3,000,000 would be distributed amongst cottongrowers in Australia. Surely it is a laudable ambition for any country to strive to supply all the necessary raw materials for her cotton-spinning and weaving mills, and to turn out all her requirements in manufactured goods. Queensland has led the way in the encouragement of the production of the raw material, thanks to the encouragement that was given in the first instance by the Queensland Government, and latterly by the Commonwealth Government. I hope that a bounty of 2d. per lb. on raw cotton produced will be given for a period of at least five years. That would give such an impetus to the industry that within the next three years Australia would produce the quantity of raw cotton necessary for the manufacture of ;her own requirements.

Mr Gregory:

– Does the honorable member advocate a bounty in addition to the tariff?

Mr FORDE:

– The honorable member knows that I support a bounty on’ raw cotton for a period of five years in order to place the industry on a sound footing. The guaranteeing of a certain price has enabled the industry to make wonderful progress, but a bounty also is necessary, and the Tariff Board is now considering that matter. England in 1924 paid out to other countries approximately £120,000,000 for raw cotton. In 1923 her expenditure in that direction amounted to £91,188,745- and in 1922 to £85,500,000. Her chief suppliers in 1924 were: “United States of America, £48,000,000; Egypt, £26,000,000.; Peru, £5,283,000; British India, £5,565,000; Brazil, £1,289,000: Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, £954,000; ‘ Kenya Colony, £473,000; Nigeria, £442,000; Uganda, £65,000; British West Indies, £251,000; and Australia, £275,000. It would be a grand thing for the cotton-growing industry of Australia if our factories turned out the finished article from locally-grown raw cotton. Geo. A. Bond and Company - the big Sydney manufacturers) - have in Central Queensland their own plantations, comprising hundreds of acres, upon which they grow raw cotton. They ship that cotton to Sydney, and use it in their factories. I desire a market to be established in Australia for the Australian cotton-grower. Such a market would enable him to secure a higher price than he now secures on the other side of the world in competition with cotton grown in black-labour countries such as Egypt, Nigeria, and Africa. We should support this item in the tariff schedule, as it will increase the demand for our raw cotton. We should treat this as an industry possessing far-reaching influences, the ramifications of which will bring benefit to not only the city worker, but also those who are engaged in primary production. There has been a steady increase in the growth of Taw cotton, because of the encouragement that has been given to it. That is proved by the following figures relating to the production in Queensland, and its value: -

Those figures show that since encouragement has been given to the industry it has produced over 50,000,000 lb. of raw cotton, valued at- over £1,000,000. If the secondary industries, such as those controlled by Bond and Company and the Marrickville Company, obtained all their raw material in Australia, we should have a market for the raw product without having to pay overseas shipping and other freight charges, and our cotton-growers would receive approximately an additional sum of £3,000,000 a year. This would not only increase the prosperity already enjoyed by Sydney and other capital cities, but would also substantially benefit the man on the land. It would, in fact, be a good thing for Australia. This is a great national question. Only a limited number of Little Australian freetradersforeign traders, as they have been termed - are to be found raising their voices in opposition to a proposal to establish this great Australian industry.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Boothby

– The honorable member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Forde) ‘ has painted in exceedingly glowing colours a picture of the cotton-growing industry in Australia. It is, indeed, impossible to divorce consideration of the cottongrowing industry in Australia from its effect upon the general community through the tariff. The GovernorGeneral’s Speech at the opening of this Parliament contained this reference to the cotton industry -

It is proposed to terminate the present system of assisting the cotton industry by a guaranteed price, and in lieu thereof to stimulate the production of cotton by a bounty. The matter has been submitted to the Tariff Board for inquiry and report with a view to legislation being introduced.

I should prefer to make my remarks concerning the cotton industry when that measure is before us, but as this is the first instalment of the Government policy, I shall do so now, and be as brief as possible. Although I do not profess to be an expert on this subject, I believe that cotton as good as that produced in any other part of the world can be grown in Australia; but, as the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Foster) remarked, it resolves itself into a question of cost. One has to consider the position of the world’s markets, and what is being done by other countries. As we all know, reremarkable progress in cotton production has been made in the Soudan and Egypt, where huge developmental schemes have been in progress since 1915. As to the Soudan, I may make the following quotation : -

The large developmental schemes started since 1919 for irrigation and cotton growing in the Gezira and at Kassala have not yet affected the export figures, as the schemes will not be completed till 1925. The increase in cotton exports will then be very great. Apart from these two large schemes, development is being carried out in many other districts. Thus the export of ginned cotton for 1923 was about 5,000 tons. For 1924 it should be at least 10,000 tons. As soon as the first instalment of the Gezira scheme comes into operation after 1925, it should increase to 25,000 tons, say, 135,000 bales of 400 lb., worth, at1s. per lb., £ 2,700,000; or, at 2s. per lb., £5,400,000.

A study of the history of cotton growing in Australia discloses an entirely different position from- that suggested by the honorable member for Capricornia. The first volume of the Australian Encyclopaedia, published recently, contains an interesting and informative article dealing with this industry. I invite honorable members to peruseit.

Unhappily it is a record of failure of one attempt after another to establish the industry upon a profitable basis in Australia. Let me quote a few instances mentioned in the article referred to -

Being quite ignorant of the methods of treatment the experiment was ended by hia untimely death; he (Hobert Dawson) was suspended from duty . . . and his plot disappeared with him. … he (Thompson) failed to make the industry profitable. . . . he (J. D. Lang) . . . received no support from the Colonial. Office or from the cotton manufacturers of Lancashire.

Throughout the fifties . . . many circumstances militated against the commercial success of the venture.

Honorable members will realize from this that the history of cotton-growing in Australia is somewhat different from the description of it by the honorable member for Capricornia. The article goes on to state -

Throughout the fifties . . . there was no local market. Transport costs were high. Other crops were believed to be more profitable. Suitable land was inaccessible to small farmers; labour was both scarce and expensive, and skilled labour, especially for picking, practically unobtainable; seed was badly selected; different varieties were grown in the one field and mixed in the same bale; there was an entire lack of ginning machinery, the saw-gin which was introduced, having destroyed the fibres of the more valuable cotton.

Some of these difficulties still exist today. The article also describes the attempts made by various Governments to establish the industry on a profitable basis, and states -

The Queensland legislature in 1888 tried to revive the industry by offering a bonus of £5,000 to the first person or company who manufactured cotton goods to the value of that sum from fibre grown in the colony. The Ipswich Cotton Company thereupon established a factory and produced the goods, cotton cultivation in the West Moreton district being greatly stimulated by its operations, but in 1897 the firm was obliged to close down owing to financial difficulties.

Throughout, the article emphasizes that the chief deterrent to more extensive cultivation was the high cost of picking, especially as the pickers were unskilled.

Mr Forde:

– The industry in the United States does not find labour costs a deterrent.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– It is not my intention to detain the committee for long, and I do not propose to be diverted by the honorable member for Capricornia from the point I am seeking to make. That the position of the cotton industry in Queensland has slightly improved, will be seen from this quotation from the same article -

The result of this fresh impetus is that the area under cotton in Queensland has increased from 72 acres in 1919 to about 35,000 acres in 1923, and the 1923-4 yield of unginned cotton was over 15,000,000 lb. The guarantee for 1924 was 5d. per lb.; for 1925 it took the form of a series of rates from 5Jd. down to 3£d., according to quality. None of these guarantees held good for ratoon cotton. In spite of the high price of cotton in the world’s markets, these guarantees involved the Queensland Government in serious loss, amounting in the two years, 1922-3, to nearly £65,000; the Commonwealth shares part of this loss.

The article from which I have just quoted was, I have no doubt, written by an Australian, or at least by some one who had made a careful study of cottongrowing in Australia. His story is told in plain language, and without criticism, and, as I have stated, it describes a succession of losses in varying degree from the commencement of cotton-growing under Governor Phillip down to the present time. In the circumstances we are justified in asking if there is a reasonable prospect of the industry being established on a commercial basis in Australia.

Mr Forde:

– My point is that if the tariff gives protection in the local market the Australian cotton-growers will not have to meet the transport charges on the raw material to the other side of the world.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– I am glad that my remarks on this subject have interested the honorable member for Capricornia, but I do not intend to be diverted from my point. Some honorable members have suggested that cottongrowing is in the same position as wool production. It is, of course, conceivable that some day it may be. I know that certain honorable gentlemen believe that it will be, but I have no such belief. In my view, profitable cottongrowing in Australia will be impossible, for the simple reason that we shall have to compete in the markets of the world with similar produce grown in other countries by cheap coloured labour. Any attempt to stimulate the industry by a bonus on the one hand and high tariff protection on the other, can only result in increased direct and indirect taxation on the general community. We shall, in fact, be repeating our experience with sugar, but in a more acute form. Cotton will be given a bounty to commence with, and before very long that bounty will, no doubt, have to be increased. Then the cry of “White Australia” will be raised by those who are interested in the industry, and we shall have to decide whether we are going to continue with our cotton, grown by our own labour, or whether we are going to obtain cotton grown by black labour outside. I have no desire to open up a general discussion on this subject, but I must say that, in my opinion, the proposed new tariff impost will react harshly upon a very large section of the general community. It may be that in one or two States that may not apply, but I think it will apply to South Australia, and to a great part of the Commonwealth. There will be a great increase in the cost of cotton garments, and cotton underwear. I have here a letter written to me, some months ago, by some very reputable merchants of Adelaide, which says -

On account of its strength and hard-wearing qualities, cotton tweed is used almost universally in the manufacture of clothing for the working classes, and if the present proposed duty is insisted on the worker will find himself in the position of having to pay approximately double the amount for his clothing; for example, a pair of men’s working trousers, which under the old tariff were retailed at 7s. 6d., will now cost him at least 15s.

It goes on to point out that so far as underwear is concerned, the working classes will have to pay treble for the low to medium grade of goods imported in the past for their use, and as this class of goods cannot be produced in Australia, except at approximately treble the cost, the hardship to the worker is manifest. He deals briefly with towels and towelling, and, speaking generally, he says -

In generally reviewing these facts, we must ask you to take into consideration one very potent fact, and that is that the working classes are most seriously affected, and the increases they will be called upon to pay must, speaking generally, cause considerable hardship to the community, and if the proposed tariff on cotton tweed and underwear is adhered to it will mean that the importation of these goods is absolutely prohibited.

– Does the honorable member make that charge against a reputable firm?

Mr MAKIN:

– If the honorable member has any doubt about what I am saying, let him read the report of the Interstate Commission dealing with clothing and textiles. He will then be thoroughly convinced as I am that warehousemen are prepared to make use of any form of cover to increase prices. The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) this afternoon ably dealt with the tariff from a truly Australian stand-point. I wish to take to task the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Foster) who, to-night, made an impassioned protest against what he described as the grave injury and great injustice that this tariff inflicted upon British interests. He seems to think that we are under some form of everlasting obligation to great Britain in these matters. I resent such a statement, as a young Australian who has always been prepared to accept his share of citizenship in this country. For every form of assistance of accommodation given by the financial and commercial interests of Great Britain in order to develop this country, they have exacted the full price and the last coin. We have met our obligations by hard toil. We have been untiring in our efforts to develop our primary and secondary industries in order to meet our everincreasing interest bill. Rather than pose as paupers and mendicants to financial interests abroad, we, as members of this national Parliament, should be proud of the fact that we have done our duty, and paid in full our obligations to Great Britain and other nations. We have been loyal in our allegiance to the British Crown, loyal in our trade relations, and I resent very much the constant cry in this House that we are under certain trade obligations to Great Britain, whose own manufacturers are not even prepared to deal fairly with their own people. The British manufacturers are looking to this country to help them in their difficulties. They import goods from cheap labour countries, and then ask us to give them a preferential tariff on those goods. Until the British manufacturers put their own house in order by showing that they are prepared to assist in relieving the conditions of their own people, we are under no obligation to assist them. When they show by definite action that they are endeavouring to promote British interests within the United Kingdom itself, and to relieve unemployment, it will then be time for us to protect their interests in this country. I wholeheartedly support this tariff item, feeling sure that it has the approval of the great majority of the people.

Mr G FRANCIS:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · NAT

– I find myself in considerable difficulty respecting this item. I stand for the development and encouragement of secondary industries in Australia, but I also accept the full responsibility of my position as a member of this Parliament, even though I may be called “ the accidental member for Kennedy.” I feel that I have not had sufficient information to’ enable me to support this item. I have examined the Tariff Board’s report respecting woollen piece goods, but have been unable to obtain the evidence in support of the board’s recommendation. I understand that the minutes of the evidence are not in print. From the report I notice peculiarly enough that this item is supported by three woollen manufacturers - a Mr. John Thomas Andrew Beenie, who may or may not be a woollen manufacturer, a warehouseman, and a collarmaker. According to the report the applicants for this item state : -

It is believed that if the importation of shoddy tweeds could be restricted, an opportunity would be afforded many of the mills to devote themselves to the- manufacture of tweeds from virgin wool, and of a more lasting nature and better value than the imported cheap material, and which would then displace the imported shoddy tweeds.
The request is meant to cover cotton tweeds inasmuch as they are used as imitations of woollen tweeds.

Mr Scullin:

– The bulk of the evidence in favour of this item has accumulated since the tariff schedule was placed on the table of this House.

Mr G FRANCIS:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · NAT

– I have not yet obtained enough information to enable me to make up by mind on this item. In opposition to the application the Tariff Board was told -

There was a large sale for cotton tweed for apparel for working men.

My general information is that that statement is correct, and it is verified by inquiries I have made -

Cotton tweeds would not take the place of shoddy goods if a duty were placed on the cheaper lines of tweeds, and it was considered cotton tweeds were u standard article of necessity.

My experience amongst the workers convinces me that that is true, and I have worn cotton tweeds in certain circumstances with great benefit and advantage

Cotton tweeds were lighter, and had their particular use.

The board in its recommendation said -

The weaving of cloth from raw material grown and manufactured in the Commonwealth was natural to Australia, and she should be the foremost country in the world in the production of these cloths.

With that I agree -

With adequate tariff assistance there is no reason why Australia should not take her proper position in the world’s production of woollen goods.

I hope to see the day when not one pound of raw wool will be sent from Australia, but large quantities of manufactured woollens will be exported. This country grows the finest merino wool in the world, and our people have brains, capital, enterprise, and energy enough to convert the raw material into manufactures. The Tariff Board’s recommendation continued -

Investigation shows that the mills of Australia are capable of producing all requirements so far ns men’s fabrics are concerned, and the quality is equal to those produced in the United Kingdom, and consequently equal to, or better than, the production of other countries. . . . The suggested increases in duty on shoddy material are necessary because the material competes with some of the cheaper fabrics made from virgin wool.

From another report by the board I find- “ Shoddy “ and “ mungo “ are the reclaimed filament substances obtained from the pulling or rags and remnants of woven or knitted textures in which yarns and fibres are completely matted and felted together, or mill waste which has never been put through a finishing process. “ Mungo “ is a shorter class of fibre than “ shoddy,” being acquired from milled or felted woollen fabrics made of short staple wool, while “ shoddy “ is obtained from fabrics of a looser structure either knitted or woven and composed of longer staples.

The board, in its recommendation in regard to woollen piece goods, said -

It has been stressed by applicants that the industry is seriously affected by the importation of shoddy and cotton tweeds. It was stated that these materials are not produced in the Commonwealth, and they have their particular uses in the manufacture of the working clothes of the Australian worker. The imposition of a prohibitive duty would needlessly contribute to an increase in the cost of living by forcing the use of the more expensive woollen -material upon a class whose occupations subject their clothes to rough usage. The use of such material as cotCon tweed is a necessity to workers in Queensland and other tropical parts of Australia, the advantage being that garments made from this material are easily washed and are much cooler.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

– I propose to speak briefly on this matter. The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin) appears to think that he is -better fitted than any other honorable member of this House to speak for the working man; but I am able to say that working men all over the country realize that the burden of this impost will fall on them. The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) clearly showed that the result of this duty must be an addition to the cost of living, and. I suppose that the honorable member for Hindmarsh will urge the working man to go to the Arbitration Court for an increased wage to meet it. The farmer will be obliged to pay more to the men he employs, but he will not be able to pass it . on. His wheat has to enter the markets of the world and compete with wheat produced by black and brown labour; and that has a strangling effect upon the most important industry that we have in Australia. I do not think it can be gainsaid. A dispassionate consideration of this impost must lead to the conclusion that it is foolish, The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Mann) fairly described the ramifications of this item. If the people of Australia will take the bit between their teeth and rush to destruction, they must suffer for it. If they will not learn through their head, they must learn through their bellies. I have received a letter from a general merchant at Albany, the oldest town in Western Australia, where the first worsted woollen mills in the State were established, which reads -

As an illustration of the application of one at least of the recent additions to the tariff, the following facts are interesting, and may be the means of removing what must be a burden to the working class. The line referred to - table covers, curtains, &c. - is not used to any extent .by the wealthier section of the community, but is extensively employed by the former. The amount involved is negligible, but, as an illustration, it - is invaluable. Per s.s. Medic we imported (inter alia) two lines of wool and cotton art serge - not, I understand, manufactured in Australia -

First item, wool and cotton art serge, 48-in., 23d. per yard (Home price).

Second item, wool and cotton art serge, 70- 72-in., 3s. 6d. per yard (Home price).

Our import entry reads -

Upon costing up the line, we find -

Duty and charges, including freight, &c, equal 111.2 per cent, on the Home cost, i.e. - Duty, say, 94.7 per cent.; other charges, 16.5 per cent.; total, 111.2 per cent.

– I believe there will be a slight temporary increase until the organization is perfected. Undoubtedly, when the tariff was introduced we were not producing cotton tweeds. I want to see the manufacturers of this country employing hundreds of thousands, nay, millions, of Australian workmen, and. paying Australian rates of wages and working under Australian conditions. When I see manufacturers making these goods, and employing Australian labour under those conditions, I am prepared to assist them to the utmost of my ability, always with this- in view; that while we accept the policy of protection as put forward by this Government, ultimately we shall introduce a better policy, which will include protection for the workers, the consumers, and the manufacturers. For the time being our task is to build up a great Australian nation, and we can do that only by protecting Australian industries, which are financed by Australian capital, and, in some instances, I am pleased to say, by American and English capital. While we are prepared to allow England, America, Japan, or other countries to make our goods, they will make them under the conditions prevailing in those countries; but if we make it impossible for them to supply us from overseas, the incentive is for them to bring capital to this country and invest large sums of money here. We have evidence of that in Ford’s and Dodge Brothers’ motor works, and in the manufacture of machinery, electrical instruments, and many other things. We have had, I suppose, more than twenty illustrations of American and English capital being forced to come to this country by the protection we afford to Australian industries. In. twenty, years’ time, as a result of this policy, we shall have in this country, notwithstanding the calamity howlers, vast industrial undertakings. I conclude by expressing the hope that not only will the item be passed, but that even more protection absolutely prohibitive protection, will be provided when we are in a better position to meet the requirements of Australia.

Mr D CAMERON:
BRISBANE. QLD · NAT

– I cannot register a silent vote on this item. During the general debate on item No. 1. I brought under the Minister’s notice certain representations made to me by old and established firms in Brisbane. I said that in Queensland it had not been possible to secure supplies of Australian-made cotton tweeds, and I also said that the firms who had made representations to me had clearly stated that they were not opposed to the duty if the Parliament thought it necessary. I put several questions to the Minister, and have since received his replies to them. The questions and the answers are as follow: -

Question. - Names and. locations of factories in the Commonwealth producing cotton tweed?

Answer. -G. A.. Bond and Co., Sydney; Marrickville Woollen Mills (Vicars), Parramatta; Cooerwull Mills, Bowenfela, New South Wales; Tweedside Manufacturing Co. Pty. Ltd., Abbotsford, Victoria; Foy and Gibson Pty. Ltd., Collingwood; Federal Woollen Mills Pty.. Ltd., Geelong; GeelongReturned Sailors and Soldiers’ Woollen and Worsted Co-operative Manufacturing Co., Geelong; Airedale Mills, Footscray, Melbourne; Ballarat Woollen and Worsted Co., Ballarat; J. Aitkin and Sons, Hobart.

Question. - The approximate aggregate quantity of cotton tweeds produced for the twelve months ended the 30th June, 1925?

Answer. - This information is not available, but it is believed that the quantity turned out was very small indeed.

Question. - The anticipated aggregate quan tity to be produced for the year ending the 30th June, 1926?

Answer. - It is extremely difficult to give the precise information owing to the fact that the imported cotton tweeds ordered before the 3rd September last were permitted to come in free up to the 31st December, 1925. The following information is, however, given of guarantees undertaken and given to the Department as to the quantities of cotton - tweeds the mills are prepared to produce: -

Bond and Co., Sydney, up to 3,000,000 yards per annum; Marrickville Woollen Mills, 1,000,000 yards per annum; Tweedside Manufacturing Co. Pty Ltd., 400,000 yards per annum; Federal Woollen Mills Pty. Ltd., 250,000 yards per annum; Foy and Gibson, 100,000 yards per annum; Geelong Returned Sailors and Soldiers’ Co-operative Manufacturing Co., 50,000 yards per annum; Airedale Mills, Footscray, 50,000 yards per annum (if proposed item passed by Parliament, they will increase plant and produce 1,000,000 yards per annum ) ; Ballarat Worsted and Woollen Co., 25,000 yards per annum; J. Aitkin and Sons, Hobart, no special quantity.

Question. - Are the factories in question using Australian grown cotton?

Answer. - ‘Yes, in regard to two factories that are manufacturing their own cotton yarn. Other factories are at present importing the cotton yarn.

Question. - Are the supplies of cotton tweeds available for sale in all States?

Answer. - Yes.

As I have now received a definite assurance that all orders that may be sent forward will be met with very little delay, 1 shall support the Government in this item.

Mr PARSONS:
Angas

.- I wish to explain why, at the conclusion of my previous remarks, I was not able to hand over to honorable members the samples about which I spoke. The reason I left the chamber at once was that Hansard required my figures immediately. I did not endeavour to demonstrate that British cotton tweeds could not be torn. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. A. Green) can testify that I tore a pair of English trousers, and that it required more strength to tear them than the Australian article. I also wish to protest against the remarks of the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin), in so far as he suggested that I misled the committee. I do not wish to mislead the committee at this or any other time. I ask the honorable member for Yarra to give me credit for being honest in my convictions, and in my turn I will be at all times prepared to give him like credit. If politicians are supposed to say anything that suits their policy, irrespective of whether they believe it or not, then I am not a politician.

Question - That sub-item a, paragraphs a, b, and c, of item 105 be agreed to- - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 46

NOES: 11

Majority . . . . 35

In division:

AYES

NOES

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sir Granville Ryrie:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Chair did not accept that amendment.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed sub-item agreed to.

Mr Mann:

– I rise to a point of order in relation to the division that has just been taken. At an early stage in the debate I moved that item 105 be referred back to the Tariff Board. An appeal by me to the Chair in division elicited the reply from the Temporary Chairman (Sir Granville Ryrie) that that amendment had not been accepted by the Chairman. I submit to you, Mr. Bayley, that the time to state whether an amendment is or is not acceptable to the Chair is when it is moved, and that it is hardly just to an honorable member to then ignore the amendment, and to wait until the committee is in division to inform him that it has not been accepted. In order to protect the rights of every honorable member, an amendment should either be submitted to the committee for its acceptance or rejection, or the Chairman should give a definite reason for declining to submit it to the committee. In this case the intimation that the amendment was not acceptable -to the Chair was not given at the proper time, and any reason which may now be given would hardly do justice to me.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bayley).I regret if I misunderstood the honorable member. I heard him say that it was his intention to move that the item be referred back to the Tariff Beard; but I did not understand him to actually submit that amendment.

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

– He did.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Had the honorable member for Perth done so, I should have told Mm at the time that it would not be in order, and would have suggested that his proper course would be to move the postponement of the item as an indication to the Government that the matter be resubmitted to the Tariff Board for consideration. I regret very much if I have done the honorable member an injustice. I assure him that it was quite unintentional.

Mr Mann:

– I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your statement; but with all respect to you, sir, I should like to make it clear that, after having indicated my intention to move the amendment, I did definitely move it. However, the incident is closed, and I only rose to say that I think that minorities, even small minorities, have a right to be treated with respect.

Progress reported.

page 1932

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until to-morrow at 11 a.m.

page 1932

ADJOURNMENT

Institute of Science and Industry - Advisory Committee

Mr BRUCE:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Flinders · NAT

– In moving -

That the House do now adjourn,

X should like to say that, in connexion with the re-organization of the Institute of Science and Industry, which is dealt with in the report by Sir Frank Heath, laid on the table of the House yesterday, the Government has decided to appoint an advisory committee of three members, as suggested by him, I cannot, at this stage, forecast the exact basis upon which ihe re-organization will take place; but I desire to announce that Mr. G. A. Julius, of Sydney, has agreed to act as chairman of the advisory committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.16 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 23 March 1926, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1926/19260323_reps_10_113/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives23 March 1926

QUESTION

RECIPROCAL TARIFF TREATY WITH SOUTH AFRICA

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

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION BILL

Mr COLEMAN:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LATHAM:Attorney-General · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · NAT

QUESTION

AMALGAMATED WIRELESS LIMITED

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

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

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Mr R GREEN:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

TRADE AND CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT

Mr MAKIN: through Mr.Fenton

QUESTION

PASSPORT SYSTEM

Mr WEST:EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE CLASSIFICATION

Mr MAKIN:through Mr. Fenton

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Mr GREGORY:through Mr. Masts

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

QUESTION

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Mr WEST:

QUESTION

MAINROADS GRANT

Mr GREGORY:through Mr. Mann

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

QUESTION

PORT AUGUSTA-OODNADATTA RAILWAY

Mr HILL:CP

QUESTION

PATERSON BUTTER BONUS SYSTEM

Mr ATKINSON:Vice-President of the Executive Council · WILMOT, TASMANIA · CP

QUESTION

ELECTRIC BATTERIES

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

TARIFF

Mr PRATTEN:Minister for Trade and Customs · MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr MANN:Perth

Mr LISTER:Corio

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

Mr LISTER:

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr LISTER:

Mr LISTER:

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr LISTER:

Mr MANNING:Macquarie

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

Mr MANNING:

Mr FENTON:Maribyrnong

Mr HUGHES:North Sydney

Mr R GREEN:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr MAHONY:Dalley

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

Mr PRATTEN:Minister for Trade and Customs · MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr HUGHES:North. Sydney

Mr J FRANCIS:MORETON, QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

Mr HUGHES:

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr HUGHES:

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr HUGHES:

Dr NOTT:Herbert

Mr FENTON:Maribyrnong

Mr R GREEN:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr FENTON:

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

House of Representatives
23 March 1926

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

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr COLEMAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LATHAM:
Attorney-General · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · NAT

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

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

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr MAKIN:
through Mr.Fenton

Mr WEST:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr MAKIN:
through Mr. Fenton

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr GREGORY:
through Mr. Masts

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

Mr GREGORY:
through Mr. Mann

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

Mr HILL:
CP

Mr ATKINSON:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · WILMOT, TASMANIA · CP

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr PRATTEN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr MANN:
Perth

Mr LISTER:
Corio

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

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr MANNING:
Macquarie

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

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

Mr HUGHES:
North Sydney

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr MAHONY:
Dalley

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

Mr PRATTEN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr HUGHES:
North. Sydney

Mr J FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Dr NOTT:
Herbert

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr MANNING:
Macquarie

Mr STEWART:
Wimmera

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

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr J FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

Mr FOSTER:
Wakefield

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr G FRANCIS:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · NAT

Mr PRATTEN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr PRATTEN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

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

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

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT