House of Representatives
13 May 1931

12th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 12th Parliament
  3. 1931

Mr. Speaker (Hon. Norman Makin) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and offered prayers.

page 1823

QUESTION

COMMUNICATIONS FROM CONSTITUENTS

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– There is a wellestablished practice that persons desirous of making representations to the Government on matters concerning this Parliament should do so through the member representing them, and that any reply from the Government should be sent through the same channel. This practice has been departed from by the Prime Minister in respect of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) and myself, and I ask him whether he and the Government have abandoned it entirely ?

Mr SCULLIN:
Minister for External Affairs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am very careful to observe the practice that members are the proper channel of communication between their constituents and Ministers. If the honorable member is aware of departures from that practice I shall be glad if he will let me have particulars.

page 1823

PRIVILEGE

” South Australian Worker “ : Reflections upon Mr. Speaker.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what action you propose to take consequent upon the resolution of the House yesterday that the publisher of the South Australian Worker has been guilty of contempt of the privileges of this Parliament?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Acting on instructions from me, the Clerk of the House has forwarded to the publisher of the South Australian Worker a copy of yesterday’s Votes and Proceedings. No further action can be taken at this stage.

page 1823

QUESTION

STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER

Mr CROUCH:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

– The Canadian Government has convened a conference of representatives of the provincial governments of the Dominion regarding the proposed Statute of Westminster which was discussed at the last Imperial Conference. I ask the Prime Minister what action the Commonwealth Government proposes to take?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– A bill dealing with the matter is being prepared by the Attorney-General for introduction to this House.

page 1824

QUESTION

NEW GUINEA MORATORIUM

Mr MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Because of the fall in the price of copra a moratorium for 12 months was proclaimed as a means of relief to planters in New Guinea. That period has nearly expired, and, as the planters are still in difficulties, Iask the Minister in charge of the Mandated Territories whether the Government proposes to extend the moratorium?

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The matter is under consideration, and I hope to be able to announce a decision at an early date.

page 1824

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES INTEREST PAYMENTS

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Labor Daily of to-day publishes an interview with Mr. Davidson, Minister for Public Works in New South Wales, in which that gentleman describes as vindictive the action of the Treasurer in withholding from the State Government an amount of £433,000 due to it from the Federal Main Roads Grant. Mr. Davidson continues -

When Iphoned Mr. Blakeley with the object of ascertaining the reason, he informed me, in the first instance, that he knew nothing about the matter, which meant that Mr. Theodore, Treasurer, had committed his cabinet to his act of utter cruelty without submitting the question to him. Later in the day Mr. Blakeley informed me that he had a conversation with the Treasurer, and that the announcement that the money had been stopped was quite correct.

Is the Treasurer aware that the withholding of thatmoney from the Government of New South Wales has thrown out of employment 1,000 men in that State, and that, consequently they, with their wives and children, numbering in all about 4,000, are suffering semi-starvation ?

Mr THEODORE:
Treasurer · DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The act of the New South Wales Government in declining to make certain interest payments due by it on loans raised overseas, obliged the Commonwealth

Government to make good the State’s default. In consequence, a considerable additional burden was thrown on the Commonwealth, and, as an offset against the payments it had to make on behalf of the State, the Government withheld certain amounts due to New South Wales under the financial agreement, and other amounts due by virtue of certain financial arrangements. The total amount withheld, however, was not nearly equal to the additional obligations that were thrown upon the Commonwealth. If these transactions have caused additional unemployment in New South Wales, this regrettable result is obviously attributable to the policy adopted by Mr. Lang.

Mr JAMES:

– The Treasurer allows the workers to starve. That is his damned policy.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

page 1824

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH FINANCES

CorrespondenceBetweenTreasurer andCommonwealthBankBoard.

Mr LYONS:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– When does the Prime Minister propose to afford the House an opportunity to discuss the recent correspondence between the Treasurer and the Commonwealth Bank Board?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– I have not yet been able to decide on a date for that discussion. Much will depend on the progress made with the other business on the notice-paper.

page 1824

MR. JACOB JOHNSON

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the AttorneyGeneral state when the Government will definitely dispose of the case of Mr. Jacob Johnson.

Mr BRENNAN:
Attorney-General · BATMAN, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Government has disposed of his case, but representations subsequently made to the Government necessitated further inquiry and reconsideration of the matter. I shall let the honorable member know the final decision of the Government as early as possible.

page 1824

QUESTION

AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION

Mr THOMPSON:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Newspapers are frequently stating that the Government proposes to take a referendum on proposed alterations of (he Constitution in conjunction with the next general election.Will the Prime Minister say whether the Government has come to such a decision?

Mr.SCULLIN. - Announcements of Government policy cannot he made by way of answers to questions.

page 1825

QUESTION

DUTCH. AIR SERVICE TO AUSTRALIA

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– Has the PostmasterGeneral seen a report published in the press to the effect that the Dutch authorities are prepared to give an aerial mail service between Europe and Australia without a subsidy, provided certain guarantees are given? It is stated that a mail plane is now en route on an experimental flight. Will the PostmasterGeneral have the matter fully investigated, with a view to ascertaining the possibilities of the offer?

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I have already gone into the matter, and although it has been reported that the Dutch are prepared to run a mail service without a subsidy, close inquiries have revealed nothing to substantiate the report. So far as my department is concerned, nothing has been heard to lead us to believe that a service would be inaugurated upon the conditions named.

page 1825

QUESTION

ARBITRATION COURT

Wages of Station Hands

Mr BEASLEY:

– Last week, during the temporary absence of the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Brennan) from the chamber, I directed a question to the Prime Minister which he said he would bring under the notice ofthe Attorney-General, but so far I have received no reply to it. The question referred to the decision of the full bench of the Arbitration Court to make a reduction of 20 per cent. in all Australian Workers Union awards dealing with the wages payable to station hands as from the 4th May. Will the Attorney-General state whether the Government proposes to allow this wholesale slashing of wages to continue, seeing that the greatest burden on industry, namely, the high rates of interest is allowed to remain unaltered? Does the Government propose to take any action in this matter, and if so, what?

Mr BRENNAN:
ALP

– I am not at the moment able to check the facts, but the honorable member must be aware that arbitration is part of the Government’s policy. I shall inquire into the matter which he has raised.

page 1825

QUESTION

TRANSPORT WORKERS’ REGULATIONS

Mr JAMES:

– In view of the fact that the stevedores on the waterfront at Newcastle have not engaged one union labourer during the last two days, will the Attorney-General state when the new regulations governing working conditions on the waterfront will be tabled?

Mr BRENNAN:
ALP

– I am aware that very active discrimination is being practised against unionists and returned soldiers in favour of foreigners and nonunionists. The Government proposes to take prompt action.

page 1825

QUESTION

DISTINGUISHED CHINESE VISITORS

Mr MORGAN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Prime Minister state whether the usual courtesies have been extended by the Commonwealth Government to the members of an important Chinese delegation at present in Australia?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– Yes. If the honorable member desires to have full details of what has been done they can be obtained for him. The Commonwealth Government extended the usual courtesies to those distinguished representatives, and bade them welcome. At the first entertainment tendered to them in Sydney it was impossible for the Government to be represented by a Commonwealth Minister because the House was sitting, but the Government was nevertheless represented. In addition, the Commonwealth Government provided facilities for members of the delegation when travelling, and asked the State Governments to co-operate by extending courtesies and providing facilities.

page 1825

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN RAILWAYS

Negotiations for Sale

Mr BEASLEY:

– Did the Prime Minister, while abroad, enter into negotiations with leading captains of industry in Great Britain who proposed to acquire the railway systems of Australia ? I quote the following extract from some correspondence I have received from what is considered to be a reliable source : -

A company or association is being got together in England to acquire the complete railway system of Australia. The following persons are mentioned as members of the association : Sir Joseph Stamp, Lord Farringdon, Viscount Churchill, Lord Kylsant, Lord Ashfield and Mr. S. M. Bruce.

Has the Prime Minister been engaged in negotiations with any of these persons in regard to the Commonwealth section of the Australian railways?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– When in England, I met some of the gentlemen mentioned and we discussed several matters of public importance, but on no occasion did we discuss the taking over of the Australian railways by any British company or association.

page 1826

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK SECURITIES

Mr GUY:
BASS, TASMANIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What were the classes of securities held on the 30th April, 1931, by the Commonwealth Bank against -

Advances by the trading department of the bank to the various governments, stating the information, in each case, under the following headings: -

Commonwealth Government securities -

i ) Short-dated treasury-bills, specifying amounts;

Other Commonwealth securities, specifying amounts;

State securities, specifying values of the securities of each particular State; and

Other securities, specifying types and value of each type, and arranging same according to States, specifying value for each State?

Mr THEODORE:
ALP

– The information is being obtained from the Commonwealth Bank and will be furnished as soon as possible.

page 1826

QUESTION

EAST- WEST RAILWAY

Interest Payments

Mr YATES:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What is the rate of interest paid on the amount of £860,020 expended since 1918 on the east-west railway?
  2. When was the amount of £2,335,372 still owing to the Australian notes account borrowed from the notes fund?
  3. What is the accumulated amount of interest paid on this sum from the 14th December, 1920, to date?
Mr THEODORE:
ALP

– The information is being obtained, and will be furnished as soon as possible.

page 1826

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF DATES

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

What quantity and value of dates were imported into Australia in the year 1929-30; and what were the countries of origin and the quantity and value from each country?

Mr FORDE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The information is contained in the following table : -

page 1826

QUESTION

TAX ON UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENTS

Mr GABB:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it intended to tax interest on University endowments?
  2. If so, is it a fact that one Australian University has its total endowment of £405,000 in Government stock?
  3. Will he consider exemption for universities from special interest taxation, in order to prevent curtailment of their necessary work?
Mr THEODORE:
ALP

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

  1. This question is now under consideration.
  2. I am not in possession of information as to the investments of such endowments.
  3. See answer to question No. 1.

page 1826

QUESTION

EXAMINATIONS BEFORE BAR OF THE SENATE

Mr BEASLEY:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

Is there any power in the hands of the Government to prevent a repetition of the scene in another place last week, when the Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board was called to the bar to answer specially prepared questions?

Mr BRENNAN:
ALP

– The Government has no control over the conduct of proceedings in the other place in such matters as that referred to.

page 1827

QUESTION

TEXTILE INDUSTRY

Mr WARD:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Have any of the firms engaged in the textile industry, who have made application to the court for a lengthening of the hours and a reduction inthe wages of their employees, received any protection under the tariff policy of the Government?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– The textile industry as a whole has received very substantial protection under the tariff policy of the present Government.

page 1827

QUESTION

SHALE OIL COMMITTEE

Mr JAMES:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is the Commonwealth Government paying, in conjunction with the New South Wales Government, the cost of administration of what is known as the “ Shale Oil Committee “, which comprises representatives from the Governments mentioned, together with a representative of the Miners Federation?
  2. How many persons constitute this committee, and are they paid for each sitting, in addition to receiving travelling expenses; if so, what is the amount each individual has received since the inauguration of the committee ?
  3. Has any person been appointed permanently to the committee; if so, who is such person or persons, what is the remuneration paid to each, and for how long is each appointment ?
  4. Will any of the expenditure by the committee for administration, and salaries of its officials, be obtained from the £100,000 granted to repatriate the miners?
  5. Has a Mr. Leary or Leahey been appointed by the Federal Government to the committee; ii so, is he identical with the Mr. Leahey who has taken up the shale leases at Baverami Creek?
Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

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

  1. The Shale Oil Committee is a responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. No liability rests with the Government of New South Wales.
  2. The committee consists of four persons, who represent the Commonwealth Government, the Government of Now South Wales, the leaseholders, and the miners respectively. The representative of the miners is also secretary to thecommittee. Arrangements have been made for a sitting fee to be paid to the representative of the leaseholders, and travelling expenses will be paid to members of the com mittee as they are incurred. Since the inauguration of the committee a sum of £23 2s. has been paid in fees.
  3. The whole of the committee with the exception of the secretary has been appointed until the grant from the Commonwealth has been expended. Mr. D. J. Davieshas been appointed full-time secretary at a salary of £12 10s. per week with a guarantee of employment for three years.
  4. As the committee was established in connexion with the expenditure of the grant for the repatriation of miners, the expenses of the committee will be met from that fund.
  5. Mr. T. Leahy was appointed to the committee as a representative of the leaseholders. The department has no’ information as to whether Mr. Leahy has taken up shale leases at Barerami Creek.

page 1827

QUESTION

DUTY ON CHEMICAL SUPPLIES FOR HOSPITALS

Mr CROUCH:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Whether the British price of ethyl chloride f.o.b. London is1s. 4d. per tube of 3 oz.?
  2. Is the duty per tube 6s. ?
  3. Is the landed cost 8s. ?
  4. Is the duty on cotton wool used in hospitals 4d. per lb.; and is the landed cost 9d. per lb.?
  5. Do the Victorian hospitals use approximately 50 tons of this wool per annum, equal to an extra charge on their funds of £2,000 per annum for this item?
  6. Is the f.o.b. price in London of bismuth carbonate6s. 9d. per lb. ?
  7. Is there a duty of 8s. per lb. on this medicine?
  8. Is the total ordinary charge to hospitals l5s. per lb.?
  9. Is it a fact that the Colac hospital and other hospitals are greatly affected in their finances by these excessive charges?
  10. Can he arrange that all chemical supplies to public and government hospitals in the Commonwealth shall be admitted duty free under departmental by-laws, or make some other provision so that the funds of such hospitals may not be unduly depleted?
Mr FORDE:
ALP

– Information is being obtained.

page 1827

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Petrol and Oil Used - Pay of Boy Telephonists

Mr JAMES:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. What was the amount of oils and petrol consumed annually by his department during the past five years?
  2. What was the cost of such oils and petrol per annum, and which companies supplied them to the department?
Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– Information for the years 1927, 1928, and 1929 was supplied on the 25th March, 1930, in response to a question by the honorable member, the particulars being as follow : -

Supplies of motor spirit are obtained from Commonwealth Oil Refineries at all centres where stocks are available. In other cases, supplies are obtained from the Shell Company and Vacuum Oil Company, in approximately equal proportions. Lubricating oils are supplied by J. B. Harmsworth, Vacuum Oil Company, Atlantic Union Oil Company, and C. C. Wakefield Limited. The collection of further particulars would entail inquiries being made throughout the States of the Commonwealth, and these have not been undertaken at this stage, as the honorable member may find that the above information will suffice for his needs.

Mr LAZZARINI:
through Mr. Beasley

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that boy telephonists in country districts work from 9.30 p.m. to 7 a.m., seven nights per week, 52 weeks per year, for £1 per week?
  2. Is it a fact that no matter how long and how faithfully these boys work they can never hope to attain a salary higher than £1 per week ?
Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

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

  1. Boys are employed at small country telephone exchanges at night where the telephone calls are so infrequent that the attendant is able to secure practically uninterrupted sleep. The department provides the necessary bed and bedding, and pays an allowance of £1 per week. The boys are able to carry out their ordinary work during the day-time, and consequently the allowance in question is in addition to their ordinary wages.
  2. See answer to No. 1.

page 1828

QUESTION

H.M.A.S. AUSTRALIA

Mr JAMES:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. What was the total cost of building H.M.A.S. Australia?
  2. What is the annual cost of maintenance when in commission?
Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The cost of H.M.A.S. Australia was £1,930,465. This does not include cost of torpedoes, ammunition, ordnance and naval stores supplied as first equipment and spares.
  2. The annual cost of maintenance, including pay and allowances of personnel, victualling, and clothing, naval and ordnance stores, oil fuel, docking, repair and refit, &c., is £277,300.

page 1828

QUESTION

CENTRAL AND NORTHERN AUSTRALIAN EXPLORATION EXPEDITIONS

Mr KILLEN:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Were the expenses of the search for Captain Pittendrigh and Mr. Hamre in Central Australia borne by the Government?
  2. Was any assistance given by this or the preceding Government to Mr. Donald Mackay’s exploring expeditions in Central and Northern Australia?
Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Replies to the honorable member’s questions will be furnished as soon as possible.

page 1828

QUESTION

GOLD PROSPECTING AND OIL BORING

Assistance Granted

Mr JAMES:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice -

  1. What amount of money has been expended by the Commonwealth during the last twelve months in assisting gold prospecting?
  2. To whom has assistance been granted, and what amount has been paid to each person ?
  3. What amount has been expended in assisting private companies in boring for oil during each of the past ten years?
Mr BLAKELEY:

– The information is being compiled, and will be conveyed to the honorable member as soon as possible.

page 1828

QUESTION

LOANS

Mr THEODORE:
ALP

– On the 7th May the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Jones) asked the following question, upon notice -

Will the Treasurer supply particulars of all loans raised, both in Australia and abroad, for the period 9th February, 1923, to 22nd October, 1929, as to -

The terms on which they were offered ?

The purpose for which they were raised?

To what extent, if any, had any of them to be underwritten?

The dates of the several loans?

The total amount raised (a) for the Commonwealth, and (b) for the States?

The information desired is set out in the following statement: - {: .page-start } page 1830 {:#debate-26} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-26-0} #### BUTTER AND BUTTER SUBSTITUTES {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
ALP -- On the 6th May, the honorable member for Gippsland **(Mr. Paterson)** asked me the following questions, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Whether the sale of margarine and other substitutes for butter is increasing in Australia, to the detriment of the dairying industry? 1. What was the estimated consumption within Australia during the year 1930, or the year ending 30th June,. 1930, of (a) butter, (b) margarine, and (c) other substitutes for butter? 2. In what proportions do margarine and other butter substitutes consist of(a) animal fats, and (b) products of vegetable origin? 3. What proportion of the ingredients of margarine and other butter substitutes is imported from other countries? I am now in a position to furnish the honorable member with the following replies : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Investigations made by officers of the Department of Markets show that the sale of margarine in Australia has not had such a detrimental effect on the dairying industry as the sale of other substitutes for butter. 2. (a) During the calendar year 1930 approximately 80,000 tons. (b) The latest figures available from the Commonwealth Statistician are for the year 1929-30, when approximately 11,000 tons were consumed. (c) During the calendar year 1930 approximately 1,500 tons. 1. Margarine contains beef fat of Australian origin varying from 73 per cent. to 83 per cent. and peanut or cotton-seed oil of Australian origin varying from 5 per cent. to 15 per cent., together with 2 per cent. of salt, and moisture up to 10 per cent. Other butter substitutes consist of approximately 32.75 per cent. butter fat, 49.5 per cent. coco-nut oil, 15 per cent. moisture, 2 per cent. salt, and . .75 per cent. other ingredients. 2. See reply to No. 3. So far as can be ascertained, coco-nut oil and copra (from which coco-nut oil is extracted) are the only ingredients imported. {: .page-start } page 1830 {:#debate-27} ### NORTH AUSTRALIA {:#subdebate-27-0} #### Air Mail {: #subdebate-27-0-s0 .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 -- On the 5th instant reference was made by the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. White)** to the occasional failure of the air mails for Darwin to connect with the out-going train at Birdum, and I then undertook to investigate the matter. From inquiries since made, it is apparent that such dislocations as occurred during the past six months were due to circumstances entirely beyond control, and, for the most part, were attributable to the effect of adverse weather conditions on the aerial service, and not to any lack of co-ordiniation between the Commonwealth Railways and this department. I am prepared to make the reports available for perusal by the honorable member. {: .page-start } page 1830 {:#debate-28} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-28-0} #### PRIMAGE DUTY Sacks, Phosphate and Sulphur {: #subdebate-28-0-s0 .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN:
Prime Minister · Yarra · ALP -- *by leave* - The Government has given careful consideration to the effect of the primage duties upon the primary industries, and after a survey of the position has decided to remove these imposts from cornsacks, flour sacks, woolpacks, and rock phosphate and sulphur. Both rock phosphate and sulphur are extensively used in the manufacture of superphosphates, which are indispensable to the man on the land. It is intended that the remission of these duties shall benefit the primary producers, and the Government expects that the full benefit of the remission will be passed on to the users of the articles affected. The position will be closely watched, and if it is found that the importer or the manufacturer is not allowing the purchaser the full benefit of the duties remitted the question of reimposing them will be seriously considered. {: .page-start } page 1831 {:#debate-29} ### PAPERS The following papers were presented : - Tariff Board - Reports and Recommendations - Carburettors. Dredging and Excavating Machinery. Dry Batteries and Dry Cells. Electric Storage Batteries and parts thereof. Fashion Plates and Books, &c. Felts. Furs and other Skins and Dressed Rabbit Skins. Leclanche Cells. Malleable Iron Castings. Pressed and Pressed Blown Glassware. Telephone and Telegraph Apparatus. Wood Wool. Ordered to be printed. Paper Industry - General report by H. W. Gepp, Consultant on Development to the Commonwealth Government, and I. H. Boas, Chief of the Forest Products Division of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, on the proposed paper industry in Tasmania. Post and Telegraph Act - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1931, No. 47. Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Building and Services Ordinance - Regulations Amended. {: .page-start } page 1831 {:#debate-30} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-30-0} #### TRENCH RENTS {: #subdebate-30-0-s0 .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH: -- I desire to make a personal explanation. Last year, upon the authority of General Childs, and other military authorities, I made the statement that the French Government had charged the British Government rent for certain trenches used by British troops in France. Subsequently certain officers of the Defence Department fur nished the Minister for Defence with a statement which he read to the House, in which it was said that my information was incorrect. I was not satisfied with the Minister's statement, and communicated with **Mr. Lansbury,** a member of the British Government, who in turn communicated with the British Secretary of State for War, and he in his turn made inquiries in regard to the subject from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at London. I have now received a letter from a **Mr. J.** H. Woods, which is written on the official letter-paper' of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I abstract the following paragraph from it: - >In reply **Mr. Snowden** desires me to say that payments amounting to about £30,000,000 were made by British Departments to the French authorities during and immediately after the war. The main facts regarding these payments may be found in a statement made by Lord Hylton in the House of Lords on the 14th March, 1922. (Parliamentary Debates, Official Record, House of Lords, 14th March, 1922, Cols. 499 to 502). I have examined the volume referred to, and I find that the following question was asked of Lord Hylton by Lord Newton : - >My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether the sum of £32,000,000 paid to France by this country for railway services, billeting, rent of houses, occupation of.'land for military purposes, and compensation for damage during the years 1914 to 1920 inclusive, has been actually paid over, or whether it has been deducted from the French debt to this country; and whether a similar payment to France has been made by the American Government. Certain other information was asked for, but it has no bearing upon the subject with which I am dealing. In his reply, Lord Hylton said - >An approximate division of this total of £30,000,000 which has been paid as I have already mentioned, would be as follows: - For railway services, £11,000,000. As regards this payment, at the outbreak of hostilities the French railway companies were obliged by law to place their undertakings at the disposal of the French Government at special rates of charges which were also enjoyed by the British military authorities, and monthly advances were made to the French Government - acting as agent for the railway companies - by the British military authorities on the basis of eleven-twelfths of the sum estimated to be due for payment. In reference to railway charges, since the agreement of March, 1919, which I have mentioned, was entered into between His Majesty's Government and the French Government a further sum of approximately £4,000,000 has been set off against French debts to this country. Besides the £11,000,000 I have mentioned as paid approximately in respect to railway charges, payments have been made of about £8,000,000 altogether for billeting, rent, occupation of land, compensation for damage, and so forth. These payments were met by two bodies known as the Claims Commission and the Directorate of Hirings and Requisitions, and arrangements were made by them in most cases with the Mai re of the Commune concerned direct. All billeting and requisitioning ceased, however, in December, 1919. > > *Faits de guerre* did not carry any right to an indemnity (and damage caused by trenches and other works on thefield of battle or its borders was, therefore, excluded ) , but " preventive measures of defence " - for example, trenches constructed for instructional purposes - rank for indemnity. {: .page-start } page 1832 {:#debate-31} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-31-0} #### TARIFF Customs Duties In Committee of Ways and Means: Consideration resumed from the 12th May (vide page 1796), on motion by **Mr. Forde** - >That the schedule to the customs tariff be amended - Division I. - Ales, Spirits and Beverages Item 3 - By omitting the whole of sub-item (b) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item: - "(b) Whisky, including liqueur whisky - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When not exceeding the strength of proof - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. If bottled in the Commonwealth under customs supervision subject to such conditions as to the bottling and as to the strength of the spirits as are prescribed by departmental by-laws, per gallon, British 45s. ; intermediate, 47s. ; general, 48s. 1. If not bottled in the Commonwealth under customs supervision, per gallon, British, 50s.; intermediate, 52s.; general, 53s. 1. When exceeding the strength of proof - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. If bottled in the Commonwealth under customs supervision subject to such conditions as to the bottling and as to the strength of the spirits as are prescribed by departmental by-laws, per proof gallon, British 45s. ; intermediate, 47s. ; general, 48s. 1. If not bottled in the Commonwealth under customs supervision, per proof gallon,. British, 50s. ; intermediate, 52s.; general, 53s." Upon which **Mr. R.** Green had moved by way of amendment - >That the item be further amended by adding to sub-item (b) the following: - > >And on and after 14th May, 1931 - > >1 ) When not exceeding the strength of proof - > >Whether or not bottled in the Commonwealth under customs supervision subject to such conditions as to the bottling and as to the strength of the spirits as are prescribed by Departmental By-laws, per gallon, British, 33s.; intermediate, 47s.; general, 48s. > >When exceeding the strength of proof - > >Whether or not bottled in the Commonwealth under customs supervision subject to such conditions as to the bottling and as to the strength of the spirits as are prescribed by Departmental By-laws, per proof gallon, British, 33s.; intermediate, 47s. ; general, 48s." {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP .- I accept the vote of honorable members in regard to whisky not bottled in bond, and will make no observations upon that subject. {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr Bernard Corser: -- The committee has not dealt with whisky in bond. {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- I am aware of that. It was the general impression of honorable members when the debate was proceeding yesterday that the one amendment covered both brandy and whisky. Actually brandy was scarcely mentioned, the debate centering about whisky. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- The amendment moved by the honorable member for Perth **(Mr. Nairn),** and carried yesterday, concerned brandy only. {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- Surely the Minister will accept the verdict of the committee, and not make it necessary to move a separate amendment for each item ? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- The Government will deal with each amendment as it is submitted. {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- In that case, I do not propose to alter the wording of my amendment. It will be gathered that the alteration would make no difference in the price of whisky whether bottled in the Commonwealth under customs supervision, or otherwise. I have accepted the verdict of the committee. If the Minister chooses to ignore it that is his own concern. Last night I endeavoured to demonstrate that this duty is merely a means of raising revenue for the Government, and that the principal factor to consider is how to raise the greatest amount possible. From the figures I quoted, it is obvious that the existing duty is far too high, and merely defeats the purpose for which it was imposed. From 1914 until the 30th June last, the consumption of whisky in Australia declined by about 50 per cent. At the latter date, the economic depression was not nearly so serious as it is at present, so that the decline in the consumption of whisky could not be wholly attributed to a shrunken public purse. I believe that it was due simply to the exorbitant nature of the duty. When, in 1925, the duty on whisky was raised from 30s. to 35s., there was a perceptible decrease both in the consumption of the spirit and in the amount of revenue raised from it. Two years after that increase in duty, the revenue raised had declined by £120,000 per annum. Since then there have been two additional increases in duty, one of 2s. a gallon just prior to the last general election, and a further increase of 8s. a gallon shortly after this Government assumed office. As a result of the additional impost, the revenue raised from this source has declined very appreciably, there being a drop of £1,113,512 in respect of this article. So that although the duty was increased by 10s. a gallon, the revenue received under the higher rate was less than when the rate was 35s. a gallon, while less was received in revenue when the duty was 35s. than when it was 30s. a gallon. It is necessary for the committee to appreciate that there is a point at which taxation becomes too burdensome, and defeats its own object. For that reason I have chosen the mean figure of 33s. a gallon, which I consider to be the peak figure for revenueproducing purposes. It may interest the committee to know that in 1924-25 the amount received in revenue from duty on whisky was £1,520,000, while last year, notwithstanding the exceptionally high rate of duty, the revenue dropped to £1,113,000, a decrease of £407,000. {: .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr Martens: -- Does the honorable member contend that the cost of whisky would be reduced if the duty were lowered ? {: #subdebate-31-0-s1 .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- The reduction certainly would make a difference. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- How much per nip? {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- That would depend upon local conditions. In some centres, 1s. a nip is now charged, and there the decrease might be 2d. or more. I certainly believe that there would be a reduction of1d. a nip in the cities. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- Does the honorable member contend that a reduction of1d. a nip would induce people to drink more whisky ? {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- That is a difficult question to . answer. The assurance has been given by the largest importers of whisky in this country that a benefitwill accrue to the consumers if the rate of duty is decreased as suggested. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- What guarantee is there that they would not pass the reduction on to the consumer? {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- There would be an immediate reduction of the price charged to hotelkeepers, wine and spirit merchants, and others. Instead of the 12s. that I am asking for, they are willing to pass on a reduction of about 14s. That assurance can be accepted because the wholesalers have a reputation, and I am sure that they have no desire to mislead either the Minister or the country. The reduction that I am asking for would result in a definite decrease in the price to the consumer. Scotch whisky is recognized throughout the world as a standard article. In that respect it resembles Lea and Perrin's sauce, Guinness' stout, Avery's scales, or Australian fine wool. In the United States of America, an embargo is placed upon the importation of whisky; but Scotch whisky is sold in that country, and there is always a demand for it when it is obtainable. Between November, 1929, and March, 1931, no fewer than 606 men lost their employment in New South Wales alone in three callings directly connected with the liquor trade: workers in bond and bottling warehouses, bottle-making factories and case-making establishments. Last night the honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley),** asked to be informed as to the source of those figures. I may mention that they were supplied by the trade union to which the men who have been thrown out of employment belong. It is reported that 54 per cent. of the men employed in all callings connected with the wholesale and retail liquor trade throughout Australia have lost their employment. A large number of men are engaged in the various avocations which supply materials such as bottles, capsules, timber cases and straw envelopes, and I have shown that in three callings directly connected with the liquor trade, the number of men employed has fallen in a few months by over 600 in one State alone.From the financial point of view it is most advisable to reduce the duty, and this, again, would enable some of the men who have been put out of work to be re-employed. The special duty of 5s. a gallon, which was originally imposed in 1925, was mainly intended to protect the interests of Australian distilleries. The case for the local whisky distilleries has been drawn up as follows: - >The Australian whisky industry, as represented by the distilleries previously mentioned, earnestly request the Government to seriously consider a reduction of the present whisky duty, maintaining the present margin of protection, and believes that by so doing the amount of revenue from this source would be increased by reason of the consequent additional consumption. It is remarkable that the manufacturers in Australia have asked for a reduction of the duty on the imported article. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- To be logical the honorable member should go further, and assist the local manufacturer by means of the excise tariff. {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- I intend to refer to that matter. The excise duty has failed to return the amount of revenue that might have been reasonably expected. Some honorable members may look upon the import duty on whisky other than as a tariff matter. If they believe that an increased consumption of whisky, or of any other spirit,would be detrimental to the interests of the Australian people, there is a proper method of dealing with that aspect of the liquor trade. It should not be attacked in an indirect and dishonest way through the tariff. Revenue duties are designed to return the largest possible amount of revenue to the Treasury; but a moral issue concerning the liquor trade should be decided, not in this Parliament, but in the State legislatures. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- The fact that a local industry is protected' under the tariff shows that the moral issue does not arise. The honorable member desires to foster an Australian industry. {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- That is so. People, if they so desire, will drink whisky, and if it is unobtainable they will drink hooch, as the people do in the United States of America. The Commonwealth must deal with the control of spirituous liquors from the point of view of revenue only, and it will materially assist the Treasury, and also alleviate unemployment, if the duty on whisky is reduced to 33s. a gallon. {: #subdebate-31-0-s2 .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay . - I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. R. Green).,** because, if carried, it will add considerably to the Commonwealth revenue. Australia is saddled with an enormous national 'debt, and naturally we must lose no opportunity to increase our revenue. The Government, some time ago, increased the duty on many commodities, including whisky, with the unfortunate result that we have lost, not only revenue to the extent of £1,000,000, but also considerable employment in connexion with the actual importation of whisky and the trade throughout Australia. The Commonwealth is not concerned with the desire of the community to drink whisky. The regulation of the drink traffic is a matter for State Parliaments; the Commonwealth Parliament is concerned only with the development of Australian industries and the production of revenue. I recognize and accept the principle that the Australian tariff should be designed to afford fair and reasonable protection to our industries in general, and that, with respect to a luxury such as spirits, we should so frame the tariff as to make it a definite and material source of revenue. I believe that that was, to some extent, the intention of the Government when it increased the duty on whisky, but, unfortunately, its anticipations of increased revenue from that source have not materialized. By increasing the customs and excise duty on whisky, we have reduced the consumption, not only of the imported article, but also of the locallymanufactured article. The import trade and the local trade are so interwoven that if one is destroyed the other is destroyed as well. The increased duties on whisky have led, not only to reduced revenue from that source, but also to increased unemployment. The honorable member for Richmond has indicated his intention to move for a reduction in the excise on whisky so as to place the Australian manufacturer on a footing equal to that of the importer. That is a most reasonable suggestion, and I hope that the Minister will accept it. The honorable member has also pointed out that the number of employees engaged in connexion with the bottling and distribution of imported whisky and other spirits, and bottle and case-making within the Commonwealth, has greatly declined. He said that over 600 employees had been dismissed, but he omitted to mention that that decline in employment took place over a period of four months only. That is a clear indication of the extent to which unemployment is likely to be increased because of these additional duties. The Government, when it increased the excise duties, made special reference to the number of employees in the Australian distilleries. I have made inquiries, and I find that in October, 1929, the number of distillery hands was 140. Since then nine more hands have been employed. The office staff has been increased by one hand, and the number of incidental hands by fourteen. So that since 1929, there has been an increase of some 24 hands, and, at the same time, this country has suffered a loss of £1,000,000 in revenue from whisky duties. The Government's greatest argument in favour of the imposition of heavy duties on whisky was that it would give an impetus to the local trade; would absorb the unemployed, and increase the expenditure on the production of whisky within Australia. ' The Government's hopes in that direction have failed miserably. The heavy duties have led to a loss of revenue from that source, and although 24 additional hands have been employed in the Australian distilleries, at least 50 per cent, of the hands engaged in the various branches of the trade throughout Australia have been dismissed. The imports of whisky in 1928, which was a normal year, amounted to 946,832, or nearly 1,000,000 imperial gallons. In 1928, 946,832 gallons were imported, and 209,103 gallons of Australian whisky were produced. In 1930, the imports totalled 329,749 gallons, and the Australian production was 168,866 gallons. I admit that the depression may have accounted to some extent for the big decline that is shown; but I remind the committee that the latest figures I have given relate to 1930, before the full effect of the depression was felt. The imports for 1930 showed a decrease of not less than 685,530 proof gallons and the clearances of Australian whisky a decrease of 19,935 gallons below the average for the four years 1925 to 1928 inclusive. These decreases more than offset the gain resulting from the higher duties, and the net result is an alarming loss of revenue. In 1929-30 the revenue collected from these duties amounted to £1,971,000. For the first nine months of 1930-31 the total collection was £683,000. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- Can the honorable member say whether the reduction in the consumption of whisky has been attended by a corresponding increase in the consumption of other forms of alcohol? {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- The official figures relate only to reputable brands of whisky. Unfortunately, illicit distillation is increasing by leaps and bounds, and although the official statistics show a decline in the recorded imports and production there is not necessarily a decline in the total consumption. Illicit whisky is being used for blending. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- That is one of the immoral effects of the high tariff. {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- I agree, with the honorable member. Moreover these unduly high duties result in the consumption of inferior whisky which is detrimental to public health and productive of crime. It would be wiser to let people have wholesome spirits instead of driving them to " fire-water " that is productive of ill-health and crime. In 1928, the revenue obtained from imported whisky was £1,656,956, and in 1930 it had dropped to £741,935. In 1928 the excise duty on Australian whisky was £271,000, and' in 1930 £236,000. All the facts reinforce the statement of the honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. R. Green)** that even Australian, whisky producers would welcome a reduction of the existing duties. The admission of imported whisky at a reasonable rate of duty would discourage illicit distillation. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment, and to agree to a corresponding reduction of the excise duty. {: #subdebate-31-0-s3 .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Warringah -- This item involves two important considerations - revenue and employment - and a reduction of the duties would be beneficial to the Commonwealth in respect of both. To-day the principal and most urgent requirement of the Government is money. I need not emphasize the amount of the estimated deficit and the great diminution of customs revenue, due largely to prohibitive duties imposed on some commodities. Alcohol has always been regarded as a legitimate subject of taxation for revenuepurposes, and at a time when money is badly needed, the tariff should be framed to produce the maximum amount of revenue. If prohibitive duties are imposed, no revenue is obtained; moderate duties will promote consumption and increase the revenue from customs and excise. Employment is not an important consideration in connexion with these duties on whisky. To-day the whisky trade in the United Kingdom and the dominions is almost entirely controlled by a combine, and employment will not be affected by any policy the Government may adopt. Therefore the only question we have to decide is whether we shall maintain a high duty and lose revenue; or substitute a reasonable duty and increase the revenue. The moral effect of the liquor traffic may be considered at the appropriate time; what we have to consider now is only the effect of these duties upon the revenues of the Commonwealth. If the Minister will agree to a substantial reduction of the duties the tariff will become a more scientific instrument for raising revenue. At present it is ill-balanced and clumsy, and produces results diametrically opposite to what was intended. The duties on whisky cannot be regarded as protective; indeed the increase of the rates has been attended by a decrease of employment. This commodity is usually regarded as a prolific source of revenue, and if we are to secure an increased return from these duties at the present time they must be reduced from their present prohibitive level. The Minister will probably contend that the falling off in revenue is due, not to the high tariff, but to the depression. Accepting as we must the existence of the depression, should we not endeavour to meet the situation by reducing the tariff, rather than increase it to a level which will put spirits out of the reach of the public altogether. If the duty were reduced, more whisky would be consumed and more revenue obtained. {: #subdebate-31-0-s4 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP -- I wish I could oblige honorable members by accepting this amendment, and I would do so were the amendment reasonable. The state of the country's finances is such, however, that the Government would not be justified in reducing the duty on whisky by an amount which would make it 2s. below that at which it stood during the regime of the Bruce-Page Government. How can we justify putting a duty on tea and other such articles if we reduce the duty on whisky ? It is a debatable point as to whether more revenue would be obtained if the duty .were reduced. I believe that a reduction would not produce more revenue. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- Is the object of the Government to obtain more revenue by means of the increase? {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr Gullett: -- No, this is simply protection. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- The Government's object is to obtain the maximum revenue. The amendment, if carried, would not affect the degree of protection afforded, because it is proposed to reduce the excise duty on Australian whisky *pro rata.* This amendment is sponsored principally by the importers of overseas whisky, though I understand that the Australian manufacturers would also be pleased if the excise duty on whisky were reduced. The attitude of the whisky distillers is quite reasonable from their point of view, and I do not blame them for trying to have the duty reduced. I do not agree with them, however, that the present rates of duty have had the effect of increasing unemployment in the trade, and of reducing the revenue. It is contended that if a reduction of 12s. a gallon were made, more whisky would be consumed because the price per nobbier could be reduced by Id. There are about twenty nips to the bottle, and eight bottles to the gallon. {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- There are six bottles to the gallon. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- I cannot believe that a reduction of Id. a nip would lead to more whisky drinking. If two men went into a bar and had two drinks of whisky at lOd. each, it is not likely that they would be induced to have another two drinks if the price were reduced to 9d. Honorable members have been supplied with a circular letter issued by the Wine and Spirit Association of New South Wales. After reading this letter one might come to the conclusion that the present rate of duty is entirely responsible for the reduced revenue, and for the reduced volume of employment in the businesses of members of the association. Indeed, so much has been stated in the circular, but it entirely ignores the effect of the existing depression, not only on the consumption of whisky, but on the sale of all luxury items, as well as of the necessaries of life. It is a feature of this depression that, even in industries engaged in supplying the necessaries of life, employment has been reduced by as much as 30 per cent., while in industries engaged in the supply of luxuries the percentage decrease in employment has been much greater. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale Parkhill: -- So that the tariff has not had the effect of increasing employment ? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- The depression has counteracted the effect of the tariff. The national income has fallen off to the extent of £140,000,000 a year, and the people have not so much money with which to buy goods, whether produced here or brought from overseas. It is not surprising, there-' fore, to learn that employment throughout the whisky importing industry has declined by 44.5 per cent. This percentage is calculated on the figures contained in the statement issued by the Wine and Spirit Association of New South Wales. I have no means of checking their accuracy, and have accepted them for the purpose of this calculation. I have to compliment the association on the way it has put up its case ; it has certainly made the best of the arguments available to it. With regard to the contention that the increased duty has so reduced consumption as to dry up a lucrative source of revenue, I desire first of all to draw attention to the rates of duty at present collected on whisky in the United Kingdom. There the import duty on whisky in casks varies from 75s. 5d. to 77s. 5d. per proof gallon, as against 45s. in Australia. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- Has this increase been asked for by any section of the community ? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- The Government, after surveying the national finances, has come to the conclusion that this duty is fair and reasonable, having in mind the need for increasing the revenue. On whisky imported into Great Britain in bottles, the import rate varies from 75s. 5d. to 78s. 5d. per proof gallon, as compared with 50s. in Australia. {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- How much whisky is imported into Great Britain? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- The British authorities take steps, by the imposition of high duties, to check the importation of whisky. If whisky is to-be drunk, it is surely a good thing that it should be made in the country where it is consumed. The distillers in Australia employ Australian labour, and buy annually 750,000 bushels of Australian-grown barley. If the British authorities insist on the payment of such high duties on whisky, they must be satisfied that the duties have not reached the stage where the law of diminishing return operates. The standard of living in Great Britain is lower than in Australia. In 1928, the import duty on whisky imported into Canada was 41s. 8d. per proof gallon, while in South Africa it was 45s. - the same as in Australia. The New Zealand duty in 1928 wa3 36s. I do not know what increases have been made during the last three years, but it is almost certain that the duty has been raised, because New Zealand has experienced the same difficulty in balancing its budget as we have. There is a great difference between the duties imposed in Great Britain and those operating in Australia. The Australian rate on imported whisky is 45s., bottled under supervision, and the excise rate is 28s. a gallon. Therefore, I cannot subscribe to the theory advanced by the whisky importers that a reduction of 12s. a gallon on imported whisky would result in increased revenue being obtained. The average retail price of whisky is l0d. a nobbler. A reduction of 12s. a gallon in the duty would enable the retail price to be reduced by only1d. a glass. At the most, therefore) it could only be expected that consumption would increase by 10 per cent. Applying this 10 per cent. increase to the 1929-30 clearances in bond of imported whisky, and reducing the rate by 12s. a gallon as suggested, the result would be a fall in revenue to the extent of £372,049. This is on imported whisky alone; other spirit items would need to have the rates of duty reduced, and a *pro rata* reduction of 7s. 6d. a gallon would have to be made in the excise duty on Australian whisky in order to preserve the existing rate of protection. Assessing the suggested reduction on all imported potable spirits, including whisky, and also taking into consideration the *pro rata* reduction of exciseduty on potable spirits, the total loss of revenue would amount to £599,660 a year, after allowing for an increased consumption of 10 per cent. We cannot afford to make this reduction at present, even if we assume that it would result in such an increase in consumption. The year 1929-30 can be regarded as normal whencompared with the five years which preceded it. But consumption figures forthe present financial year will not nearly approximate the figures for 1929-30. Therefore, the estimated loss in revenue of £599,660 needsreviewing in the light of the figures for the nine months ended 31st March. These figures show that222,546 gallons of imported whisky were entered for consumption in the period, while 111,174 gallons of Australian whisky were. " so entered. On those figures, it is 'estimated that for the present financial year,the clearancesof imported whisky will amount to278,055 -gallons, and of Australian whisky, to 138,967 gallons. Thosereturns show a diminutionof 67 per cent.in imported whisky, anda diminutionof 49 per cent in Australian whisky, compared withthe figures for 1929-30. Thereduction, taking the two totals together,is 63 per cent. Assuming that a similar contraction has occurred in the purchases of other spirits, it can be stated that, assessed on the 1931 figures, the loss of revenue which would result from a reduction of duty to the extent of 12s. per gallon on imported spirit, and a *pro rata* reduction of the excise duty, would amount to £377,785. {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- What does the Minister mean by a *pro rata* reduction? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -.- The representatives of the importers said that as they were not asking for an advantage over the Australian whisky manufacturers, they favoured a *pro rata* reduction of excise duties. {: .speaker-K0A} ##### Mr Gabb: -- " All one body we ". {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- That is actually the case, for Distillers Limited of Great Britain now have a controlling interest in the Australian distilleries. Aloss of revenue to the extent of £377,785 from these duties should be regarded with the gravest concern, and it is so regarded by the Government,in view of the present serious stateof thenational finances. I ask honorable members to givecareful consideration to this aspect of the subject. How can it be expected that our budget will be balanced if 'the revenue is reduced in this fashion? {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- On what basis hasthe Minister made hisestimate ? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- We have estimated that if the proposed reduction were made, there would be an increase of 10 per cent. in the consumption of whisky;but I do not consider that that is likely to be realized. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- I assume that the Government has taken intoconsideration the economic position of the country ? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- Yes, it has done so. I cannotthink that the reduction of1d. in the price of a nobbier of whisky is likely to cause any considerable increase in the consumption of the spirit. It may be questioned whether,even if the lower duty wereagreed to,thepriceof whisky would bereduced. It is one thing to say during a debate like this that a reduction of the price will bemade if the duty is reduced, but itisquiteanother thing to obtain the reduction. I have -no doubt that reasons would be advanced for decliningtoreduce theprice. The percentage reduction in the consumption ofboth imported and Australian whiskies compares with the percentage reduction in the consumption of other luxuries, and it is quite evident that the falling off in the consumption of all luxuries is entirely due to the lower purchasing power of the community consequent upon the fall in national income, and not to the duties imposed by the Government. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr Gullett: -- Does not the Minister think that an increase in the price of whisky would affect the amount consumed ? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- A reduction of1d, per nobbler of whisky would not increase the consumption. I ask honorable members to exercise the greatest caution in considering the figures contained in the statement issued by the Wine and Spirit Association of New South Wales, for they have naturally been compiled in such a manner as to give the greatest support to the proposal for a reduction of duty. The following table will show clearly the percentage reductions in the consumption of certain alcoholic beverages for the' twelve months ended March, 1931, compared with the twelve months ended March, 1930:- It will be seen from these figures that a substantial reduction has occurred in the consumption of all alcoholic beverages. I know that some honorable members will say that that is a good thing; but we have to look at the subject from the national point of view. The following table shows the total quantity of whisky upon which customs and excise duties were collected for each year for the period 1924-25 to 1925-30 : - Our import duties on whisky have increased as follows, since March, 1920 : - Mr.R. Green. - Why was the last 8s. added to the customs duty without any alteration of the excise duty? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- That increase was made because it was considered thatit was preferable to obtain extra revenue by increasing the customs duty on importations of whisky manufactured overseas, than to obtain it by increasing the excise duty on locally manufactured whisky. It was hoped by this means that the manufacture of whisky in Australia would be encouraged. It will be remembered that for many years before the war the whole of our lager beer was imported from Germany, and practically all our wine was imported from France. To-day, Gilbey's gin is being manufacfured in Melbourne, and we are also manuf acturing practically all the lager consumed in Australia. It is hoped that the time is' not far distant when we shall manufacture all the whisky consumed in this country. This work would give employment to thousands of additional people. It would be totally wrong for us to reduce the duty on whisky by 12s. per gallon at a time like this, when it is being proposed by certain individuals that because of the position of our national finances, old-age^ invalid and war pensions should be reduced, the payment of the maternity allowance discontinued, and the salaries of the Public Service substantially reduced. I urge honorable members not to hand over to the big whisky importing firms an additional £370,000, for we cannot honestly do it at a time like this. {: #subdebate-31-0-s5 .speaker-JVR} ##### Mr NAIRN:
Perth .- I listened with interest to the speech of the Minister while he was. dealing with figures ; but I lost interest in his remarks when he resorted to his usual ranting about these extraordinary duties making possible the employment of additional people in this country. "When he deals with Customs subjects from this angle it is unsafe to follow him far. The principal question which faces us is whether we are likely to obtain increased revenue from the proposed smaller duty or from the -existing higher one. Surely it will not be denied that it is desirable for us to make commodities available to the people at the lowest possible price. From many points of view, the figures quoted by the Minister are unreliable. The details he gave us in regard to the British import duties, for instance, have no significance, for Great Britain manufactures all her own whisky. It would have been of some use to us had the Minister given the British excise duties. I suggest that we cannot regard the departmental figures which he gave us as being very reliable, for they were not arrived at by any scientific method. I noticed from the Minister's figures that a progressive increase has been made in whisky duties since 1924-25, and that during that period there has been a consistent reduction in the amount of whisky consumed. This supports the contention that the lower the duty the higher the consumption of whisky. I do not think that the Minister was quite fair to honorable members when he quoted certain figures for the year 1928-29, for that was an abnormal year. For some reason which we do not quite understand, the importers of whisky brought in very large quantities of spirit towards the end of that year. They may have felt that an increase in duty was likely. The depression was just commencing towards the end of that year. It would have been fairer had the Minister relied upon the import figures for the years 1924-25 to 1927-28. The average annual collection for those years was £1,720,823 while for the year 1929-30, it was only £741,935. The fall in consumption for the last year quoted was due to the excessive duty. The high price of imported whisky, due' to the heavy duties, caused a feeling of resentment on the part of consumers and many of them refused to buy other than Australian whisky. An examination of the customs revenue discloses that there is a reasonable limit to every duty. In 1929 the Bruce-Page Government raised the duty on whisky to 37s. a gallon. That was thought to be the maximum figure that could be imposed without defeating the object of the duty. Economic conditions are now much more difficult than they were in 1929. The people have not the money that they then had, and, therefore, cannot afford to pay higher prices for commodities. The increase in the duty to 45s. is prohibitive, and altogether beyond the present spending capacity of the community. I believe that a reduction would produce an amount of revenue at least equal to that now received, and would, in addition, enable the public to obtain more for the money expended. The reference by the Minister to a decrease of Id. a nobbier was not quite fair. Last night the honorable gentleman admitted that 75 per cent, of whisky sales are represented by bottle trade, the remaining 25 per cent, being nobbier purchases. A reduction of 12s. a gallon in the rate of duty would represent a saving of 2s. a bottle on the wholesale price of whisky, and an even greater amount on its retail price. That would bring about additional sales, and substantially increase the revenue. One reason why it is not advisable to exclude Scottish whisky from the country at this juncture is that it will be a few years before .Australia has a whisky of sufficiently high quality to satisfy the general public. The production of the Australian article is as yet comparatively small. We have only one well-known brand, and its standard is considerably below the standard of approved imported whiskies. If we prematurely fostered a demand for the local product we should quickly have to fall back on immature whisky, to the detriment of both the consumer and the trade. It has been pointed out that Scotch whisky manufacturers are now operating in Geelong, and there is no doubt that ultimately they will produce a spirit approaching the Scottish standard. However, that will not be for at least four or five years, and in the interim we should be entirely dependent on " Old Court," of which there are insufficient supplies of matured spirit. It takes a number of years for whisky to mature. First, it is necessary to have a large first-class capital stock upon which the blenders draw yearly and turn into palatable whisky, periodically replenishing the original stock. It will be some years before that will be possible in Australia. Undoubtedly, the Government has gone tariff mad. It has increased the price of goods, thinking it to be a grand idea to keep up prices. I point out that nothing can be gained by such methods. If the Government did something to cheapen the price of products the public would be able to buy more, and so create additional employment. I recommend that the Go'vernment should follow the middle and moderate course. For that reason I support the amendment. {: #subdebate-31-0-s6 .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT:
Henty .- As this is the first item of importance which represents a substantial increase in duty, I should like to take the opportunity of protesting against the presence of the schedule in this chamber at such a juncture. In view of the desperate financial position of Australia to-day, it really does not matter whether the duties on whisky are doubled or halved. "While we are engaged in discussing the duties on whisky, of all things, the country is trembling on the -brink of a financial abyss. If the Government had any proper consciousness of its responsibility this debate would immediately cease, and Parliament would adjourn. Instead of being engaged in this contemptible pretense of tariff making we should be before the country, affording the electors an opportunity to declare for some financial policy that would save Australia from disaster. With calamity imminent, we are kept here, engaged in a tariff debate, day after day, with the prospect of being detained for the next two to three months, all be cause the Government and its supporters are resolved that in no circumstances will they face the electors. The **CHAIRMAN (Mr. McGrath).Order!** I ask the honorable gentleman to connect his remarks with the item before the committee. . {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- I shall do so, *Mr McGrath. I suggest that the only action taken in reference to the tariff to-day should be the validation of the schedules, with the object of allowing us to go to the country at once. This Government reminds me of Phil May's drunken man, who protested that he would do anything in reason, but he would not go home. This Government will do anything in reason, but it will not go to the country. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- Why should it, when it has a majority? {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- Then why does it not make use of its majority and do something useful for the country? Why does the Government allow this drift to be perpetuated ? {: #subdebate-31-0-s7 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr Blakeley: -- I rise to a point of order. Is the honorable gentleman in order in discussing everything but the item before the committee ? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I have already asked the honorable gentleman to connect his remarks with the item. An incidental divergence from the subject before the Chair is quite in order, but I ask him not to pursue his present line of argument. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- If the Government were honest in the assertion that it wishes to do the right thing by the country it would cause the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Forde)** to move for the temporary validation of this schedule, so that a general election might be held. This item illustrates the extraordinary tariff -making ideas of the Minister and his colleagues. We might very properly ask ourselves for what purpose was this additional duty imposed; to increase protection to an Australian industry, or to produce additional revenue? Obviously the increase was intended to improve our revenues. I ask the Minister to inform the committee who requested that the duty should be raised from 37s. to 45s. a gallon ; whence came the sudden need for the change? The whole thing is wrapped in mystery. I was Minister for Trade and Customs prior to this Government assuming office, and I had a duty increase of 2s. a gallon placed on imported whisky, but I received no request to do so from Australian or any other interests. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- This increase was imposed when the honorable member for Maribyrnong **(Mr. Fenton)** was Minister. I say definitely that nobody asked for it. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- I am not concerned as to which Minister imposed the duty; it was put on by this Government. The increase is incomprehensible, and an excellent illustration of the utter recklessness of the spirit Avith which the Government enters into tariff-making. The Minister treats the committee with contempt by bringing down a substantial increase of this nature merely for protective purposes and not having the courtesy to explain why the addition was made. The whole proceeding is typical of half the tariff activities of this Government. Already the local distillers had a protection to the extent of 10s. a gallon, which the Government increases in one jump to 18s. There appears to be no chance of the Government accepting the amendment of the honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. R. Green),** and I do not propose to occupy much of the time of the committee in debating it. I dispute the Minister's contention that excessive duties do not reduce either consumption or revenue. I can show the Minister very definitely, from figures supplied to me by his own department, that even when the duty on whisky was raised to 30s. a gallon it resulted in a diminished consumption, which reduced the revenue from that source. {: .speaker-KYX} ##### Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931 -- Did the honorable gentleman hold those views when he was Minister for Trade and Customs? {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- I did. I was not at all confident that there would be any improvement in the revenue when I sponsored the increase of 2s. a gallon in the rate of duty, but I was prepared to give it a trial. This additional increase of 8s. must result in a sacrifice of revenue. For the financial year 1925-26 the total customs and excise revenue was £2,011,000. Towards the close of the financial year 1925-1926, the late **Mr. Pratten,** then Minister for Trade and Customs, increased the import duty from 30s. to 35s. a gallon. That was in a boom period. The total revenue from the customs and excise duties on whisky in that year amounted to £2,011,000; in 1926-1927 it was £2,010,000; in 1927- 1928, £1,982,000, and in 1928-1929, £1,896,000. In the latter year there was a falling off of substantially £100,000, despite the extra duty of 5s. a gallon. To my mind, those figures prove conclusively that increases in duties bring about a reduction of customs revenue. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- To what extent was the depression responsible for that reduction of revenue? {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- I have quoted the figures relating to boom years; but, on glancing at the figures relating to the depression period, one finds that from 1925 to 1928 the average annual revenue from these duties was £1,720,000. In 1929, the imports were abnormally high, and in 1930 they were abnormally low, both because of the depression and because of the inflation of stocks in 1929. In the two years 1929 and 1930, the revenue fell to an average of £1,360,000, which was a drop, compared with the average for the previous four years, of £360,000. That reduction was, undoubtedly, due in some measure to the depression ; but it would have taken place inevitably because of the abnormally high duties imposed. In 1913, the import duty was 14s. a gallon, and in that year the quantity of whisky imported into Australia was 2,251,000 gallons. In 1924-1925, the duty had been increased gradually from 14s. to 17s., 20s., 25s., and 27s., a gallon; but by 1925, the imports had fallen from 2,251,000 gallons to 1,200,000 gallons, or roughly, by 1,000,000 gallons. That clearly disposes of the argument advanced by the Minister that the higher the duties the greater will be the amount of revenue obtained. If the only object of piling up duties were to increase the revenue, how would local industries be encouraged ? The case presented by the Minister would not bear investigation. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- It would- be better if all the whisky required in Australia were manufactured here. We could then get the necessary revenue by means of the excise tariff. {: .speaker-L1C} ##### Mr Lewis: -- I thought that the honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Gullett)** suggested that the committee should not waste its time discussing this matter. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- The whole of this debate is a tragedy, in the present circumstances of Australia. Members are kept here to deal with the tariff because the Government and its supporters will not take the courageous step of going to the country. The reduction of the duty proposed by the honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. R. Green)** seems to me to be somewhat excessive. I think that the interests concerned would have been well advised if they had been content to ask for a drop to 37s. a gallon. I would not support even that duty unless it were to be accompanied by a similar reduction in the excise duty. My reason for supporting such a reduction is that I believe that it would cause a substantial increase in revenue, which is so sorely needed at the present time. It seems to me that the present duties were put on hurriedly, without due consideration as to their effect. There appears to be considerable doubt as to the rate of import duty on spirits, and also the rate of excise, which would produce the greatest revenue. That is an interesting problem which the Minister would be wise to investigate. I should like him to postpone temporarily the consideration of these duties, and to appoint a committee consisting of an officer of the Treasury interested in revenue, an officer of the Trade and Customs Department experienced in excise matters, and a member of the Tariff Board, to see if they could reach agreement as to the duties calculated to produce the maximum amount of revenue. As I understand that the Government intends to insist on this item as it stands, I shall not further discuss the matter. {: #subdebate-31-0-s8 .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY:
Swan .- I would not vote for a reduction of this duty if I did not think that it would cause an increase in the revenue. It seems to me to be essential at the present time, in dealing with duties on luxuries, to obtain the largest possible amount of revenue. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- The Government thinks that the proposed reduction of the duty would cause a loss of revenue to the extent of £375,000 a year. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY: -- I do not intend to support the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. R. Green)** to reduce the duty to 33s. a gallon; but I believe that, owing to the very high duty imposed, the consumption of spirit is greatly reduced, and the customs revenue suffers accordingly. I understand that this year the customs revenue generally will be about £11,000,000 less than was anticipated, and the excessive duties imposed under the tariff are, undoubtedly, responsible for a big decline in customs receipts. If , an amendment is moved to the effect that the whisky duty be reduced to 35s. a gallon, which was the amount fixed prior to the change made by the present Government, I will support it. I have no desire to do anything that might embarrass the Government in its efforts to obtain the maximum amount of revenue, but I believe that a return to the old rate would benefit the community by increasing the revenue. {: #subdebate-31-0-s9 .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP .-I have listened to the remarks of the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Forde),** and I understand that at one period of the negotiations with the importing firms he showed a disposition to reduce the present duty of 45s. a gallon. I may be wrong in that belief. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- That assertion is absolutely inaccurate. {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- Judging by the Minister's speech this afternoon, I thought that he was prepared to consider a reduction of the duty, but was unwilling to reduce it to the extent proposed under my amendment. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -Not at all. {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- I accept the Minister's assurance on that point. I have already stated that, by fixing the duty at 33s. a gallon, I thought that the greatest possible amount of revenue would be obtained; but, on further consideration, and after hearing the debate that has ensued, I am prepared to alter my amendment to make the duty 35s. a gallon, the rate determined by this Parliament in 1925. I ask leave to withdraw my amendment with a view to substituting a further amendment. Amendment - *by leave* - withdrawn. Amendment (by **Mr. R.** Green) put - >That the item be further amended by adding tosub-item(b) the following: - " And on and after 14th May, 1931 - > >Whisky, including liqueur whisky - > >1 ) When not exceeding the strength of proof - > >Whether or not bottled in the Commonwealth under customs supervision subject to such conditions as to the bottling and as to the strength of the spirits as are prescribed by departmental by-laws, per gallon, British, 35s.; intermediate, 37s.; general tariff, 38s. > >When exceeding the strength of proof - > >Whether or not bottled in the Commonwealth under customs supervision subject to such conditions as to the bottling and as to the strength of the spirits as arc prescribed by departmental by-laws, per proof gallon, British, 35s.; intermediate 37s.; general tariff 38s." The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. McGrath.) AYES: 18 NOES: 39 Majority . . . . 21 AYES NOES Question so resolvedin the negative. Amendment negatived. {: #subdebate-31-0-s10 .speaker-JVR} ##### Mr NAIRN:
Perth -- I move - >That the item be further amended by adding to sub-item (b), the following: - " And on and after 14th May, 1931- > >Whisky, including Liqueur Whisky - > >1 ) When not exceeding the strength of proof, per gallon, British, 45s.; intermediate, 47s.; general, 48s. > >When exceeding the strength or proof, per proof gallon, British, 45s. ; intermediate, 47s. ; general, 48s." This amendment is consequential on the amendment which was carried by the committee last night in respect of the bottling of spirits in bond. The principle had to be raised on the first item - No. 3 of the schedule - relating to brandy. Of course brandy represents a rather small proportion of imported spirits, but when moving the amendment I explained that the principle extended to all classes of liquor, and suggested that it should be decided on the first item. That course was adopted by the committee, and the discussion was confined almost entirely to whisky. {: #subdebate-31-0-s11 .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT:
Henty .- I am surprised that the Minister has not accepted the amendment of the honorable member for Perth **(Mr. Nairn)** as consequential to the amendment carriedby the committee last evening. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- Brandy and whisky are different items. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- The Minister must admit that the debate which took place yesterday was confined almost entirely, not to brandy, but, strangely enough, to whisky, and I am therefore surprised that he has not accepted this amendment as consequential. We had a full debate on this subject yesterday, and the Government was defeated on the amendment. As a few members are present to-day who were not here yesterday, it is necessary for me to re-state the case against the existing duty. The item relates to an increase of the import duty on whisky from 45s. to 50s. when it is not bottled in bond. That increase was asked for by a group of four or five bigdistilleries which are associated in the Scottish whisky combine. All the whisky that they have imported into this country has, for many years past, been, bottled in bond, and they asked for an increased duty so that they might have an advantage to the extent of 5s. a gallon over their competitors who take their whisky out of bond and sell it in bottle or in bulk within Australia. The issue is between a large overseas whisky trust and many thousands of reputable wine and spirit merchants who sell spirits in bulk and the licensed victuallers who sell what is known as " house " whisky. The committee should have no difficulty in deciding between those two interests. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- That is not the issue. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- The combine asked me to impose this duty two years ago, and I refused. All its capital and shareholders and all the employment it gives are overseas; certainly the firms associated with it are British, but we should not deliberately discriminate against Australians. The item does not involve any considerations of revenue, and despite the Minister's statement, bottling in bond does not ensure the purity of the spirit sold to the consumer- There is no guarantee that the spirit sold over the counter will be the original contents of the bottle. In any case it is not the function of the Commonwealth to guarantee the purity of the liquors sold on licensed premises ; that is the responsibility of the States. Therefore, I hope that the committee will repeat its vote of yesterday, and disallow the extra duty, which benefits a huge whisky combine to the definite disadvantage of thousands of people in this country. {: #subdebate-31-0-s12 .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay -- I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment as consequential upon the decision of the committee yesterday, when, at his invitation, a general discussion took place on the principle of imposing an extra duty of 5s. a gallon to compel 'bottling in bond. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- I did not invite the discussion; I tolerated it. {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- When the Minister was speaking on the brandy item he said that he would deal with the general principle as applied also to whisky - that we may as well take it as one. The extra duty on brandy, which the committee disallowed, was a minor consideration in comparison with the extra duty on whisky. If the 5s. additional impost is not removed from whisky, a definite preference will be given to the whisky combine. By accepting the amendment the Minister would be paying regard to the interests of thousands of licensed victuallers, particularly those who are away from the principal seaports and have no conveniences for bottling in bond. The whisky combine have an advantage over all competitors. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- All can Become bottlers. {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- Merchants and hotelkeepers in the country are not in the same advantageous position as the large importers who have bottling establishments at the ports of entry. In the past a publican could import bulk whisky, get it out of bond, and blend it on his own premises. But this duty will practically compel bottling in bond. To overcome this the cost to licensed victuallers to bottle in bond would be prohibitive. That is most unfair to the wine and spirit merchants and licensed victuallers. The duty will not assist Australian industry; it will merely benefit the big importers, and help the illicit distiller by practically eliminating the competition of reputable draught whisky. All honorable members who supported the amendment of the brandy item yesterday expressed themselves opposed to the principle of penalizing those who bottled out of bond, and they and also the Minister intended their remarks to apply to the item now before the committee. Apparently, as a result of the party meeting to-day, ministerial supporters are to be whipped into line behind the Minister. Every tariff item should be considered in a non-party spirit. Some ministerial members indicated that they would support the last amendment, but apparently the party machine was set in motion and they have rallied to support the Government. I hope that members will be allowed to vote according to their consciences, and will not allow party discipline to deprive them of freedom of action in regard to each item. {: #subdebate-31-0-s13 .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle .- I am moved to speak on this item by the attempt of the honorable member *fo* Wide Bay **(Mr. Bernard Corser)** to connect the vote just taken with the vote on the brandy item yesterday. I intend to support the amendment moved by the -honorable member for Perth **(Mr. Nairn)** because I see no justification for imposing an additional charge of 5s. on whisky bottled out of bond. The Minister stated yesterday that this duty will be a means of ensuring the purity of the spirits sold to the public, and he quoted in support of it the report of a health conference in 1926. If this Parliament is to take any action upon that report, it should logically prohibit the removal of spirits from bond other than in bottles. Otherwise we permit those who are willing to pay a special duty of 5s. for the right to bottle outside bond to practise all the improprieties which the Minister says will necessarily follow bottling out of bond without the payment of a special tax. This special duty is not a legitimate means of raising revenue; a tariff schedule should not be utilized as a means of disciplining or penalizing hotelkeepers. We should place on imported spirits whatever duty we think proper, but hotelkeepers should retain the right to decide whether they will sell proprietary whiskies or their own blends. {: #subdebate-31-0-s14 .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY:
Swan .- This extra duty is not imposed for the purpose or raising revenue, and it is not justifiable as a measure for protecting the health of the public. The responsibility of protecting hotel patrons belongs to the States, and they have laws and machinery for that purpose. The extra charge of 5s. is being imposed entirely in the interests of the whisky combine. The licensed victualler is to be prevented from importing spirits, blending them, and selling his own "house" whisky. He will have to incur the expense of bottling in bond and paying freight on the bottles and cases; and that will press particularly heavily upon country hotelkeepers. {: #subdebate-31-0-s15 .speaker-KYI} ##### Mr PROWSE:
Forrest .- The Minister's statement that bottling in bond will ensure the purity of the whisky sold to hotel patrons was quite wrong. If a publican desires to adulterate whisky or substitute a cheap spirit for one of the standard brands, he will do so whether the bottling is done in or out of bond. This extra duty is most unfair to rural hotelkeepers, and for that reason I shall vote for the amendment. Question - That the amendment **(Mr.** Nairn's) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. McGrath.) AYES: 28 NOES: 29 Majority . . . . 1 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Item, as amended, agreed to. Items 8 and 9 agreed to. Item 10- >N.E.I., containing not more than 5 per cent. of proof spirit: ad val. British, 35 per cent.; intermediate, 40 per cent.; general, 45 per cent. {: #subdebate-31-0-s16 .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper .- I ask the Minister to consider my suggestion that the duty on imported chloroform be reduced. The increased duty on this item will not, I think, have the effect of encouraging the use of a local product. The chloroform used throughout Australia by the medical profession is practically all brought from Scotland, and it is unfair that an additional duty of 20 per cent. should be imposed on it. Surely the first consideration of the Government should be the preservation of human life. Everybody knows that anaesthesia by means of chloroform is a very dangerous state to induce, and the slightest defect in the drag itself may cause a patient's death. In the "whole of my experience I have never known any chloroform other than Duncan and Flockharts to be used for therapeutic purposes, even though cheaper chloroform was available. The higher duty, therefore, is not likely to result in an increased consumption of locally made chloroform, and if it does, the effect may be to cause a considerable loss of human life. Quite a good quality of ether is produced in Australia by Elliott Brothers ; but, so far, no chloroform suitable for medical purposes has been manufactured here. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- I shall postpone the consideration of this item. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- It is necessary for me to leave Canberra to-night, and I ask that consideration of the item be postponed until I return. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- That will be done. Item postponed. Items 11 and 12 agreed to. Item 13 - Wine - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. In bulk, per gallon, British, 16s. 6d. ; intermediate, 16s. 6d. ; general, 18s. 1. In bottle, per gallon, 19s.; inter- mediate, 19s.; general, 22s. {: #subdebate-31-0-s17 .speaker-KOC} ##### Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield .- In this case a higher duty is imposed on wine imported in bottles than on wine coming in in bulk. The Minister has been at considerable pains to justify the action of the Government in imposing a severe penalty upon those who import whisky in bulk, the alleged object being, among other things, to protect the interests of local bottlers. In item 13, however, the reverse policy is being followed. The duty on bulk wine is 16s 6d. to 18s., while on bottled wine it is from 19s. to 22s. If it is desirable that the interest of the public be protected by having spirits bottled under customs supervision, why should not the same principle apply in respect to wine? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- The higher rate of duty has been imposed on bulk spirits in order to encourage the bottling of the spirits in Australia. {: .speaker-KOC} ##### Mr HAWKER: -- In regard to the duty on chloroform, will the Minister expedite the consideration of this item by the Tariff Board? I cannot conceive that even this Government, with all its disregard for human suffering, desires to have in operation a purely revenue duty on chloroform. {: #subdebate-31-0-s18 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP -- It must appeal to everybody that the object of the provision to which the honorable member for Wakefield **(Mr. Hawker)** is objecting is to encourage' the importation of wine in bulk, and the bottling of it in Australia under the supervision of an officer of the Customs Department. That would lead to the use of Australian bottles, cases, and other material. Many other countries have taken steps to encourage the bottling of wine within their own borders. South Africa, Canada, Germany, France, and the United States of America are notable instances.Australia manufactures about 99 per cent. of the wine which she consumes. This has been made possible by the protection granted under the provisions of the various tariff schedules since 1921. The increase of 4s. per gallon provided for in this item is intended to assist the revenue; and this particular provision is intended to encourage the employment of Australians. {: #subdebate-31-0-s19 .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT:
Henty .- The Minister is inconsistent in that he has made no. provision for the bottling of wine in bond. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- We import only about 1 per cent. of our wine. If the honorable member cares to move an amendment for the imposition of a duty of 5s. per gallon on wine not bottled in bond I shall give it sympathetic consideration. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- I have no desire to move such an amendment. I am pointing out that the great majority of the importers of whisky and brandy have been singled out for a special impost. If there was justification for providing an extra duty of 5s. per gallon in respect of whisky not bottled in bond, there is justification for a similar provision in regard to wine. {: #subdebate-31-0-s20 .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper .- I also draw attention to the inconsistency of the Minister. Yesterday he was extremely solicitous for the health of the people. He said that it was absolutely essential that draught spirits should not be available to publicans and wine and spirit merchants to be bottled out of bond, because they were such scoundrels that they could not be trusted. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- I did not say that. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- That was the effect of the Minister's statement. Although yesterday he said that the consumers of spirit should not be left to the mercy of small importers of draught spirits, to-day he says that it is quite all right to leave them to the mercy of the importers of draught wine. The Minister's arguments are entirely contradictory. Yesterday he said that the Australians importing draught spirit were dishonest; to-day he says that the foreigners sending draught wine here are honest. He has cast a stigma upon the Australian people who desire to bottle spirit. He refused for one second to subscribe to the view that the people handling draught whisky and brandy in Australia were honest, though he now says that the people who send draught wine here from overseas are honest. {: .speaker-KDW} ##### Mr Jones: -- Only 1 per cent, of our wine is imported. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- Let me remind the honorable member that he represents a district in which a good deal 'of wheat is grown. Apparently he is now supporting the Minister in imposing a revenue duty on the very small quantity of wine that we import, although that action must have the effect of antagonizing Prance and Italy, which are large purchasers of our wheat, wool, and other commodities. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his position and recommit the whisky and brandy items so that we may eliminate the special impost of 5s. per gallon on spirit not bottled in bond, and deal with it in the same way that he now proposes to deal with wine. {: #subdebate-31-0-s21 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP -- I thought I had made it quite clear that as we were importing only about 1 per cent, of our wine, it was not worth our while making provision for the imposition of an extra duty of 5s. per gallon on wine bottled out of .bond ; but if lion,orable members opposite want such a duty to be imposed, and will move an amendment to that effect, X will give sympathetic consideration to it. It has long been the custom for other nations to encourage the bottling of wine and spirits in their own country, and the Government's policy has been designed to encourage the adoption of that policy in Australia. The Commonwealth tariff has for many years provided an extra duty in respect to spirit imported in bottles. {: #subdebate-31-0-s22 .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper .- I object to having words put into my mouth. I did not suggest that an amendment should be moved to this item to provide for the imposition of an additional duty of 5s. per gallon in respect of wine not bottled in bond. I protested against the adoption of a policy which has increased the revenue to a very small amount, but has resulted in the antagonizing of France and Italy. I asked the Minister to recommit the items which provided for the extra duty on whisky not bottled in bond, so that that spirit may be dealt with on the same basis, as that on which it is now proposed to deal with wine not bottled in bond. I object to the contradictory attitude adopted by the Minister in this regard. {: #subdebate-31-0-s23 .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay -- The Minister is getting himself into a worse position every time he speaks. He has just given us a demonstration of a double somersault. We desire that the principle which is being adopted in regard to wine shall also be adopted in regard to- whisky. When the Minister yesterday advocated the imposition of a special duty of 5s. per gallon on spirit not bottled in bond, he said, in justification of his action, that it was in the interests of the health of the Australian people, and that it would insure that they would receive an article of good quality, true*to label. Is it of no concern to the honorable gentleman that the people should also receive wine of good quality, true to label. Some of this wine may be manufactured in blacklabour countries. Yet it is proposed to receive it in Australia in bulk, and to allow it to be bottled here out of bond without any such impost as has been provided in the case of brandy and whisky. If this policy is good in regard to wine, it shouldbe good also in regard to whisky and brandy. The double somersault which the Minister has performed will not increase our confidence in his ability to administer this department. I hope that the item relating to whisky will be recommitted so that similar provisions may be made for the bottling of bulk whisky and brandy as for the bottling of bulk wine. {: #subdebate-31-0-s24 .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT:
Henty .- The Minister keeps on referring to the 1 per cent. of wine which we import. Surely he cannot have vermouth in mind, for we probably still import the bulk of our vermouth from Italy and France. Apparently vermouth may be adulterated to any extent, while whisky must be watched. {: .speaker-JOG} ##### Mr Bayley: -- What is good for the wren should be good for the robin. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- How much vermouth do the workers of Australia consume ? {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- We are not dealing with the tariff for the benefit of any one class, but for the people as a whole. Take the case of sparkling wine. I do not suppose that our importations of this class of wine are heavy, but the Minister would not suggest that bulk importations are practicable. This wine must be admitted already bottled. It is deplorable that we should be asked to agree to a heavy increase in the duty on an insignificant line, such as vermouth, which comes from France and Italy, seeing that the duty must antagonize these countries which are large buyers of our wheat, wool, and other primary products. The imposition of this duty must be exceedingly injurious to the interest of the primary producers of Australia. The production of vermouth in Australia can have but little effect upon our revenue. The item substantiates all the criticism about this crazy tariff-made-in-a-hurry. There is no such a thing as a good, sound, tariff that can be made in a hurry. Any tariff originated in that fashion always overlooks the indirect consequences, and there has never been a tariff against which that charge could be levelled more truly than the present one. {: #subdebate-31-0-s25 .speaker-KYX} ##### Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931 .- It is very easy for the honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Gullett)** and his colleagues to criticize this item, and incidentally to exploit a subject to which they have referred on many previous occasions. Much has been said about the trade relations between Australia and Italy and France. I agree that those countries are good customers of ours ; but I point out that although honorable gentlemen opposite were in office for between eight and ten years, they failed to provide any reciprocal trade agreement between Australia and those countries whereby real preference could be given to them. This item has my entire support. It has had the effect of bringing about the establishment of a vermouth factory in my own electorate, at a cost of many thousands of pounds, 90 per cent. of the value of which will be expended in Australia. I submit that the item is in keeping with the policy for which this Government stands. I am in favour of this duty on imported vermouth. Although the item has been introduced in a recent schedule, it has already brought about the good results to which I have referred. Substantial orders have been placed by Cinzano & Company for bottles, straw envelopes, cases, and other articles that will be required in their business, all of which will provide additional employment at a time when it is much needed. I should like to know how honorable members of the Country party stand with regard to this item.It is easy to indulge in carping criticism; but how do the honorable member for Wimmera **(Mr. Stewart),** the honorable member for Angas **(Mr. Gabb),** and the honorable member for Wakefield **(Mr. Hawker)** stand in this matter ? At the present time practically the whole of the vermouth consumed in Australia is made out of foreign imported wines. The firm of Cinzano & Company will use 20,000 gallons of Australian wine each year in the manufacture of vermouth. Seeing that the wine industry is to benefit substantially as a result of this new item, it will be interesting to know whether the honorable members to whom I have referred will support this duty, although they have subjected it to cheap sneers, or whether they will contest it. {: #subdebate-31-0-s26 .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay -- Honorable members of the Opposition have not indulged in cheap sneers with regard to this item. {: .speaker-KYX} ##### Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931 -- Their leader has. {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- I protest that he has not. The objection taken by honorable members on this side is against the inconsistency of the Government. The honorable member for Cook **(Mr. C. Riley)** approved the imposition of additional duties on bulk whisky, but he somersaults when this item is before the committee. It will be interesting to see how he acts when the vote is taken on the item. {: .speaker-KYX} ##### Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931 -- Let the honorable member test me by moving an amendment. {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- There is no need for an amendment. The Opposition will merely act consistently. The Government is doing in this case what we urged should be done with regard to' whisky. Item, agreed to. Division II. - Tobacco and Manufactures Thereof. Item 18 (Tobacco, unmanufactured, n.e.i.). {: #subdebate-31-0-s27 .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT:
Henty .- I am entirely in favour qf any tariff change which will improve the conditions of tha primary producer, provided that that can be done without unduly adding to the cost of the commodity affected. I do not desire the consumers, of tobacco to. be subjected to excessive hardship because of the imposition of additional duties, the Government declared that the duties on tobacco would be almost entirely in favour of the Australian tobacco-growers. I believe that it was a feature of the Government's propaganda at the last election that there would be no increase, not only on the necessaries of life, but on tobacco and alcohol. Too frequently tobacco is classed as a luxury, as something that can be dispensed with by the average worker. Actually it is almost a necessity. It is nearly as indispensable to the smoker as are bread, tea, or the clothes he wears. Rightly or wrongly, he will spend part of his weekly wage on it. Therefore, any definite increase in the cost, of tobacco, be it of the pipe, cigarette, or cigar variety, is to be avoided, if possible. I am not at all convinced that all of the increases in the schedule are necessary, or. that the tobacco industry in Australia required this addi tional -stimulus. I . have before me the Melbourne *Herald* of the 28rd January, 1930, which contains a summary, by **Mr. Harold** Burston, of the annual report of the British ..Tobacco Company (Australia) Limited. It is headed, " One Million Profit from Tobacco". Why then are we being subjected to this welter of additional duties, which must inevitably favour the tobacco trust! {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- The tobacco companies protested vigorously against the increased duty. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- I say frankly that until this or some other Government is prepared to level working conditions between those who labour on Australian tobacco farms, and those who work in our tobacco factories, we cannot begin to do justice to the people on the land. Some yearn ago I went into the matter of the manufacture of Australian cigars. The Tobacco Workers. Union urged me to give them assistance in various ways, through the tariff. I discovered that when they were working full time those men were earning from £10 to £11 a week, which definitely increased the price of Australian cigars. It is not a question of whether we can compete with the overseas product, but whether we can produce an article that will be 'popular because of its moderate price. My idea of a tariff is not that it should give workers £10 to £11 a week at the expense, of the consumers. I am prepared to give these new duties a trial, but I consider it calamitous that while tobacco can be grown in Australia relatively easily and cheaply, its price should be made oppressive because of the wages paid to employees in the industry. The working man's tobacco, from Cap,stan cigarettes up, now costs twice as much as it. did before the war. I wish to refer briefly to the Select Committee on the Tobacco Industry, some seventeen months ago. It has been said that I opposed the committee's appointment in the interests of the great tobacco combine. That factor did not enter into my opposition. I was against the appointment of the committee because I did not. think that it could justify its cost. I am still of that opinion. I believe that it was entirely unnecessary, and that these duties are in no way the result of its recommendations. To those who claim that they are, I point to all the other new duties which were brought down by the Government without referring them to any outside body. {: #subdebate-31-0-s28 .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney .- My object in rising is to submit a case presented to me by the Federated Tobacco Workers Union. I brought this matter forward during the general debate on the tariff, for the purpose of obtaining a reply from the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Forde),** and from the honorable members who sat on the select committee that recently inquired into the tobacco industry. I believe that that committee made a thorough investigation, and took evidence from various organizations and interested parties. If a satisfactory answer can be given to the case that has been presented to me, or a means provided to meet the complaint of the union, I hope that the honorable member for Indi **(Mr. Jones)** and the honorable member for New England **(Mr. Thompson)** will furnish it, because they were members of the selectcommittee and have had the opportunity to examine fully the whole of the ramifications of the tobacco industry. The members of the Tobacco Workers Union feel that their interests are affected if the present tariff schedule remains unaltered, because the present conditions in their industry are causing a good deal of unemployment. I recognize that this matter cannot be dealt with easily by a member who has not had an opportunity of investigating the conditions in the industry in detail, and I intend, therefore, to submit the case for the union with a view to obtaining information. First of all, I wish to make it quite clear that I am not speaking in the interests of the British-Australasian Tobacco Company, because I recognize that that company has exploited the people right and left. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr Thompson: -- And more than ever to-day. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY: -- Yes. Reference has been made to its profit of £1,000,000, which is such as cannot be explained. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- What does that amount represent on the company's invested capital? {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY: -- I cannot give that information offhand. I propose to read extracts from a letter that I have received from the federal secretary of the Tobacco Workers Union. He states - >The import duty on American leafhas been increased from 3s. to 5s. 2d. per lb., resulting in increased prices to the smoking public and bringing about a huge swing over to the Australian manufactured tobaccoes, owing to cheaper prices and economic circumstances caused by unemployment and wage reductions now operating. If the import duty has caused the public to demand Australian leaf, there can be no complaint on that score. But the letter goes on to show that the supply of Australian leaf is limited, and, therefore, it is impossible to meet the demand of the Australian public for cheap tobacco. The letter continues - >Thishas resulted in a rapid exhaustion of the local product, of which, in 1928, large surpluses were held. In one big firm alone, the stocks held in 1928 were as follows: - Bright and lemon leaf, the lasting period, nineteen months; No. 1 dark leaf, 74 months; No. 2,46 months; total in all grades, 49 months. > >Within two years this has now reached the exhaustion stage, and the above manufacturers have notified the wholesale distributing houses and tobacconists throughout the Commonwealth, that a system of rationing of stocks is now in operation until the 1931 crop of Australian leaf is harvested. > >It has been the custom, over a number of years, for the purpose of maturing leaf, to hold the crop for at least twelve months, but owing to the shortage and the demand, they will be forced to immediately manufacture the leaf as it is received from the growers. > >The same position has been created at Dudgeon and Arnells, tobacco manufacturers, of Melbourne, who mainly rely on the Australian leaf; most of their brands being 100 per cent. Australian. This firm has notified the officers ofthe federation that, if no relief can be obtained in relation to partial lifting of the tariff duty on imported leaf, they will be forced to dismiss the whole of their employees at the end of June, owing to the fact that the smoking public will not, or cannot, pay the prices now operating. > >The total amount of leaf grown within the Commonwealth for the year, 1929, was 963,868 lb.; the figures tor 1930 are not available. > >The total for imported leaf for the same (period was 19,263,274 lb.; assuming that . the amount of Australian grown leaf increased to 1,000,000 lb. for 1930. In conversationwith **Mr. C.** M. Slagg, -Director of Australian Tobacco Investigation, in February of this year, he informedme that, despite increased acreage planted this year, owing to the ravagesof blue mould, the indica- tionswere that the 1931crop would not exceed last year's output. > >The position which now confronts us is that with the rapid consumption of the locally-grown leaf, and no relief from this year's crop, the industry and the members of our federation will be faced with the position of acute unemployment over the winter months. > >The total amount of import duty, 5s. 2d., added to the excise on manufactured tobacco of 2s. 4d., brings the amount to 7s. 6d. per lb. on tobacco manufactured from imported leaf. The prices to the smoking public are as follows: - No. 1 Australian aromatic, 7s. per lb.; No. 2 dark, 5s. 2d. I have read sufficient of the letter to explain the case that I am presenting on behalf of the tobacco-workers. Although Australian-grown leaf has become popular, the tobacco-growers are unable to meet the demand, and thus enable tobacco to be supplied to the people at a reasonable price. The union indicates that if, by some means, the importation of the American leaf could be regulated, to prevent the storage of large quantities of American leaf to the detriment of the Australian grower, work would be provided for those who are threatened with unemployment. I hope that the Minister will address the committee on this matter, so that honorable members may be assured that the course adopted by the Government will not cause more unemployment. {: #subdebate-31-0-s29 .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr THOMPSON:
New England -- I am pleased that the honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley)** has raised the matter to which the Tobacco Workers Union has drawn his attention. This particular case was not submitted to the select committee. I do not know whether the union thought that I would be hostile to it, or unsympathetic. The committee had a few brushes with representatives of the union, and the probability is that they thought that we might not be interested in their view of the industry. What has been said by the honorable member for West Sydney is probably correct. It is a fact that the heavy duty on imported leaf has caught the Australian manufacturers napping; but, to a great extent, that is their own fault. Although I do not accuse them of misrepresentation, they led the members of the committee to believe that they were heavily loaded with stocks of Australian tobacco. In fact, the principal manufacturer - the British-Australasian Tobacco Company, which supplies about 90 per cent. of the Australian market - gave the committee to understand that it had stocks on hand to last for six years. {: .speaker-JV9} ##### Mr Morgan: -- The company pointed out that the bulk of that tobacco was unusable. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- Yes ; but it has all been used since. {: .speaker-JV9} ##### Mr Morgan: -- Not for smoking purposes. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- Yes, I believe that the company has used everything in its stores that looks like tobacco. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 -- The managing director told me that he had not expected to dispose of it, but that it had sold like hot cakes. {: .speaker-JOG} ##### Mr Bayley: -- They called it " smoking mixture." {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- I understand that, owing to the heavy demand for Australian tobacco, which is marketed at a lower rate than that made from the imported leaf, the Australian manufacturers have exhausted their stocks of locally-grown leaf sooner than was expected. But it is remarkable that, within a few months of the imposition of this duty, their six-years' stocks have vanished. The moment the company could not maintain its old rate of profit, it began to use its accumulated stocks of Australian leaf in the manufacture of its various products. I am not a connoisseur of Australian tobacco, but, from what I have seen of the alleged imported brands, I should say that they are fairly heavily impregnated with Australiangrown leaf. This shows that the local manufacturers have themselves to blame for the present position. They did not encourage the manufacture of locallygrown leaf until they were forced to do it. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- I think that they have done everything to prevent the encouragement of the local industry. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- They have had command of the situation for the last 30 years, and for the whole of that period they have adopted the policy of concentrating on the American market for their supplies of leaf. The members of the select committee found it very difficult to fathom the policy and the motives of the gentlemen representing the tobacco combine. Although they appeared to be frank and friendly when placing all information at the disposal of the committee, there was always something held back which prevented one from discovering the policy of the combine. Owing to that difficulty, the committee could only conjecture what that policy had been for many years past. We did not desire to impute any sinister motive to the combine. One reason was that we had not at our disposal evidence of such a motive, and we desired to base our report upon facts., and not upon guess-work. We reached the conclusion that this combine, which came into existence in 1904, when it absorbed most of the small manufacturing companies in Australia, decided that the local production of tobacco leaf was insufficient to build up a local manufacturing market, the only available supplies in any quantity being in the United States of America. *Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.* {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- The honorable member for West Sydney referred to the complaint of the Tobacco Workers Association of Australia that if the present duties were continued without intermission there would, before the end of this year, be an acute shortage of both local and imported stocks, and as a result a large number of hands would be dismissed from the principal factories. That is a matter of considerable importance, and I have not time to discuss it fully, but I suggest that the Minister allow the select committee, which is still in existence, and will be in existence during the life of this Parliament, to investigate that complaint, and when its report has been submitted, he will probably make a decision of much more value than one made on the spur of the moment merely at the suggestion of -the Tobacco Workers Association. I recognize that there is the possibility of an acute shortage of tobacco stocks with consequent unemployment, and as the chairman of the select committee I feel sure that it is not the wish of the members of that body that any worker should be thrown out of employment as a result of the Government giving effect to the recommendation of the committee. I feel sure that if the Minister acted upon my suggestion the committee would undertake the inquiry. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- How long would the inquiry last? {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- Not very long, because the committee could examine at Canberra the representatives of the unions and of the various factories. The inquiry would not involve any expense. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- It is a good suggestion. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- I leave the matter there. I wish now to refer to some statements of the honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Gullett).** That honorable gentleman has once again suggested that the action of the Government in appointing a select committee to inquire into the tobacco-growing industry was unjustified, and that the report of the committee was not worth the money spent upon it. The select committee was appointed in the first place by the BrucePage Government, when the honorable member for Henty was Minister for Trade and Customs, and at that time he did not oppose the appointment. I, therefore, consider that his attitude towards the committee is a stultification of himself, and indicates that he is prejudiced against the Australian tobacco-growing industry. It matters not to him what is done by honorable members who are championing the interests of this industry. He is firmly convinced that the policy of encouraging the production of Australian tobacco by an increase in import duties is fundamentally unsound. He is prepared to advocate a return to the old policy under which the tobacco combine of Australia had practically a free hand in the Australian market. He is quite entitled to his view ; but I suggest that he is not entitled to persist in his statement that the report of the select committee was not worth the money spent upon it. That committee cost only £700, exclusive of the cost of printing its report. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale Parkhill: -- That was another £200. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- I point out to the honorable member that this much-abused report has been in great demand, and that the supply of copies is practically exhausted. All the tobacco organizations of Australia have applied for copies, and every person in the community who is interested in the tobacco industry has written to myself or some other member of the committee for copies. That shows conclusively that there is an intense interest in the report, whereas many reports submitted to this Parliament are merely distributed to honorable members and quickly forgotten. Any honorable member who is sufficiently concerned in the industry to read the report of the committee must disagree with the statement of the honorable member for Henty that the report is practically valueless. He is the only honorable member who has made that statement, and I can only conclude that either he is wholly prejudiced against this industry, or he has not read the report. I have a deep suspicion that he has merely read the recommendations of the committee. I must admit that his statement to-night is much more rational than any of his previous statements on the subject of tobacco. I take that as a hopeful sign, and I trust that he may yet become an ardent supporter of the Australian tobacco industry. The select committee was appointed by the BrucePage Government just prior to the federal election of 1929. That Government was defeated, and the committee automatically expired. When a new Parliament assembled the present Government promptly re-appointed the committee. I have no party feeling in this matter. Ever since I have been in Parliament I have been an active champion of the Australian tobacco industry, and I am prepared to give this Government every credit for what it has done to assist it. The attitude of the Minister has been friendly and helpful, and I am convinced that the definite policy of the Government is to establish the tobacco industry. {: .speaker-JOG} ##### Mr Bayley: -- That is the first good word I have heard said for this Government. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- I am speaking from my own personal experience. I was assured by the members of the Government that they intended to establish the tobacco-growing industry, provided that the report of the select committee was favorable. When the report came to hand, the Government promptly made an important alteration in the tariff schedule. The honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Gullett)** contends that the present duty of 5s. 2d. per lb. on imported leaf is far too high. He can see no justification for it, and he seems to assume that that duty has been imposed as a result of the report of the select committee. I assure him that that is not so. The present duty is entirely the result of the shortage of government funds. The previous duty was 3s. 6d. per lb. The present Minister, when ActingMinister for Trade and Customs, endorsed, without any reference- to the select committee, an alteration of the excise on imported raw leaf and local raw leaf from 2s. 4d. to 4s. 4d. per lb., an increase of 2s. per lb. That increase, without any corresponding increase in import duty, aimed a death blow at the local industry. The Minister's action was totally at variance with the recommendation of the committee, and had it been persisted in, every tobacco-growing enterprise in Australia would have been compelled to close down. The increased excise was of no assistance to the local manufacturer. The members of the committee pointed out to the Minister the error of his policy. He conferred with the officers of his department, and it was then revealed that the main objective of the heavy increase in excise was to secure an additional revenue of £1,000,000. The members of the committee were all convinced that the import duties should be considerably increased, but they did not suggest that these should be increased to 5s. 2d. That increase was suggested to the Minister by the officers of his department, who had calculated on the basis of importations, that that rate of duty was necessary to produce the revenue required by the Government. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- Without regard to its effect upon the industry? {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- That appeared to be the position. The Minister asked the members of the committee whether the increased duty would have a detrimental effect upon local consumption, and whether it would increase tho price of imported manufactured tobacco to such an extent as to kill practically any desire for smoking on the part of the community. That view, of course, had been put to him by the manufacturers. We assured the Minister that, although the duty was perhaps high, and not absolutely necessary in view of the position of the industry, yet there was no alternative if the Government wished to obtain a revenue of £1,000,000 from that source. We did ask him to reduce the excise by 2s. per lb., and he agreed to do so. The excise was consequently reduced to the old rate of 2s. 4d. per lb. on imported and Australian leaf, and the increase in the import duty from3s. 6d. to 5s. 2d. per lb. was made effective. That, of course, gave an enormous protection to the Australian article. Nearly every one associated with the Australian tobacco industry has always insisted that, provided that the whole of the excise was lifted from the Australian leaf only, it was not necessary to impose a heavy or prohibitive duty on the imported leaf. Various Ministers have gone into that question, and for some reason that has never been satisfactorily explained, they have taken the stand that for excise purposes it is impracticable to separate the local leaf from the imported leaf, and that there must be a flat rate of excise on both classes of leaf. It was contended that in the manufacture of tobacco the proportion of local leaf used with imported leaf could not be ascertained, and that, therefore, the lifting of the excise from Australian leaf only was altogether out of the question. In those circumstances the tobacco-growing interests of Australia were compelled to ask for a considerable increase in the import duties, and their request was eventually granted. I make that statement to show that the honorable member for Henty is wrong in assuming that this heavy import duty has been imposed as the result of the report of the select committee. The duty was imposed to protect the tobacco-growing interests, and to increase Commonwealth revenue. It will be generally agreed that tobacco is a luxury, although it is a necessary luxury, and that the industry is able to carry a certain amount of taxation. At present it is being taxed too heavily, not by the Government, but by the tobacco combine. If the tobacco manufacturers had any heart at all, if they were Australian in spirit and had a desire to make a friendly gesture to the workers of Australia, they would make some sacrifice in this time of depression. But their policy is to pass on every farthing of this increased duty to the unfortunate public, and maintain their pre-depression flat rate of profit. Although every other industry in Australia has suffered from the depression of the last few years, the great BritishAustralasian Tobacco Company, and Godfrey Phillips Company, a branch of the great British tobacco combine which has recently been established in Australia, appear to be determined at all costs to maintain their old prosperity rate of profit, and to have a definite coldblooded policy of passing on to the consumers every half penny they possibly can.From 1919 to 1921 the net annual profit of the British-Australasian Tobacco Company was just over £500,000. In the same period £628,000 a year was distributed in the form of bonus shares from subsidiary companies. This big combine has quite a lot of subsidiary companies. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale Parkhill: -- What is its capital? {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- It is impossible to arrive at the financial position of the combine. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale PARKHILL: ----If a man buys its shares he does not earn more than5¼ per cent. on them. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- Many years ago a royal commission was absolutely baffled in its attempt to probe into the financial ramifications of this company. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr Gullett: -- Why did not the honorable member say some of these harsh things about the combine in the select committee's report? I read the report and found that the references it made to the company were most eulogistic. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- I gathered from what the honorable member said that he could not have read the report of the select committee. The figures I am now quoting are taken from that report. From 1922 to 1927, the profits of the BritishAustralasian Tobacco Company amounted to £750,000 a year - in 1927, they were £786,000 - and the amount distributed as bonus shares from the subsidiary companies was £2,250,000. Then the company decided that these earnings were not sufficient and from 1928 to 1930, the profits exceeded £1,000,000 a year. They are now on a steady £1,000,000 a year. Every year the dividend paid has been maintained at from 10 to 12 per cent., excluding- the profit derived from subsidiary companies. It is really impossible to ascertain what profit the shareholders of this wealthy combine have been making out of the people of Australia, yet the combine now wants the import duties lifted for a period to enable it to import sufficient tobacco to meet the local demand which it says the local growers are unable to supply. It says that if its request is not granted it will be out of tobacco, and its employees will have to be dismissed. "Why cannot it increase the consumption of imported tobacco for a period by dispensing with some of its profits? Why cannot it say that during the prevailing depression it will be satisfied with half its ordinary profit? It will not do so. Its desire is to maintain the dividend of over £1,000,000 a year, and it prefers to come to this Parliament complaining that it has been practically crucified by the high duties on tobacco. The position created by the duties is undoubtedly a difficult one. The select committee had no power to investigate the profits of the tobacco combine, but it is a matter that must be taken into consideration in connexion with the application made by the honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley)** on behalf of the Tobacco Workers Union. If the extra impost is left on for two or three years the Australian tobacco industry will become established, and by increasing the excise duty, the Government can recover the revenue it is losing on the import duties. This is really the first year in which the Australian industry has had a chance, and the position is made difficult for the Australian public because smokers are being made to pay through the nose for tobacco, mainly because of the greed of the big tobacco manufacturers. There seems to be no way of overcoming that difficulty, but on the other hand, if any action is taken this year which tends to discourage the interests that are now going into the production of tobacco in Australia, we might just as well abandon the project of establishing tobaccogrowing in Australia for all time. Despite adverse seasons we have this year increased the production of tobacco leaf by 44 per cent., and I believe that within four years the increased production will be as high as 144 per cent. Despite adverse seasons, if we maintain the policy of protection, in five years' time I am sure that it will be unnecessary to import 1 lb. of tobacco, even for flavoring purposes, because we can even grow Turkish tobacco in Australia. In fact, we can grow every kind of tobacco, good, bad, or indifferent. The select committee proved, as the result of its investigations, that the allegations that Australian tobacco was unfit for smoking were absolutely unfounded. In any case, if the committee had not established this fact, the economic position would have done so, because the Australian people are now not able to pay the price demanded for imported tobaccoes - it is ridiculously high - and are being driven to smoke Australian tobacco, with no resultant increase in the death rate so far as I have seen. The fact that the big combines are demanding more and more of the locally-produced tobacco, and say that they cannot get all they want to meet the demand, knocks the bottom out of their previous argument that the Australian public has no desire to smoke brands made from Australian leaf. I trust that honorable members will not be influenced by any statement to the effect that the duties imposed by the present Government are too high. {: #subdebate-31-0-s30 .speaker-KIT} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Mackay:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND -- The honorable member's time has expired. As no other honorable member wishes to speak at this juncture, the honorable member may take the second period allowed to him under the Standing Orders. {: #subdebate-31-0-s31 .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr THOMPSON:
New England -- I admit it is not fair to the Australian smoking public to have to pay too much for its tobacco or to be obliged to smoke inferior brands. The price is too high, and I dare say that inferior brands are being smoked. The tobacco manufacturers are using everything they can lay their hands on to supply to the public. But we have to face the position that it will take at least two or three years for Australia so to increase its production as to make it largely independent of importations. If we are to falter in this policy for even a few months, we might as well abandon the attempt to establish the industry, and admit that the manufacturers are too strong for us. I do not suggest that there is any sinister motive behind the application of the manufacturers for a concession, but it is a matter that must be watched very closely. If the Government lifts the duties, or allows a certain quantity of imported tobacco to come in for a period At a lower rate of duty to meet a temporary shortage, the manufacturers may take advantage of it for their own ends. It is quite possible that they may dismiss many of their employees to make this Parliament panicky, and to create a feeling of revulsion against the local industry. I do not say that they would do this, and, as a matter of fact, it would not suit their financial interests to do so, but, in order to achieve a certain purpose, a tremendous combine can afford to lose a few thousand pounds by reducing its factory output for a few months. It could even afford to reduce its output for a year to reach a position that it would consider sound for itself. I do not say that the Australian combine has that policy in mind. I am simply indicating that if the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Forde)** acts upon the stories told to him by the representatives of the combine, without a thorough investigation of the facts, he may easily play into the hands of this huge monopoly. It would be all right if the great manufacturers gave some evidence that they were really sympathetic with not only the growers, who are practically independent of them to-day, but also the smoking public. It appears to me that the smoker is being used by the manufacturers as the stick with which to beat the growers. A hostile feeling is being created by the high price of imported brands, and it is being broadcast that the high prices of imported brands are due to the fact that a few growers in Australia are being pampered. I have heard it said that, although many people atc anxious to see the Australian production increase, they resent being hurt, so far as their pockets are concerned, in order to bring about that desired result. There is no great desire on their part to make a sacrifice, and there should not be any need for a sacrifice in face of the tremendous profit the manufacturers are making. These manufacturers are the wealthiest profit-makers in Australia to-day. There would be no need for the smokers to be hurt if the British Australasian Tobacco Company and the Godfrey Phillips combine would only cease their policy of passing on the extra duties to the last farthing. They ought to say, " We recognize that the country is in a bad way, and that the Government must have money. For many years past we have done very well out of the Australian public, and we will bear our share of the sacrifice and reduce our profits by half in order to give the workers of Australia plenty of tobacco." I do not suggest that they should forgo all profits, but they could well afford to reduce them by 50 per cent, in a time like this, instead of trying to maintain a rate which was very high even before the depression set in. We would then feel sympathetic towards them, and any request for accommodation over a trying period would receive a much more favorable hearing. Instead, the combine takes one cigarette from each box, makes the cigarettes shorter and narrower, and only half fills them, enormously increases the prices of best brands of tobacco, and maintains the prices of Australian brands too high. While the company takes full toll of the public, it does not forgo 6d. of its profits. Apparently the honorable member for Warringah is sympathetic towards the combine. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale PARKHILL: -- The honorable member's criticism is unfair. He has made a lot of insinuations, but has not advanced one fact in support of them. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- The honorable member does not want facts in regard to this matter. While this monopoly is so greedy that it will not relinquish one penny of profit even in a time of depression, despite the fact that it has been on a wonderfully good wicket for 30 years, this Parliament should not go out of its way to be generous to it. {: .speaker-JOG} ##### Mr Bayley: -- There is no better employer in Australia. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- That may be so, but the tobacco industry is a close preserve. There are about 5,000 members in the Tobacco Workers Union, and all are employed by the British-Australasian Tobacco Company. They are part of the combine, and naturally, their sympathies are with it. The select committee experienced great difficulty in getting reliable evidence from members of the union, because cross-examination revealed that they were advocating the interests of the combine. Since these duties were imposed, representatives of the union have interviewed many members, and have worried the Minister continuously. In my opinion, they are suspect, and although they claim to be advocating the interests of their members, we should inquire closely whether they are not really representing the manufacturers. If they prove their bona fides, their claims should be investigated thoroughly and sympathetically. I acknowledge that the British-Australasian Tobacco Company has rendered good service ; its products have been invariably of high quality, its organization is thorough, it has been a good employing agency, and has undoubtedly given Australia for many years tobacco as good as is to be found anywhere in the world; but, after making due allowance for those virtues, the fact remains that it has charged very highly for its services and products. It has done nothing for nothing, and since it obtained control of about 90 per cent. of the Australian market it has steadily built up its profits from a paltry £250,000 ten or fifteen years ago, to approximately £1,000,000 annually. The declared profits do not reveal all the money that the company is making, because it is interested in subsidiary enterprises, the profits from which it keeps dark, as it is entitled to do. If the Government were not so much in need of revenue, the duty could be reduced by 8d. or 9d. without risking great injury to the Australian industry; but. I do not think such a reduction would be advisable, having regard to, the needs of the Treasury and the fact that the manufacturers are showing no inclination to adjust their demands to, the less prosperous circumstances of the community, but on the contrary are determined to squeeze the last penny of profit out of the consumers. {: #subdebate-31-0-s32 .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Warringah -- If the Minister had given an intelligent explanation of these duties, indicating what proportion is protective and what imposed for revenue purposes, the committee would be better qualified to debate the item. All we know is that very high duties have been imposed on every class, of tobacco. The Labour party's campaign director in New South Wales **(Mr. Theodore)** said at Leichhardt during the last federal election campaign that the Labour party would' never place an additional burden- on the worker by increasing the customs duties on his tobacco. Yet the Government of which he is now a member is imposing the most grinding taxation upon tobacco and other necessaries of the working man. I would gladly vote against this item if I had the opportunity, but apparently the supporters of the Government are quite content to tax the workers' tobacco, and the Country party, which pretends to be in favour of lower duties, is adopting a similar attitude. I accept no responsibility for these unwarranted imposts. A long speech on the item before the committee would not effect any change in the attitude of the majority of honorable members, but I shall be glad to deal with this subject on the election platform at the earliest opportunity which the Government is prepared to afford. The honorable member for New England **(Mr. Thompson)** has delivered many speeches upon tobacco, but although I listened intently to his insidious attack upon the tobacco combine I was unable to discern in it any concrete charge. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr Thompson: -- I made no charges. **Mr. ARCHDALE** PARKHILL.No, but the honorable member's speech was full of insinuations and gross imputations to the effect that the combine is grinding profits out of the Australian people. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr Thompson: -- All I say is that the combine is an outrageous profiteer. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL: -- The honorable member has now stated in plainer and more vulgar language what he was insinuating throughout his speech, which extended over half an hour. If there is justification for his statement that the combine controls the whole of the tobacco manufacture and output in Australia, and that its employees and the consumers are held in its relentless grasp, I am surprised that he should support excessive duties which will merely increase the company's capacity for evil. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr Gullett: -- Why did not the honorable member for New England: make thosecharges in the report of the select committee of which he was chairman? **Mr. ARCHDALE** PARKHILL.Be should have doneso, especially as he regards the report of such value that he calmly stated that the investigation cost "only £700". Having regard to the manner in which the report is printed, and the application for free copies by members of the committee, we may fairly estimate that the printing and distribution of it cost another £300, making a total of £1,000 for the investigation and report. {: .speaker-KDW} ##### Mr Jones: -- The applications for the report show that it has been appreciated. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL: -- The honorable member has an obsession regarding a few tobacco-growers in his electorate. The value of the report is not commensurate with its cost. The report is not worth the amount it has cost, and provides another instance of the wasting of public money. If there are all the evils associated with the tobacco industry that the honorable member for New England suggests, this Parliament has no right to further increase duties, and give one company an opportunity to profiteer to the extent mentioned. As the honorable member for New England quoted the profits of the company, and did not give its capital, we are unable to determine whether those profits are reasonable or otherwise. According to recent stock exchange quotations, shares in the British-Australasian Tobacco Company are showing a return of only 5£ or 5^ per cent., and, therefore, the profits of the company are not excessive. Before an honorable member makes allegations, imputations, or reflections concerning an important and efficiently conducted industry, he should be sure of bis facts. He should not make any statement which he cannot substantiate. In Division IT - " Tobacco and manufactures thereof", it is proposed, with the aid of the representatives of workers opposite, to increase the duty, which in 1928 was 5s. 7d., to 9s. 3d. Other grades are being increased from 5s. 4d. to 9s., and from 12s. to 16s., while the rate on cigars as compared with 1928 is to be increased from 12s. to 20s. When revenue is required, tobacco is a legitimate source from which to obtain it. We have not been told by the Minister bow much of the amount obtained from these duties is for revenue purposes, and the extent of their protective incidence. I leave it to the Government to justify its action in placing upon the workers of this country these excessive duties, which have been imposed notwithstanding the statement of the Treasurer prior to the last general election that no such duties would be imposed. This schedule has been thrown upon the table, the whip has been cracked, and honorable members opposite will rally round the Government irrespective of the effect of such excessive duties upon those whom they are supposed to represent. As I consider that the duties are entirely unwarranted, I intend to oppose them. {: #subdebate-31-0-s33 .speaker-KDW} ##### Mr JONES:
Indi .- As a representative of an electorate in which during the past few years more than onehalf of the tobacco produced in Australia has been grown, I am pleased to support the duties imposed in this item. I take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the persistence which the honorable member for New England **(Mr. Thompson)** has displayed in assisting the tobacco industry. He deserves great praise for all he has done to develop this important branch of primary production, and I am sure he is pleased to see that his efforts have not been in vain. I was also pleased to hear him give praise to this Government, though only a modicum, for assisting him in getting the appointment of a select committee, after he had been unable to secure similar assistance from the Government which he supported for some years. The honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Gullett)** strenuously opposed the appointment of the select committee, of which the honorable member for New England was the chairman, and it is on record that when the honorable member for Swan **(Mr. Gregory)** tried to talk out the motion the honorable member for New England moved the closure, which was carried, as also was the motion for the appointment of the select committee. When the report of the select committee was presented, the honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Gullett)** said that it was not worth the paper on which it was printed, but the honorable member for Warringah **(Mr. Parkhill),** when complaining of the expense incurred in its production, said that there was a great demand for copies. It would be interesting to know which honorable member is right. I am prepared to accept the opinion of the tobaccogrowers, to whom the report has been of great assistance. I remind the honorable member for Warringah that aromatic tobacco can be purchased in Australia for {: type="1" start="73"} 0. a lb., -whereas the duty alone in the United Kingdom is Ss. lOd. We have recently seen in the press particulars of the profits derived by the oil companies from the stocks which they held when duties were increased. The select committee ascertained that the British Australasian Tobacco Company had huge stocks of Australian leaf on hand when additional import duties were imposed last year. If that company also had extensive stocks of imported leaf, the profits which it made as a result of the increased duties must have been enormous. Little time was lost in passing on the increased price to the consumer, so that, in consequence of the increased duties imposed by this Government, the combine probably had a good " rake off." I associate myself with the remarks of the honorable member for New England **(Mr. Thompson)** concerning the manner in which the British Australasian Tobacco Company treats its employees. So far as I have been able to learn, there is no body of employees in Australia that receive better treatment than do the employees of that company. As a member of the select committee I had an opportunity to visit the company's works in Sydney, where hundreds of girls working only five days a week on piece-work were earning an average of £3 5s. a week. It was suggested by the representatives of the Federated Tobacco Workers Union of Australasia that, owing to the supply of Australian-grown leaf being unequal to the demand, a reduction in import duties should be made if only for a short time. As one present at that deputation, I pointed out to the Minister that if such a reduction were made, if only for a month or two, it would be possible for the companies to import sufficient leaf to enable them to carry on for five or even ten years, and that when the Australian-grown leaf was produced in large quantities, and there was an opportunity of receiving a good price for it, the company could say that they could do without Australian leaf for five or ten years unless the growers were prepared to accept the prices offered for their leaf. Something similar was done in the case of timber. The importers, anticipating an increase in the duty on oregon, brought shipload after shipload of this timber toAustralia, and although the duty has sincebeen increased, they have been using the imported stocks ever since. Meanwhile the Australian mills are having a thin time. As a result of the increased duty on tobacco, the tobacco-growing industry has received a valuable stimulus. I have obtained figures from the Customs Department showing that, at the 30th June, 1930, there were 352 registered tobaccogrowers in Victoria, and that from the 1st July to the 8th December, the number increased by 62. Altogether there are 702 registered growers in Australia. I have not yet obtained figures regardingthe increased acreage under tobacco, but when they come to hand I am sure that they will cause a revelation. The tobaccogrowing industry is booming in Australia to-day. In the Ovens River Valley a tobacco-grower, **Mr. W.** Panlook, of Panlook's Ltd., last year devised a new system of curing leaf. He introduced a system by which hot air is kept circulating about the drying leaf, and the method has proved a great success. Last season he had 40 acres under tobacco, but this season he increased his acreage to 100. Another farm in the Wangaratta district, belonging to Messrs. Fisher and Sons, had 100 acres under tobacco. It is estimated that the crop will yield between £12,000 and £14,000 worth of tobacco. {: .speaker-JOS} ##### Mr Bell: -- Is that an argument in favour of increased protection? {: .speaker-KDW} ##### Mr JONES: -- Increased protection has given the necessary stimulus to the industry. Can the honorable member point to any crop raised in Tasmania which will return as much from 100 acres of land? {: .speaker-JOS} ##### Mr Bell: -- No, I wish I could. {: .speaker-KDW} ##### Mr JONES: -- Recently the Victorian Electricity Commission has taken an interest in tobacco curing, and has fitted up two kilns with electric drying apparatus which takes the place of the old wood heating system. The first kiln produced leaf of a very even colour, and the second gave even better results. A third kiln ie now being fitted up to operate the hot air drying process which I have already mentioned, and from that great results are anticipated. Another grower, **Mr. Eugene** Kneebone, of Everton, has also invented an improved system of tobacco caring. It will be seen, therefore, that keen interest is being taken by growers in tobacco curing, and all are anxious to produce the- best results. I am hopeful that in a few years, instead of Australia importing 95 per cent, of the leaf consumed here and growing only 5 per cent., the figures will be reversed. I propose to quote from a statement recently made by a man who was continuously employed in the tobacco industry for 60 years. He says - >With 00 years behind him in the service of tlie British-Australasian Tobacco Company, from which he has just retired, Cr. Thomas B. Drew, of Droop-street, Footscray, looks back over the long period, marks the progress of the industry in 'Australia, and looking to its future, believes that in time the country will become another America in tobacco production. > >Cr. Drew grew up with the tobacco industry, lie has spent most of his 76 years in it. He recalls the days when cigarettes were rare and all mcn practically smoked black plug and cigars, all made by hand. He has seen the cigarette oust the cigar and reduce pipesmokers. And he thinks that the demand for the cigarette will continue to grow. > >Discussing the growth of tobacco in Australia, he said to-day that in the early days tobacco grown on the King River was better than most oi! the tobacco leaf which was grown at present, and was equal to the American leaf. Before the appointment of the tobacco investigation committee, allegations were frequently made that Australian-grown tobacco bore a eucalyptus taint. So far as the committee Gould learn, those allegations did not originate with any one who had ever smoked Australian tobacco. In my opinion, they were inspired. Even **Sir Otto** Niemeyer, while he was in Australia, smoked nothing but Australian tobacco, and honorable members opposite, who are so ready to regard him as an authority on financial matters, might do well to follow his example in this. The honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley)** the other day quoted a letter which he had received from the secretary of the Tobacco Workers Union. . The letter stated that the price so the smoking public for No. 1 Australian aromatic tobacco was 7s. per lb., and something less for dark tobacco. I remind the honorable member that the lowest full rate duty charged on tobacco imported into Great Britain is 8s. lOd. per lb. If die Government is desirous of obtaining all the revenue it can, it might consider increasing the duty on tobacco, rather than lowering it. I have here figures showing the profits made by the BritishAustralasian Tobacco Company during the last three years. For the year ended 31st October, rJ28, the net profit was £916,506; for the following year, the' profit was £1,011,307, while for the year ending the 31st October, 1930, the profit was no less than £1,074,672. It will be seen, therefore, that last year the profit made by the company was the greatest it had ever achieved. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr Thompson: -- And that was the worst year in Australia's history. {: .speaker-KDW} ##### Mr JONES: -- That is so. Moreover, the profits which I have quoted do not include the company's interest in the undivided profits of subsidiary companies. This combine has had a long innings on a good wicket, and it is now time that the growers had a turn. The combine will not have things all its own way in the future, because it will have to meet the competition of the firm of Carreras Limited, which has recently begun operations in this country. A recent review of the profits made by this company states - >The company has become remarkable for these regular yearly capital distributions. They are piling up fortunes even for the smallest holders of the Carreras shares marketed less than a decade ago. For example, a man who bought 100 ordinary shares at about par in 1921 and has retained his interest until to-day, finds himself in possession of 586 £1 shares, which, at their present market price of £14 each, represent a capital value of about £8,204. That bears out my contention that the manufacturers have, in the past, been on a very good wicket. The British Imperial Tobacco Company also made record profits last year, netting no less than £10,000,000. A report, which appeared in the Melbourne *Age* of the 23rd January, 1931, states - Tobacco Companies' Earnings. Yesterday's cable news shows that the Imperial Tobacco Company (of Great Britain and Ireland) Limited, has made a profit of £10,000,000 for the year ended 31st October, 1930, and has increased its dividend on the ordinary shares from 23 per cent, to 23J peT cent, despite the trade depression. The announcement caused a rise of £5,500,000 in the shares. In 1902 the company sold its export business to the British-American .Tobacco Company Limited, in which it holds a large interest, Accounts of the British-American Company for the year to 30th September last are to hand by this week's mail from London. Net profit was £6,501,560, or £143,788 more than for 1928-29. Dividend on the ordinary shares again is 25 per cent., and takes £5,S95,1S0. Preference capital was increased in the year by an issue of £6,000,000, and dividend on preference shares requires £555,000. The sum brought in is £1,748,722, and £1,800,144 is carried forward. Some two years ago the British Board of Trade proposed to draw up legislation dispensing with the necessity of numbering shares, as large companies had said it was impossible to retain distinctive numbers, but after the Hatry disorder, the board said that the time was inopportune for such a change. The directors of the British-American Tobacco Company have given notice of a meeting at which shareholdersare to be asked to convert the share capital into stock which will be transferable into multiples of £1, brokerage charges to remain unaltered. They state that distinctive numbering docs not afford any protection to shareholders, and that the expense it entails is not justifiable. Profits shown do not include the proportion of the undivided revenue of the subsidiary and associated companies. **Sir H.** Cunliffe-Owen, one of the directors of the British-American Tobacco Company, is on the board of the British Tobacco Company (Australia) Limited, Melbourne. Before the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the Australian tobacco-growing industry, that industry was languishing, and it would have died had not something been done to resuscitate it. Nothing would have been done had the last Government continued in office. It is due to the persistence of the honorable member for New England **(Mr. Thompson)** that action has been taken to place the industry once more on the map, and it is now progressing rapidly. The suggestion has been made that the import duty might be reduced for a short period. I warned the Minister, at a deputation which waited upon him, of the danger that would accompany such action. In support of what I then said, I now quote the following extract from an article headed, "Farm board warns tobacco-growers against a higher output," which appeared in the New York *World* of the 13th February last: - >The opinion that an increase in 1931 proportionate to the increase in 1930 would be " disastrous " to tobacco-growers was expressed to-day by Vice-Chairman Stone, of the Farm Board at Washington. Indications are, Stone said, that the tobacco crop this year would be as large as last year. He placed the 1930 excess production in bright, fine-cured leaf at 60,000,000 lb. greater than produced in 1929. In addition to this excess, Stone added, there had been an over-supply of burley tobacco grown during the last two years. These stocks increased to 40,000,000 lb. last year. Two days later the *Evening News* wrote in similar vein, and directed attention to the large surplus of tobacco in Greece and South Africa, incidentally referring to Australia's protective tariff. The lowering of this duty would enable shiploads of tobacco to be brought from those countries as well as from America. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- Has not the Customs Department the power to regulate imports? {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale Parkhill: -- No; this Parliament does that. {: #subdebate-31-0-s34 .speaker-KDW} ##### Mr JONES: -- That intensifies the danger. Those countrieswhich have a surplus would be only too pleased to dump it in Australia, to the detriment of our industry. In America, negroes and negresses comprise practically the whole of the labour employed in tobaccogrowing, and probably in Greece and South Africa also tobacco is grown by coloured labour. In Australia, however, the growers pay the workers decent wages. From whatever angle this duty is viewed, it does not impose a penalty on smokers, because the price of Australian tobacco is less than the amount of the duty that is paid on tobacco which enters the United Kingdom. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- The honorable member for New England pointed out that there was something to be said for the case that I made out - that there is a shortage. {: .speaker-KDW} ##### Mr JONES: -- Admittedly, there is a shortage of Australian tobacco. A few years ago we were informed that Australian leaf was tainted with eucalyptus and turpentine, and that it possessed many other objectionable features. It has now been discovered that it possesses 'admirable qualities that previously were not suspected. With the manufacturers it is a matter purely of £ s. d. I am exceedingly gratified that the Government has granted this protection to the Australian industry. The growers have been inspired with hope, the acreage under tobacco is being increased, and the outstanding problem confronting the industry is how to prevent the diseases known as blue mould, which attacks the tobacco plant. Our scientists are hard at work on that problem, and when it has been solved there will be nothing to prevent the industry from flourishing. I trust that in a few years Australia will be growing sufficient tobacco to supply her own requirements. {: #subdebate-31-0-s35 .speaker-JV9} ##### Mr MORGAN:
Darling Downs -- I wish to make my position clear, in view of the vote that I propose to give on this item. I was a member of the select committee that inquired into the tobaccogrowing industry in the Commonwealth. I found myself in disagreement with the other members of that committee on the general tariff proposals. I was convinced that any additional impost levied on the importation of tobacco would have the effect of decreasing the consumption in Australia of the imported leaf, without any corresponding raising of the quality of the tobacco produced in Australia. I took the stand that such a policy would not result in an increased production of bright leaf, but that on the contrary it would encourage growers to continue producing leaf of a quality which is not wanted in Australia to-day. In view of the number of employees engaged in the secondary industry of tobacco manufacture, and the revenue which the Commonwealth Government receives from import and excise duties, too much stress cannot be laid upon that aspect of the subject. I propose to vote for these increased duties. Apparently that will place me in an anomalous position. I believe, however, that I can present my action in its right perspective. I took the stand that an increased duty was not warranted by the economic or the industrial position of this particular industry. Since that report was written, however, a very serious change has taken place in the economic position of this country. The Government is confronted with acute financial difficulties, and it has to raise additional revenues. It is entitled to look to luxury duties, particularly on such commodities as whisky, beer and tobacco, to provide those revenues. During the course of the debate this evening it has been stated that the tobacco industry in Australia does not need a duty. Broadly speaking, I agree with that contention j but on account of the existing conditions in Australia, the proposed duties can be justified. Some honorable members contend that the British- Australasian Tobacco Company does not benefit under this proposal, while others claim that it does. I am not prepared to argue on either one side or the other. But the grower will benefit. The assertion that the select committee had done no good to the industry cannot, I believe, be supported by the facts. The report of that committee threw a very definite and lasting light on the operations of the industry in Australia. I think it can safely be claimed that the industry has definitely benefited as a result of its inquiries. The best evidence of that, I submit, is furnished by the increased activities in certain areas in both the northern and the southern ends of Australia. Those activities can be traced to the definite and precise work done by the committee, and to the publicity given, particularly to the scientific and research work that had been undertaken. The contention advanced by the honorable member for New England **(Mr. Thompson),** that the surplus stocks held at the time of the committee's investigation indicated that the best use was not being made of Australian tobacco, and his statement that those stocks had since been manufactured and were being smoked in Australia to-day, cannot be wholly substantiated. A large quantity of that inferior tobacco has been finding its way into other avenues of industry. I know that a good deal of it has come into the hands of agriculturists in the form of powdered and liquid disinfectant. There are a variety of products into which it has been manufactured. Another feature that appeared to agitate the mind of the honorable member for New England was that, being confronted with these new duties, the company had increased the price of its commodities instead of allowing the smoking community to share the benefit of them. I submit that that is an inevitable result of the operation of all excessive tariff imposts. The company is under no particular obligation to see that the smoker benefits from this process of increasing the tariff. That is an item of domestic policy upon which I am not prepared to cross swords with it. Nor can I agree with the view that the smoker has been crucified by the combine. If there has been any crucifixion, it has been carried out, not by the company, but by the tariff. It is a libel on the company to say that it is responsible; yet such criticism appears to be a pleasant pastime with honorable members who desire to criticize it. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr Thompson: -- What about its profits ? {: .speaker-JV9} ##### Mr MORGAN: -- I do not propose to pursue that subject. It is not my function to inquire into the company's domestic affairs, and I shall not do so. I cannot admit that the company has not given anything for nothing. The implication is distinctly discreditable to the company. I shall show that the company has given something for nothing, and that it has definitely helped the tobacco industry of Australia. Had the honorable member for New England **(Mr. Thompson)** stopped to weigh his words, he would not have made that accusation. The report which he himself signed as chairman of the Select Committee on the tobaccogrowing industry contains the following paragraph : - >The British Australasian Tobacco Company lias undoubtedly made systematic efforts to improve the cultivation of tobacco in Australia., having spent, in the last 25 years, the sum of £75,000 on experimental work, irrespective of the special contribution to the Commonwealth Tobacco Investigation. That extract from the report is, in itself, a sufficient rebuttal of the statement of the honorable member. But in addition to that, the company made a contribution of £10,000 annually for three years for the purpose of conducting scientific research work in connexion with the industry. In these circumstances I join issue with the honorable member for New England on his statement that the company has not given anything for nothing, I have shown that it has made at least two handsome contributions towards the betterment of the industry. If further evidence were required that the company has exercised a beneficent influence on the industry, it is provided by the members of the labour unions associated with the industry. These employees have declared definitely that they are satisfied with the conditions existing in the industry to-day. If the British Australasian Tobacco Company is a monopoly, it is a thoroughly beneficent one. But I deny that the company has a monopoly of the industry to-day. Even if it were a monopoly previously, the monopoly no longer exists. To-day the company controlled by the Godfrey Phillips interests, and the company controlled by tho Carreras interests, are definitely competing with the British Australasian Tobacco Company. Consequently, any monopoly that may have existed has disappeared. I shall vote for this item, not because I think that these duties are required for the advancement of the tobacco industry on either the producing or the manufacturing side, but because, in the present acute financial crisis of Australia, I think they are justified for revenue purposes. I do not justify the duties on any other ground. The serious financial position of the country to-day justifies me in reversing the attitude that I adopted at the time the select committee was making its investigations; consequently I propose to vote for this item. {: #subdebate-31-0-s36 .speaker-JT7} ##### Mr McNEILL:
Minister for Health · Wannon · ALP -- The committee should consider this subject from the national viewpoint. Some exception has been taken to certain comments in the report of the Select Committee on the tobaccogrowing industry, but in my opinion that report is an excellent production. I compliment the chairman of the committee, the honorable member for New England **(Mr. Thompson),** upon having been responsible for the publication of such a concise statement of the results of the committee's investigations in various parts of Australia. Some protest has been made about the cost of the inquiry, but it should be remembered that the committee visited nearly all the States. It went as far north as Stanthorpe, in Queensland, and also visited various parts of South Australia. In my opinion the tobacco-growing industry offers unrivalled possibilities of development. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale Parkhill: -- It is a back-yard industry. {: .speaker-JT7} ##### Mr McNEILL: -- It is true that tobacco leaf has been grown in backyards, but we have large areas of suitable tobacco-growing land in various parts of Australia. Much land that is useless for grazing, or ordinary agricultural purposes, is well suited for tobacco-growing. This is particularly so in the Mareeba district of Queensland. Experts have declared that the best amber leaf produced in the southern hemisphere is grown at Mareeba. A man with very small capital can, in a few years, become independent by investing his money in tobacco-growing. The select committee found that a man could make a good living from five, six or seven acres of tobacco land. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr Thompson: -- It is possible to make a net profit of £200 per acre. {: .speaker-JT7} ##### Mr McNEILL: -- That is not possible in any other agricultural industry in Australia. Even if a man made only £500 or £700 a year from his few acres he would do very well. In my opinion, a number of our unemployed could be settled on tobacco land to the advantage of the Commonwealth and the welfare of their families. Thirty years ago tobacco leaf was grown in certain parts of New South Wales, but the tobacco manufacturers would not buy it. They did not want to encourage the growing of Australian tobacco leaf. I remember that in 1910 and 1911 the Sydney *Bulletin* published some articles which scathingly criticized what was termed the tobacco combine, because of its shabby treatment of the Australian tobacco-growers. In the same article it was pointed out that the manufacturers were making excessive profits. Good tobacco leaf was being grown in the Tumut district at that time, but it wa3 left to rot on the ground, because the manufacturers would not buy it. As the result of the protection accorded to this industry Australian smokers are now able to enjoy Australian tobacco. I have smoked nothing else for the last twelve months. I have been buying my tobacco at 7s. 6d. per lb. If I bought the imported tobacco I should have to pay 12s, 6d. per lb. for it; but even if both the local and the imported article were the same price I should prefer the Australian tobacco. The Australian cigarettes are also equal to the imported cigarettes. I cannot speak from personal knowledge about cigars. Our protective policy has enabled many men to make a comfortable living for themselves and their families by tobacco-growing, and I hope that before long many more men will be settled on land suitable for the cultivation of tobacco. This industry should become one of the most profitable in Australia. {: #subdebate-31-0-s37 .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney -- I hope that the Minister will make some comments upon the suggestions of the honorable member for New England **(Mr. Thompson),** and the honorable member for Indi **(Mr. Jones),** both of whom were members of the select committee which inquired into the tobaccogrowing industry. I trust that the Minister will deal particularly with the complaints that have been made by the members of the Tobacco Workers Union. Possibly the select committee could make an inquiry into these statements, and inform the Government whether they are justified or not. At any rate, the Government should give sympathetic consideration to the complaints that have been made, because if the statement of the union that hundreds will be thrown out of employment is correct it is a serious matter for this Government. It should be possible to overcome the difficulties to which reference has been made without in any way interfering with our tariff policy. {: #subdebate-31-0-s38 .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS:
Herbert .- The honorable member for Darling Downs **(Mr. Morgan)** referred to -the money that has been spent by the British-Australasian Tobacco Company in connexion with its experimental work in the cultivation of the Australian leaf. I am aware that considerable expenditure was incurred, but whether the money was wisely spent is open to question. {: .speaker-JV9} ##### Mr Morgan: -- The company spent £75,000 in experimental work. {: .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS: -- Experimental work was not of much value at that period. The honorable member for Warringah **(Mr. Parkhill)** suggested that the employees of this company are especially well treated. They are to the extent that they are rationed. Their share in the profits is, we are told, that they get less work than before. I hope that before the Government takes any further action in connexion with these people, the Minister will order a thorough investigation to be made by the select committee. We shall then be able to judge the exact state of affairs from the sworn evidence of witnesses. If the position is as has been stated, some consideration should be given to them so that they may be fully employed. The present duties are a step in the direction of developing the Australian industry on a sound basis. The honorable member for Warringah has suggested that, in view of the profits made by the British- Australasian Tobacco Company, the need for adequate protection does not exist. The industry will not become firmly established unless it is adequately protected. The honorable member for Darling Downs has told us that he has not altered his opinion concerning the quality of Australian tobacco, and that he would not be justified in voting for these duties, except from the standpoint of revenue requirements. Apparently the honorable member would not be converted unless he could secure an Australian tobacco with a Turkish flavour. That appears to be his particular weakness. *I believe that we shall possibly accomplish this in time. When the committee was taking evidence, the honorable member was given samples of Australian tobacco, of which he expressed the highest appreciation, saying that if he could always depend upon getting tobacco of that quality he would be perfectly satisfied. I believe it will be possible, in the course of a few years, to so develop the industry as to ensure the complete satisfaction of all Australian smokers with the Australian leaf. An excellent tobacco is being grown at Harvey's Range, near Townsville, as well as near Mareeba, and in certain parts of Victoria. No one can doubt the quality of the leaf that is being produced in those localities. Representatives of the British Australasian Tobacco Company, giving evidence before the committee, declared that the chief difficulty was to secure leaf of the right colour. **Mr. Swinson,** of the British-Australasian Tobacco Company, said that a neutral leaf was required. He admitted that it was being grown in some parts of the Commonwealth, but not in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of the BritishAustralasian Tobacco Company. In view of the progress that is being made in the industry I am convinced that, ultimately, we shall be able to meet the requirements of the company. Mr.Morgan.- Not at the present growing centres. {: .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS: -- Some of the witnesses admitted that they had been advised by experts that they were growing tobacco leaf on country which was not considered suitable for the purpose. If they prefer to continue taking that risk, it surely is their affair. But it is a fact that each year they are producing a greater proportion of the class of leaf required. I am convinced that the right class of tobacco can be grown in Australia, but the industry will not be developed to its fullest extent unless adequate assistance is given to it by the Government through the tariff. Improvement in the flavour of the leaf can be secured at the stage of curing. In his evidence **Mr. Panlook,** of Eurobin, pointed out that it was impossible to produce a good tobacco froman inferior leaf, and the evidence of representatives of the British-Australasian Tobacco Company showed that the growers had striven to observe the instructions of its tobacco experts. Blue mould is one of the chief obstacles to successful cultivation in most parts of the Commonwealth. **Dr. Dickson,** Chief of the Division of Plant Industry, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, is closely investigating this problem. He also advised the committee that tobacco-growers were following the advice given by experts with regard to the selection of tobacco plants and seed, and said he believed that ultimately they would overcome all the difficulties. Any loss in revenue from the decline in importations will be compensated for by the additional revenue from excise on the Australian-grown leaf. I feel sure, therefore, that honorable members will be doing the right thing by supporting these! duties. The honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Gullett)** had something to say about the distribution by the honorable member for Indi **(Mr. Jones)** of the report which, be suggested, was not worth the paper upon which it is printed. I remind the honorable member that a copy df the report costs 14s. so it is not likely that any honorable member would procure copies to send to his constituents. Several electors in my constituency wrote to me asking if it was possible to obtain copies. I can assure the honorable member that the tobaccogrowers of this country appreciate very highly the expert information contained in it. Parliament acted wisely in appointing the Select Committee to make the investigation. The expense incurred has been amply justified. *[Quorum formed.]* {: #subdebate-31-0-s39 .speaker-KXT} ##### Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland -- I regret that the honorable member for "Warringah **(Mr. Parkhill)** is not in the chamber at the moment, because I wish to comment briefly upon his observations concerning the attitude of the Country party in not opposing these tobacco duties. The honorable member reminded us that, although we are the low tariff party in this House, we cheerfully support these high duties on tobacco. Speaking as one who claims to be an advocate of lower duties, I consider that, in view of the difficult state of finances, the Government is amply justified in extracting as much revenue as possible from alcohol and tobacco, which must be regarded as luxury commodities. That is one reason why I most cheerfully support these high duties on tobacco. The honorable member for Warringah, by way of interjection, also alluded to tobacco-growing as a backyard industry. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr Gullett: -- I think that was merely a sporting interjection. {: .speaker-KXT} ##### Mr PATERSON: -- I think it was. Consequently I did not take it too seriously. 1 would, however, remind the House, that although tobacco-growing may be a small industry it is capable of great expansion, and I know of no reason why ultimately we should not produce sufficient tobacco leaf to meet the whole of our requirements. Our present imports total about £3,000,000. Even if we supplied tha whole of our requirements the Government would not necessarily lose revenue, because any revenue lost through a reduction in the volume of imports, would be made up by excise duties on the locally-grown leaf. The industry, I believe, has a great future, and I, for one, support these duties if for no other reason than that the Government is justified in raising the maximum amount of revenue obtainable from such sources. {: #subdebate-31-0-s40 .speaker-KWN} ##### Mr TULLY:
Barton .- The honorable member for Gippsland **(Mr.** Paterson) has struck the right note. The honorable member for Darling Downs **(Mr. Morgan)** made reference to the expenditure by the British-Australasian Tobacco Company in connexion with this industry. In the Gunyan district, near Stanthorpe, Queensland, splendid results are being obtained by the growers. One of the witnesses before the committee quoted the following report which appeared in the Melbourne *Age* of the 10th January, 1930: - {: .page-start } page 1867 {:#debate-32} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-32-0} #### PROFITABLE TOBACCO CROP Returnof £233 an Acre. Brisbane 9th January Proceeds of sales of tobacco from an area about seven acres grown at Gunyan, near Stanthorpe, just finalized show a gross return of £1,631 ls.8d. The leaf was flue cured and yielded 11,346 lb. It was sold at an average price of 2s.10d. per lb., or £233per acre. {: #subdebate-32-0-s0 .speaker-KWN} ##### Mr TULLY: -- £50 an acre is being asked for the very land at Gunyan on which the tobacco company failed to grow tobacco successfully in 1915. {: .speaker-JV9} ##### Mr Morgan: -- That is an isolated case. {: .speaker-KWN} ##### Mr TULLY: -- On the contrary, growers in the same area were offered 4s. 6d. a lb. for their tobacco this year, and that on more than one farm. The conclusion to be drawn from those figures is that if the cost of production is the same at Texas as in other districts, that would yield a profit of £133 an acre. From every point of view, the appointment of that select committee was justified. Had it not been appointed, the final blow would have been given to the tobacco-growing industry in Australia. As a result of the committee's investigations, the industry has been placed on a sound footing,and in the near future it will be a very valuable asset to Australia. From his casual observations, it would appear that the honorable member for Warringah **(Mr. Parkhill)** does not know or care whether this country grows its own tobacco or imports it. Leaf is produced at Mareeba and Texas in Queensland, at Tamworth, Manilla, and Tumut in New South Wales, and Pomonal, in Victoria, which is equal to the finest tobacco produced in any other country. The British-Australasian Tobacco Company admitted to the committee that of all the tobacco grown at Pomonal, there was not 1 cwt. of dark leaf. It is admitted that there are a number of districts which produce just the type of tobacco that the company requires, and that every tobacco-grower in Australia is endeavouring to cultivate the right kind. I have recently received letters from farmers in the Texas and other districts expressing relief that five and six buyers now come to their farms, whereas before the advent of the committee only one buyer would call, and offer a predetermined price, with a " takeitorleaveit " attitude. While the honorable member for Indi **(Mr. Jones)** was speaking the honorable member for Darwin **(Mr. Bell)** interjected to the effect that a contributing factor to the high price of tobacco was the payment of the "high" Avage of £3 5s. a week to girl operatives in the tobacco factories. Members of the committee saw two girls working a machine that was turning out 1,000 cigarettes a minute, or sufficient in a week to make up 240,000 packets. The proportionate cost of the wages of those girls was1d. for every 150 packets, a negligible amount. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale Parkhill: -- The company ought to give away the cigarettes. {: .speaker-KWN} ##### Mr TULLY: -- I do not know whether the honorable member smokes or not, but he should know that the company does not give away cigarettes. I shall not further labour the subject. I am quite satisfied that, in the interests of Australia and of the tobacco-growers, these duties should be continued, and that, if that is done, the time is not far distant when our growers will produce, not only sufficient leaf for Australian requirements, but enough to provide an exportable surplus. It is estimated that there is room in Australia for 15,000 growers. At present there are but 700. I am hopeful that, as a result of this tariff, the estimate of 15,000 growers will be realized at no distant date. {: #subdebate-32-0-s1 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP -- I have listened with a great deal of interest to the very informative speeches that were delivered by members of the Select Committee on the Tobacco-growing Industry. In passing, I may say that that committee presented one of the most useful reports that has ever been submitted to a government. {: .speaker-K88} ##### Mr Cunningham: -- Why did not the Bruce-Page Government appoint the committee that was presided over by the honorable member for New England **(Mr. Thompson)** ? {: .speaker-KXT} ##### Mr Paterson: -- The Bruce-Page Government did appoint the committee. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- The committee was appointed on the vote of honorable members, against the advice tendered by the then Minister for Trade and Customs. It did excellent work. When deputations from the tobacco trust and the unions concerned waited on me, I consulted members of the committee and found their advice very useful indeed. The beneficial duties on tobacco that have been imposed by this Government are largely attributable to the efforts of the committee. I was satisfied that its knowledge of the subject was sound, and, therefore, accepted its advice. The honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley)** has, on several occasions, referred to the likelihood of employees in tobacco factories suffering as a result of the imposition of these duties. He has intimated that the demand on Australian tobacco has been so great that there will be a shortage of local leaf, so throwing operatives out of employment. I assure the honorable member that his representations will be borne in mind, and that I shall have an investigation made into the possibility of any shortage of Australian leaf. It was suggested by the honorable member for New England that the matter might be referred to the select committee which, he believes, is still in existence. That committee was appointed for a specific purpose. It submitted its report, and is no longer in existence. The Standing Orders do not contain any provision which permits me to refer the matter to the committee. However, I assure the honorable member and his associates that they will be consulted before any decision is made by the Government to vary the duties on tobacco. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- I am confident that members of that committee would not hesitate to undertake an inquiry into this matter, without waiting for any statutory direction from the Government. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- I know that members of the committee will co-operate with the Government in every way, and give it the benefit of their opinions. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr Thompson: -- I suggest that it is quite competent for the honorable gentleman to refer to the committee any further problem dealing with the industry. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- I have been advised that the committee, having been appointed for a specific task and, having completed that task, no longer exists. Before I could refer any further matter to it, I should have to move for its reinstatement. However, I am not prevented from consulting members of that committee as to the alleged shortage of Australian leaf. {: #subdebate-32-0-s2 .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr MAXWELL: -- Does the Minister propose to defer a vote on this matter until that aspect is considered? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- I believe that the honorable member is facetious. I assure him that the Government does not propose to defer any vote on the subject. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- Is the Minister aware that the matter is so serious that, unless some action is not taken before the end of June, a number of tobacco workers in Melbourne will be adversely affected? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- I quite appreciate the seriousness of the position. I am able to inform the honorable member that practically all of the leaf grown last season is still in the she.ds of the growers being cured, and maturing. Many of those growers have not yet been visited by the buyers, but within the next couple of months some tons of that leaf will be made available to the factories for processing purposes. It is possible that within the next six months there will be a shortage of Australian leaf. The representations of honorable members will be kept in mind, because I realize how serious it would be if the workers in the industry were thrown out of employment. For some years Australia has imported 20,000,000 lb. of tobacco leaf annually, while the local production has amounted to 1,000,000 lb. a year. Of the 20,000,000 lb. of tobacco leaf imported annually, about 14,000,000 lb. is for smoking tobacco, and 6,000,000 lb. for cigarettes. It has been said that, should Australian tobacco not be avail- able, the price of tobacco will increase. Even so, it would increase only in respect of one-fourteenth of the tobacco smoked. The tobacco factories would be able to get sufficient imported leaf by paying the duty, and the price of tobacco would still be no higher than the price of fourteen.fifteenths of the tobacco now smoked in Australia. The Government will keep these matters in mind, because it does not want to do an injustice to any section of the workers. Before the duty was imposed, we were told that some hundreds of workers would be thrown out of employment by it. So far as I am aware, no great numbers of tobacco-workers have been put off by the tobacco factories, notwithstanding the depression. It is only natural that, under present conditions, there should be some slackness in the tobacco factories, as elsewhere. The honorable members for Warringah **(Mr. Parkhill)** and Henty **(Mr. Gullett)** have objected to the alleged high duties on tobacco. I point out that the duty on unmanufactured tobacco entering England is 8s. lOd. per lb., as against 5s. 2d. per lb. on unmanufactured leaf entering Australia. In the case of manufactured tobacco, the English duty is 12s. lOd. per lb., as against about 9s. per lb. in Australia. The duty under this item has been increased by 3s. 8d. per lb. over the 1921-28 rates; chiefly for revenue purposes. The Government is faced with the necessity of raising approximately £1,000,000 in revenue from tobacco duties. In the past, duties were imposed in the best way to meet the requirements of the industry, and to inflict a minimum of hardship on the smokers of tobacco. Increases have been made in the duties on manufactured tobacco and cigarettes in order that the increases in the prices of raw material will not be detrimental to Australian manufacturers of tobacco and cigarettes. Prior to the 3rd December, 1930, an increase of ls. 6d. per lb. operated in respect of imported leaf, while an increase of 2s. per lb. operated under the excise tariff in the case of manufactured tobacco. This arrangement of duty did not sufficiently encourage the use of Australian leaf, so that an alteration was made by reverting to the rate of 2s. 4d. per lb. prescribed in the 1921-28 Excise Tariff, and making a further increase of ls. 8d. per lb. on the imported leaf. The members of the select committee waited on me and indicated that the duties which had been imposed, in order to raise revenue, would injure the Australian tobacco industry. The Government, therefore, decided to adopt their suggestions. No industry in Australia holds out better prospects than does the tobacco-growing industry. There is plenty of room for its development, seeing that only 1,000,000 lb., out of 21,000,000 lb. of tobacco smoked each year in Australia, is grown in this country. In Queensland there are thousands of square miles suitable for tobacco-growing. Experiments are now being carried out by officers who are paid out of the. National Tobacco Investigation. Fund. At Sarina, Miriam Vale, Rockhampton, and Mareeba, I saw samples of tobacco which were superior to anything I saw in southern Australia. With cheap land available, a suitable climate, and a good rainfall, there is' nothing to prevent Queensland from becoming a prosperous tobacco-growing State. Each year approximately £2,000,000 goes out of Australia for tobacco leaf. Within ten years all that money should remain in this country, and provide employment for our own citizens. Tobacco-growing is an important labour-employing industry, seeing that for every five acres under cultivation at least one man must be employed. The development of the industry would provide a market for the products of other Australian factories. All honorable members who have the interests of Australia at heart should not hesitate to agree to this item. Item agreed to. Item 19 : (Tobacco, unmanufactured, entered to be locally manufactured into tobacco or cigarettes.) {: #subdebate-32-0-s3 .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT:
Henty .- An ominous feature of this debate is that all the interested parties seem to be so well pleased. The growers are pleased, the tobacco companies are pleased- {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- The tobacco companies are not pleased. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- As there has been no evidence of their dissatisfaction we are justified in assuming that they are pleased. The workers in the factories are pleased. There must be something wrong, from the point of view of the consumer, when there is so much rejoicing among the interested parties. The Minister seems to be sympathetic towards every one excepting the unfortunate consumer of tobacco. I am pleased that the duties will benefit the growers of tobacco; but I am grieved that the Minister should show so little concern for the consumers. The cost of living in Australia is high, not so much because of big increases of duties on a few items, as because of hundreds of small increases - a farthing here, and a penny there. The cost of production in Australia is so high that we cannot sei] overseas anything that we make. I regret that in the framing of this tariff more consideration was not shown to the consumers. The Minister seems to have forgotten them. Indeed, his disregard of the claims of the workers on reduced wage3 is to be deplored. So long as duties are imposed in this happy-go-lucky fashion so long will our economic and financial difficulties continue. We are setting up another favoured industry. I sympathize with the Australian tobaccogrowers, but I point out that favoured classes are constantly being created by discriminative legislation, while 25 per cent, of the workers of Australia are out of employment, and suffering the direst distress. I suggest that here we have an illustration of cause and effect. A good deal is heard to-day of the need for equality of sacrifice, owing to the financial depression. I claim that there should be equality, also, with regard to the benefits conferred by our legislation. In many of our manufacturing industries, the employees receive probably the highest wages paid in the world, and they enjoy the shortest number of working hours under almost ideal factory conditions. But can any honorable member point to a single tobacco-grower who enjoys those conditions? So long as this Parliament remains indifferent to the effect' of discriminative legislation, Australia will continue to have industrial difficulties. {: #subdebate-32-0-s4 .speaker-KDW} ##### Mr JONES:
Indi .- The honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley)** has had representations made to him by the officials of the Federated Tobacco Workers Union. I understand that that body desires a reduction of either the import duty or the excise duty on tobacco leaf; but I point out that it would be dangerous to reduce the import duty, because the imports amount to about 20,000,000 lb. a year, and 3d. a lb. on. that quantity represents no less than £250,000. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- A reduction of the duty is not necessarily asked for. I am anxious to overcome the difficulty due to the shortage of locally-grown leaf. {: .speaker-KDW} ##### Mr JONES: -- In view of the record profit made last year by the BritishAustralasian Tobacco Company, if any reduction were made in the duty it should be conditional on the advantage being passed on to the consumers. **Mr. BERNARD** CORSER (Wide Bay) [10.25). - Since production of tobacco in Australia offers almost unlimited possibilities, the committee is now dealing with one of the most important items in the tariff. In the past, Australia has been importing tobacco leaf to the value of about £2,000,000 annually, and about £1,000,000 worth of manufactured tobacco. Some years ago, the late Government interested itself in the local industry, and, shortly before leaving office, it indicated that it intended to increase the import duty with a view to encouraging the production of tobacco in Australia. The. present Government has now gone far beyond the proposal of its predecessors, under which it was suggested that an increase in the import duty to the extent of 8d. a lb. would be sufficient. We now find that the Government has increased the duty on this item from 2s. 6d. to 5s. 2d. a lb., and on other tobacco items from 5s. 4d. to 8s. 6d. a lb., while, in the particular case under the immediate consideration of the committee the increase is from 2s. 6d. to 5s 2d. a lb., or 5s. 8d. on stemmed leaf. It has been proved conclusively that the Australian growers can now produce a leaf suitable for the requirements of the consumers, and second to none in quality. The work of the Select Committee on the Tobacco Industry, the chairman of which was the honorable member for New England **(Mr. Thompson),** emphasized the great possibilities of the industry, and did much to awaken public interest in it. The Council for Scientific and Indus trial Research, in its first annual report for the period, from the 13th of April, 1926, to the 30th June, 1927, set Out its objective in beginning its tobacco investigations as dictated by the late Government. The report stated - >The council is co-operating with the Development and Migration Commission and tlie British-Australasian Tobacco Company in a comprehensive investigation with a view of ascertaining whether tobacco can bg grown in Australia equal in quality to that now grown in North America. The investigation will cover the whole question of the improvement in quality, and the economic production of various types and grades of tobacco j and will include problems of the soil, plant growth, climatic conditions, and economies. Arrangements for proceeding with the work were made at the first meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture last May, and are now being carried into effect. > >By arrangement with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture, **Dr.** *Q.* P. DarnellSmith, Director of the Sydney Botanical Gardens, is now visiting the United States of America for the purpose oi inquiring into the whole position of tobacco cultivation in that country, and of furnishing a report regarding the lines on which experimental work should be developed in Australia. A chemical examination of the difference between Australian' and Virginian leaf will be carried out under the control of Professor J. Kenner, F.R.S., Department of Organic Chemistry, Sydney University. > >The terms, of the co-operative agreement under which the investigations are being conducted are as follows: - > >The British-Australasian Tobacco Company has agreed to provide over the first period of three years the sum of £20,000 on condition that a sum of £10,000 is found by the Commonwealth and the State Governments for the period for carrying out tlie investigations. > >The Commonwealth has agreed to subscribe £5,000 and each of the five mainland States £1,000 each for the initial three years. An. executive committee to be appointed, and to be responsible for the policy and general direction of the investigations, and this, committee to consist of one representative each of the Development and Migration Commission, and of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Re-, search and of a third member to be appointed by the two former representatives. The" third representative to be paid such remuneration as may be determined by the Development and Migration Commission and the Council. > >An advisory committee representative of the Department of Agriculture of the various contributing States to be appointed, and the investigations to cover the whole question of the improvement- in quality and the economic production of tobacco of various types and grades in different parts, of Australia. That agreement marked the .initiation of the desire on the part of the Commonwealth Government to investigate, through the Council for Scientific <and Industrial Research, the possibilities of tobacco growing in this country. That body in its second annual report for the year ending 30th June, 1928, stated - >The tobacco investigations are being continued under the co-operative agreement detailed in the previous report. The actual work is controlled by an executive committee, and is administered from the offices of the Development and Migration Commission: > > **Mr. C.** M. Stagg, who was formerly fen officer of the Department of Agriculture, Canada, has been appointed as Director of the investigation. An extensive programme of work in all States has been adopted. It aims at thorough practical testing of typical soils and climates. As a result of those investigations we know of the possibilities of developing, the tobacco growing industry in Northern Queensland. There is in the third annual report of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research for the year ending 30th June, 1929, further reference to the progress of the inquiry into this great industry. The report states - >In each of the five mainland States the experimental work is being carried out in co-operation with the State Departments of Agriculture. Research work on the blue mould of tobacco has been assigned to the council's division of economic botany and reference to these investigations have already been made in this report. > >The aim of the Australian Tobacco Investigation is the improvement of the tobacco industry. It is hoped to improve the quality and increase the quantity of Australian-grown tobacco until at least the major part of the cured leaf used in Australian tobacco factories will be grown in Australia. Exploratory and general agronomical field tests are in progress in each of the five mainland States. Warehouse and factory tests have been made in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. The fourth annual report of the Council for Scientific and- Industrial Research for the year ending the 30th June, 1930, brings up to date the work and investigation of that body. That reports states' - >The preliminary results of such work carried out .at an experimental farm at Mareeba, North Queensland, have resulted in the Queeusland Government making available 25 blocks of land in the vicinity, the intention being to have these blocks thrown open with a view of having an area of each block planted with commercial tobacco during the current season. Co-operative research work on the blue mould disease of tobacco is under way in the council's division of plant industry, and reference to these investigations has already been made in this report. The aim of the investigation is the improvement of the tobacco industry and' it is hoped to improve the quality and to increase the quantity of Australiangrown tobacco until at least the major part of the cured leaf 'used in local tobacco factories will be grown in Australia. That report clearly demonstrates the part that has in recent years, been played by Australian institutions in refuting that oft repeated statement that Australia can never grow a tobacco suitable for our requirements or worthy of our smoking. The investigations of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research show that, in . various parts of Australia where experimental plots were instituted particularly at Mareeba, tobacco of a most useful type can be grown. The people of Mareeba are convinced that they can successfully undertake the growing of tobacco. The Queensland Government has made available certain lands for the experimental planting of tobacco and private interests are also taking a hand in that direction. When imposing duties on tobacco we must give consideration to the interests of the consumer in Australia. We must not unduly tax the worker and the smoker. The tariff should be so framed as to give a measure of protection sufficient to encourage the development of tobacco production in Australia. If we do that employment will be provided in the tobacco industry for years to come. What Australia needs to-day is the development of rural industries. Tobaccogrowing is a rural industry and there is a local market which is the best market for all the tobacco that we can grow. We are at present importing millions of pounds worth of tobacco, and if we develop this industry in Australia it will not only provide employment for our own people, but also improve our trade balance. The investigation into the tobacco industry was undertaken in. the hope that at least some members of the community would become interested in it, and I know that in my own electorate the people have been so impressed with the possibilities of this industry, as indicated in the report of the select committee, that active steps are being taken to develop it. The chambers of commerce, particularly that in the Maryborough district through its **President, Mr. W.** Eadie, are co-operating with the Agricultural Department and the local State members because they are convinced that tobacco of good quality can be grown in the district. The old idea that tobacco must be grown on the rich soils of Australia has been exploded. It has been found that many soils which are not our rich lands produce the best tobacco so long as there is a sufficient water supply, which is available in the districts to which I have referred. Those districts have, therefore, every opportunity to produce from their sandy soilssome hundreds of thousands of pounds of the millions worth of the tobacco we require in this country. Item agreed to. Items 20 and 21 agreed to. Item 22 By omitting the whole item and inserting in its stead the following item: - " 22. Cigarettes, including weight of cards and mouth-pieces contained in inside packages; Fine Cut Tobacco, suitable for the manufacture of cigarettes, per lb. British, 10s. ; intermediate, 16s. ; general, 10s." {: #subdebate-32-0-s5 .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT:
Henty .- Will the Minister agree to report progress on this item? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- No; I should like to have the whole of the tobacco duties put through to-night. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- The duty on cigarettes has been raised from 12s. 2d. British and 12s. Sd. general to a flat rate of 16s. right through. It is the first example in this schedule of the Government's abandonment of the preference to Great Britain, and, therefore, this is an item of considerable significance. I note it with the keenest regret. Without prejudicing any Australian industry, the Government might have preserved the slight preference of 6d. per lb. to the British cigarette manufacturer. It might not have been of any great benefit to the British manufacturer, but I cannot understand why this preference has been taken away. This action of the Government seems to be identical with some of its other little provocative actions against some of our great overseas markets. The preference to the British cigarette manufacturer has stood in our tariff for twenty years, and in this case it has been intentionally omitted. In some items a preference is retained that might just as well have been abandoned for all the good it is. The tariff wall has been raised so high against the British manufacturer that in reality the preference given to him has been destroyed. It is extraordinary that the Government should indulge in this wholesale destruction of the British preference in face of its strenuous endeavours at the, last imperial conference to secure, not only a retention of the preference which Great Britain extends towards Australian products, but also an extension of them.' The fight which the Australian delegation made first for an extension of ' the British preference to Australian products, and afterwards for a retention of the existing preferential duties, was quite a feature of the proceedings at that conference. I know that I shall be reminded of the great value of the Australian preference to Great Britain and of the relatively low value of Britain's preference to Australia, but there are the best reasons in / the world for that anomaly.' It is extraordinary that representatives of a Labour Government should plead with Great Britain for a preference in ,the shape of duties on items which makeup the main foodstuffs of the British working man, particularly when the difference between the wages and general conditions of the British and Australian workers arc taken into consideration. {: .speaker-L1T} ##### Mr Yates: -- Let us get the item through. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- The Government cannot expect to get the whole schedule through at one sitting. This is an unprecedented tariff schedule, not only in regard to the range of the duties increased, but also because of the violence of those increases, and it cannot be agreed to without a reasonable amount of discussion. There has not been any suspicion of stonewalling on this side. We have simply taken the points as we have come to them On points like British preference and the relation of primary to secondary industries naturally a good deal of time is occupied in the early stages of the tariff debate, but once we have made our protest on these points progress will be more rapid in the subsequent stages of the discussion. I am surprised that the Government persists in its attempt to get the tobacco items through at one sitting, and I am disgusted at this wilful attempt on its part to destroy one small grain of preference to the British manufacturers. it is, in fact, a hostile demonstration against those manufacturers. It is an attack on a system of preference which has been in force in Australia for more than twenty years, and hitherto has been subscribed to by every political party in charge of the tariff in this country. {: #subdebate-32-0-s6 .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay -- This item abolishes the preference granted to the British manufacturer of cigarettes. Whatever arrangements may be made with tobacco-growing countries, we should not place the manufacturers of the United States of America on the same footing as the manufacturers of cigarettes in the United Kingdom or any other country. The United States of America takes practically no commodities from Australia. Australia's trade relations with the United States of America are very unsatisfactory, and during the last ten years we have had to send to that country no less a sum than £210,000,000 in gold to redress the adverse trade balance. As it refuses to offer trade reciprocity we should take advantage of this tariff to turn the balance more in our favour. Particularly should we give preference to the United Kingdom, which is our best customer and buy3 half of our exports. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- And to which most of our interest is paid. {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- If most of our interest is paid to the United Kingdom it is only because most of the money which Australia has borrowed for both Commonwealth . and State requirements, for the establishment of Canberra, the building of railways and roads, and general developmental works, which provided employment for our citizens, came from that country. While the United States of America refuses to buy Australian commodities other than a little wool and a few sausage casings, we should impose higher duties, if not an absolute embargo, on the goods it sends to us. I shall support any proposal to give to friendly nations that buy our products preference over the United States of America, and to the United Kingdom preference over all other countries. Australia must for a time continue to import tobacco, principally cigarettes. British cigarettes are far superior to any other from abroad, and should not be on the same tariff basis as the products of other countries. {: #subdebate-32-0-s7 .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY:
Swan .- What has been said by the honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Corser)** should convince the Minister that some preference should be given to cigarettes from the United Kingdom, which is Australia's best customer. To test the feeling of the committee, I move - >That the item be amended by adding the following: - *"And* on and after 14th May, 1931 - > >Cigarettes, including weight of cards and mouth-pieces contained in inside packages; fine cut tobacco, suitable for the manufacture of cigarettes; whether wholly or in part of British labour and material, per lb., British, 14s.; intermediate, 15s.; general, 16s." Those duties will enable concessions to be made to France, Belgium or any other country, which later concludes a reciprocal trade agreement with the Commonwealth. I shall show later when we are dealing with cigars that the Government has not adequately exploited the opportunities for getting revenue from this source. {: #subdebate-32-0-s8 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP -- Briefly the reasons for withdrawing the preference of 6d. a lb. to the United Kingdom were these: - Considerable difficulty was experienced in administering the preference provisions owing to the fact that the bulk of the raw materials for the manufacture of cigarettes is imported into the United Kingdom, and in a number of cases the precentage of labour and/or material in the factory or works cost of the finished cigarettes was not sufficient to enable them to qualify for preference. On several occasions cigarettes declared on invoices to be entitled to preference were found upon investigation in the United Kingdom to contain less than 75 per cent. of United Kingdom labour and/or material in the factory costs, and accordingly were not eligible for preference. The action of the Government in increasing the margin of protection has brought about immediate and beneficial results from an employment point of view. The increased duty was the determining factor in inducing two well-known United Kingdom manufacturers to establish factories in Australia. The new capital invested amounts to over £600,000, and the 'additional employees for whom work has been found number nearly 500. Good progress is reported by both firms. {: #subdebate-32-0-s9 .speaker-KOC} ##### Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield .- I protest against the abolition of the preference to Great Britain in respect of this item. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- Did not the honorable member listen to my explanation? {: .speaker-KOC} ##### Mr HAWKER: -- I did. The Minister merely stated that in some instances the preference had been abused, and that the officials of the department were not able to police it adequately. I am satisfied that if the Government had a real will to foster trade with the United Kingdom proper safeguards could have be,en evolved. This is the only item on which British preference appears to have been completely abolished. I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Swan **(Mr. Gregory),** and if the Minister will not accept it I hope that he will at least agree to some measure of British preference. This principle of preference to the United Kingdom is most important to Australia. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- What preference are the British people giving to Australian wheat to-day? {: .speaker-KOC} ##### Mr HAWKER: -- It is true that the Labour Government in Great Britain prefers to buy the slave-produced " red " wheat of Russia rather than the whitegrown .wheat of the dominions, but I am hopeful that the Old Country will noi always have a government so sympathetic with the Russian communists. During the last twenty years this country has never been more dependent upon Great Britain than she is to-day, and it is regrettable to find that this Government is wilfully -withdrawing a small measure of preference, not only on this, but on many other i tems yet to be discussed. In matters of trade it is our duty to give some consideration to that country, which is always ready to protect not only Australia, but other portions of the Empire. If we wish to maintain the standards which we now enjoy we should be prepared to defend them, and if we cannot defend them we should at least extend preferential treatment to those who are doing so. I support the amendment. {: #subdebate-32-0-s10 .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Warringah -- I regard the explanation of the Minister **(Mr. Forde)** concerning the withdrawal of the preference to Great Britain under this item as most unsatisfactory. He stated that as the officials of the Customs Department do not consider that cigarettes of British manufacture contain 75 per cent, of British material and workmanship the preference should be withdrawn. There is no reason why that absurd regulation under which preference is allowed only in respect of imports containing not less than 75 per cent, of British material and workmanship should remain operative. I question the accuracy of the decision of the Customs Department in this matter. It is true that much of the material from which cigarettes are manufactured, both in Australia and Great Britain, is obtained outside the Empire; but I submit that the workmanship and material involved must represent considerably more than 75 per cent, of the finished article. Our dependence upon Great Britain justifies the continuance of British preferential duties. Moreover, we are looking to Great Britain to help us in other important directions. I ask the- committee to recall the determined effort which the Prime Minister **(Mr. Scullin)** made before the Economic Conference in Great Britain to retain the British preferential duties on Australian products, and how **Mr. Phillip** Snowden definitely stated that he was entirely opposed to the existing preferences because they inflicted severe hardship upon the working people of Great Britain. All. that the Prime Minister achieved as a result of his presence at the Economic Committee was the retention of the existing preferences; but this 'Government is not meeting Great Britain in the same spirit. It has withdrawn the preference in respect of this item and also many others, and I protest against its action, particularly at this most inopportune time. As the honorable member for Swan **(Mr. Gregory)** pointed out, Great Britain, who is our best customer, is entitled to special consideration. By interjection, the honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley)** referred to the manner in which our wheat is received in Great Britain; but mat is a commodity upon which preference is not given to any nation. The honorable member, doubtless, had in mind the purchase of Russian wheat by Great Britain ; but that wheat was bought by co-operative societies on behalf of the labouring classes in that country, who are receiving only one-half of the wages that are paid in this country. At that time Great Britain was also faced with a threat from the wheat combine in America to corner all wheat supplies and thus have an opportunity to charge the people of Great Britain, many of whom were on the verge of starvation, any price it liked. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- I rise to a point of order. Is the honorable member for Warringah **(Mr. Parkhill)** in order in discussing wheat on this item? {: #subdebate-32-0-s11 .speaker-L1T} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Yates:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA -- The honorable member for Warringah i3 dealing with the subject of preferential trade and, within certain limits, is entitled to discuss its application to wheat. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL: -- The subject of preferential trade is involved in this instance, but wheat is a commodity upon which preference is not given by Great Britain to any nation. I am in favour of maintaining the existing preferences to Great Britain, and of extending them wherever practicable. It is possible, perhaps, that in some instances the existing preferences are not scientifically framed, and may, with advantage, be varied. That, however, does not apply to the item under discussion. According to the Government's proposal a distinct preference will be granted to the United States of America at the expense of Great Britain. I am not prepared to agree to the extension of preference to the United States of America, and I shall vote for any amendment the object of which is to restore preference to Great Britain. {: #subdebate-32-0-s12 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton -- I support the amendment of the honorable member for Swan **(Mr. Gregory).** In order to overcome the objection raised by the Minister, I propose that the preferen tial duty to Great Britain shall apply where the goods are wholly or in part of British manufacture. The Minister said that it was difficult to maintain the preference rate because of the provision requiring that 75 per cent, of material or labour shall be British. If my suggestions were adopted this difficulty would be overcome, and we should be assisting a British industry which provides employment for many workers. I remind honorable members that only recently the Prime Minister and other Ministers were in Great Britain attending the Imperial and Economic Conferences, and, with great difficulty, persuaded the British Government to maintain the preferences to Australian goods granted when **Mr. Bruce** was in England in 1926. Great Britain is our best customer. She takes 50 per cent, of our primary products, while the United States of America takes only as little as she can, and our trade balance with her is £40,000,000 on the wrong side of the ledger. Only recently she increased the duty on our butter, and, indeed, every time Australia has been able to establish a trade with her in any commodity, she has immediately increased the tariff, making it impossible for us to continue. Empire trade can be developed only by means of an interchange of preference between the various parts of the Empire. The present action of the Government is a very ungrateful one, seeing that the British Government has extended preference to us on many items. Not only have we abolished the preference that Britain is enjoying upon this item, but we have actually granted a measure of preference to the United States of America, which has always ranked as a foreign country on our tariff schedule. In my opinion, British preference should be increased rather than reduced. The arguments of the Minister make it clear that there is no will on the part of the Government to grant preference to Great Britain; otherwise, the difficulties he has raised could easily have been overcome. {: .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr Curtin: -- At present 94 per cent, of the cigarettes imported into Australia come from Great Britain. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS: -- Then why remove the preference she is enjoying? I trust that honorable members will take such action as will restore British preference. We are dependent on Great Britain to buy our primary produce, and up to the present preference has been extended by the two countries to each other's products with advantage to both. Motion (by **Mr. James)** put - >That the question be now put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. McGrath.) AYES: 3 NOES: 0 AYES NOES Woes . . . . . . 56 Majority . . 53 Question so resolved in the negative. {: #subdebate-32-0-s13 .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY:
Swan .- I press for an acceptance of the amendment I have moved.. In reply to the remarks of the Minister respecting the benefit of the preferential tariff, I need only say that in 1927-28, of the 909,000 lb. of cigarettes that were imported by Australia from Great Britain, 501,000 lb. came in. at the preferential rate of duty. {: #subdebate-32-0-s14 .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT:
Henty .- I support the amendment, and appeal to the Government, if it cannot consent to it, to at least grant as an alternative the rates of duty that operated under the tariff before this alteration was made. Mr.FORDE (Capricornia - Minister for Trade and Customs) [11.27].- This preference is of no practical value. The manufacturers of British cigarettes do not want it, because, under the provision inserted in the Customs Act while the late **Mr. Pratten** was Minister for Trade and Customs, it would be necessary to prove the use of 75 per cent. of British labour and/or material. Those chiefly benefited by it were Godfrey Phillips and Carreras, and they are now manufacturing in Australia. It was probably while the honorable member for Henty (Mr.Gullett) was Minister for Trade and Customs in 1929 that it was found that certain frauds were being perpetrated, by the wrongful application for British preference. In that year, of 979,000 lb. of cigarettes imported intoAustralia from the United Kingdom, the demand could be made for British preference with respect to only 271,000 lb. The matter is not worth haggling over. Amendment negatived. Item agreed to. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 1877 {:#debate-33} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-33-0} #### Hunter District Farmers : Flood Relief - Unemployed: Treatment in Canberra - Communications from Constituents - Case of **Mr. Jacob** Johnson. Motion (by **Mr. Scullin)** proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-33-0-s0 .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES:
Hunter -- I have received from the farming community of the Hunter district a letter in which they appeal to me to ask the Prime Minister **(Mr. Scullin)** to grant them some assistance, owing to the fact that they have been flooded out on two occasions in the last ten months, and have neither fodder, seed millet, nor anything else that would enable them to carry on. Dairy farming country that, prior to the second visitation, Was a veritable Garden of Eden so far as crops were concerned, has been turned into mud banks, upon which there is nothing but rotten vegetation, and ruined homes. I have appealed to the Prime Minister previously for assistance for these people, and he has said that it is a matter for the State Government to deal with. The State Government granted flood relief in this area last June, and it is precluded from doing anything further in that regard, because of the present financial position of the State. I wrote to the Prime Minister on the subject, and he replied that he would refer it to Cabinet. I have since been informed that Cabinet gave the request sympathetic consideration, but could not grant any financial relief. There is a precedent for the granting of such relief. The Commonwealth voted £5,000 for the relief of flood sufferers in Tasmania. The people of Tasmania have not suffered from two floods within twelve months. My electorate is as large as Tasmania. The people for whom I appeal require fodder and seed millet to enable them to carry on their operations. Even if the Government cannot grant £5,000 for this purpose, it can grant £1,000 to assist in some measure to relieve their sufferings. The Commonwealth Government also granted £50,000 for the relief of those who suffered from a Japanese disaster some years ago. If that amount of money could be sent out of Australia to a foreign country, it should not be beyond the resources of the Government to grant some relief to our own Australian people who, in many cases, are on the verge of starvation. ' I wish to refer to the treatment meted out to the unemployed in Canberra. I understand that the men are granted rations on entering and on leaving the Federal Capital Territory ; but they must be able to prove conclusively to the police that they have been away a month before they can obtain any further rations. There are a number of cubicles in this area very suitable for occupation by old men who cannot stand exposure to the winter climate here. ' The New South Wales Government is doing considerably more for unemployed than this Government is doing, for it grants weekly rations to people out of work, irrespective of (whether they remain in one town or not. The Minister for Home Affairs **(Mr. Blakeley)** has said that because this Government grants rations to the value of 9s. a week to single men, it is treating them better than the New South Wales Government treats the State unemployed, but the honorable gentleman forgets other factors in the case. Apparently he does not take into consideration the higher cost of living in Canberra which reduces the purchasing power of the 9s. to the equivalent of the State ration. In Sydney alone 90,000 unemployed are in receipt of the dole, and in my own electorate 12,000 are receiving it. There are thus several times as many unemployed in my electorate as there are in Canberra and the Northern Territory. The unemployed people for whom I am pleading are Australian citizens, but they are forced to suffer almost every humiliation before they can obtain any assistance from the Government. It is idle for the Government to say that it is the responsibility of the State Governments to give succour to the unemployed here, or elsewhere for that matter, for in 1929 the Prime Minister declared in his policy speech that no one in this country would be allowed to go hungry. He indicated that his Government would at least assist in feeding the destitute people. Thousands of people in my electorate are on the verge of starvation. It is said by some Government supporters that they are against the policy of repudiation. In my opinion the Prime "Minister and the Treasurer are the last persons in the world who should object to repudiation, for they and other Government supporters have repudiated many election promises that they made. It was promised, for instance, that the coal mines would be reopened in a fortnight if Labour were returned to power. That promise has not been fulfilled. This is repudiation of the worst and cruellest type. The Prime Minister likened the sufferings of the people in my electorate to the sufferings of those who were the victims of a blockade during war time, which brought innocent women and children to starvation. By this he intended to convey that if Labour were returned to power the miners' sufferings would cease. The right honorable gentleman has no justification whatever for holding up his hands in holy horror against **Mr. Lang's** policy, for it is quite apparent that he and others are more concerned about the wealthy bondholders in Australia and elsewhere, than they are about the people who are hungry, and who to-day are being treated most callously by this Government. {: #subdebate-33-0-s1 .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney . I wish to refer to a matter that I mention this afternoon at question time. I consider that the Prime Minister has been guilty of a form of treatment of a most 'petty nature to certain honorable members of this House. It is a recognized procedure that when correspondence is sent to the Government, or to the Prime Minister from a particular electorate the honorable member who represents that electorate in Parliament shall be given the opportunity to make representation in regard to it. {: .speaker-JOG} ##### Mr Bayley: -- The Prime Minister said this morning that he was looking into the matter. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr Scullin: -- I have looked into it, and I have a complete answer to the honorable member's allegations. {: .speaker-JOG} ##### Mr Bayley: -- I have had many such letters referred to me by the Prime Minister. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY: -- That may be quite true. The honorable member for Oxley **(Mr. Bayley)** may be more highly favoured than certain other honorable members who sit in this corner of the House. {: .speaker-JOG} ##### Mr Bayley: -- The honorable member for West Sydney probably deserves the treatment he has received. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY: -- And the honorable member for Oxley is, no doubt, receiving his reward for the assistance he renders the Government. I wish to explain that it is the recognized custom that the member foT the district should first have the opportunity of dealing with the matter, but I find that, in two cases - the references are the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** and myself - electors have written to the Prime Minister - {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr Gullett: -- Why? {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY: -- For the purpose of having some matters attended to. In the particular cases to which I refer the questions involved related to invalid and old-age and soldier pensions. The answer which I received from the Prime Minister this morning was that he would make inquiries. His reply to me this afternoon by letter stated that it was usual to refer such correspondence either to the representative of the district in this House, or to one of the senators for the State. This is the point which I wish to make in order to bring into relief the pettiness of the Prime Minister : There are three Labour senators for the State of New South Wales. Instead of this correspondence being sent by the Prime Minister to either **Senator Dunn** or **Senator Bae,** it was sent to **Senator Dooley.** If honorable members cannot see the underlying motive, then all I can say is that they are blind to the attitude that has been taken up by the Prime Minister. It is most petty and contemptible. His action certainly will not harm either the representative for East Sydney or myself. It merely shows to what lengths he is prepared to go to give vent to his spleen towards certain members of this House, for whom he has conceived a considerable dislike. There was no reason for preferential treatment being given in this matter to one senator over another. But the right honorable gentleman was aware that the two senators whose names I have mentioned are associated with the honorable member for East Sydney and myself in a certain policy which we believe should be adopted. Accordingly, he departed from the usual procedure and omitted to refer the matter to either of them. I regard his action as a very petty and contemptible one. {: #subdebate-33-0-s2 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- I have endeavoured, in questions which I have submitted to the Attorney-General, to ascertain when the Government is likely to dispose of the case of **Mr. Jacob** Johnson. I understand, from answers which I have received, that the Government intends to give this matter consideration. In my opinion the Ministry has had ample time to arrive at a decision. I am not going to say that time should not be allowed the Government to consider this question, but I suspect that it does not intend to finalize it. During the absence of the Attorney-General from Australia an inquiry was made into the case. A few days ago the honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley)** asked that the report should be laid on the table of the House. His request was refused. I gather from what I have been told that the report contains some startling statements relating to certain persons who were connected with the case, and I may add that we are determined that certain aspects of the case shall eventually be made known to the people of Australia. We believe it is only right that they should be so informed. I am prepared to allow the Government reasonable time to reach a decision, but I remind Ministers that my patience is not unlimited. I shall expect some definite decision to be announced in the near future. I say now to the Attorney-General that I hope he will speed his inquiry, and speed the time when he will be able to announce a decision in the matter. Unless he hurries it along members of the group with which I am associated intend to ventilate it on the floor of the House. {: #subdebate-33-0-s3 .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · Darling -- With reference to the statement made by the .honorable member for Hunter **(Mr.** James), all I need say is that, unfortunately for him, practically the whole of what he said was a strong indictment of the Government of New South Wales. It could not be construed as a reflexion upon the treatment by the Commonwealth Government of the unemployed in the Federal Capital Territory. In no other part of Australia are they treated so well. They receive better rations, and they obtain more work, particularly in Canberra. Possibly they do not receive quite as good treatment in other territories under the control of the Commonwealth Government; but in Central and North Australia, we have a large number of men engaged in prospecting, to whom we are making a sustenance allowance of £1 per week. That, I submit, is infinitely better than handing out the dole. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr James: -- And yet the Minister told me he would not advise any one to go there. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- I should not advise any one to go there merely to receive £1 a week as sustenance for prospecting. Because of the uniformly better treatment which men receive in the Northern Territory and Central Australia considerable numbers of unemployed are leaving other States to go to Darwin. The reason why Canberra is so popular - if one may use such a term - with the unemployed is that the conditions here are infinitely better, than in New South Wales, notwithstanding the statement of the honorable member for Hunter, who has just told us that men can get rations at any time in New South Wales. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr James: -- So they can. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- In Canberra excellent accommodation is provided for the workless. There is no better provision anywhere in Australia than that which is made available here for the travelling unemployed. In the several camps there are fireplaces, kitchens, and cubicles, and the men have warmth as well as an adequate supply of water for baths and washing of clothes. If the New South Wales Government were one-half as solicitous for the welfare of its unemployed as the honorable member would have us believe, there would be no travelling unemployed coming to Canberra. The honorable member knows that. He claims that conditions in New South Wales are infinitely better than those obtaining in Canberra. If so, it is remarkable that these men should leave good conditions to come to poorer ones. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr James: -- That is because they are anxious to obtain work. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- The honorable member cannot get away with a statement like that. There is no district in New South Wales which offers such generous treatment to its travelling unemployed as does Canberra. I have given the subject my personal attention, because I have had very bitter experience myself. Recently, in response to a request from the unemployed, I approved the issuing of a walking-out ration at a time when it was impossible for travelling unemployed to get more than one ration a week in any town in New South Wales. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr James: -- Why did not the ionorable gentleman arrange for those men to receive rations while staying here? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- The reason why they come to Canberra is because they receive better rations, as well as water, firowood and a cover over their heads. The Government has made those conveniences available to the unfortunates who are compelled to travel in their search for employment, and it will continue to do so. {: #subdebate-33-0-s4 .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN:
AttorneyGeneral · Batman · ALP -- The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** has raised the case of. **Mr. Jacob** Johnson for the consideration of the House. I should not like the honorable member to be under any misapprehension in the matter. The position is that the case of **Mr. Jacob** Johnson was considered by the Government, and the decision was conveyed to that gentleman. The fact that I haye been subjected to a great deal of personal abuse by the person in question, through the press, and by correspondence, has notprevented me from extending the usual courtesies to those who have written concerning certain matters arising out of the case. Those matters also will be considered in due course. **Mr. Johnson's** further representations, and those of his friends, must take their place in line with other business of the country, which is, at least, of equal importance. I assure the honorable member for East Sydney that if he has any desire to ventilate any aspect of the case in this House he certainly ought not to restrain himself out of any sense of considerationfor me, or the Government. The honorable member is perfectly free to take whatever action he thinks proper in that regard whenever he wishes to do so. {: #subdebate-33-0-s5 .speaker-K9H} ##### Mr GARDNER:
Robertson .- While I do not associate myself with the tone or the text of the remarks which the honorable member for Hunter **(Mr. James)** made this evening with regard to the causes which have led the *New* South Wales Government into the position that it is impossible for the farmers of that State to look to it for help, I support the honorable member absolutely as to the seriousness of the position in which farmers in his, and in part of my electorate, find themselves. Flood followed flood so closely that the crops of those unfortunate men were destroyed, and even when they made a further sowing of lucerne their efforts were nullified. Unless some help is forthcoming they will not be able to rerestabliah themselves. I appeal to the Prime Minister to exhaust every constitutional avenue in an effort to provide assistance to that deserving section of the community. {: #subdebate-33-0-s6 .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN:
Prime Minister · Yarra · ALP -- The honorable members for Hunter **(Mr. James)** and Robertson **(Mr. Gardner)** have raised the matter of the flooded areas in their districts, The Government investigated the subject very sympathetically, but it was forced to the conclusion that if it provided relief in this and every other case where there was undoubted distress, it would be intruding into an area that belongs unquestionably to the State concerned. It would soon become involved in all problems, State and Federal alike, and I do not know where that would end. It is not lack of sympathy, but the question of where the apportionment of responsibility, should rest, which must determine the action of the Government. If this request were acceded to, others would pour in from other sections of New South Wales, from the flooded areas of Queensland, and from every other part of the Commonwealth where suffering and disability existed. It is not reasonable always to appeal to the Commonwealth when a difficulty arises in a State. The honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley)** raised a matter in connexion with which he accused me of being petty and contemptible and of venting my spleen on him. I assure the honorable gentleman that there is not the slightest foundation for any of those charges. This morning he asked me a question as to the custom which directs that correspondence concerning any matter should go to the member for the district. Obviously, it is not possible for a Prime Minister to attend personally to all of his correspondence, and I have given definite instructions that the usual courtesy shall be extended to every honorable member irrespective of the party or group to which he belongs. When the honorable gentleman asked his question I assured him that if the case he referred to was brought under my notice I would have it investigated. Since then the honorable member mentioned to my secretary the case of a person at Darlinghurst. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- That concerns the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward).** {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- I sent a letter to the honorable member for West Sydney today regarding that matter. A letter was sent to **Senator Dooley** who, I understand made representations in this case. Surely an honorable senator is just as much a representative of the people as is any member of this House. I can point to instances where letters have been sent to **Senator Rae, Senator Dunn,** and to other honorable senators, supporters of both parties, concerning matters upon, which their constituents have made representations to the Government. That is the usual procedure. I give honorable members a genuine assurance - that I have issued no instructions in this matter other than that the ordinary procedure shall be followed. If the honorable member for West Sydney thinks that I have been petty and contemptible, he is entirely wrong. As Prime Minister, I would not stoop to giving a paltry instruction of that description. My reply to the honorable member's request was a courteous letter, in which I stated that it was the custom to send such correspondence to the member for the district, or a senator, as the case may be. I make no distinction between an honorable member of this chamber, and honorable senators in another place. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- In both cases, the correspondence went to one honorable senator. Mr.SCULLIN. - I have explained the position. I have not the time to deal with every letter that is addressed to me. I have a very efficient department, and a capable secretary who carries out the general instructions that I have given. If a mistake has been made - I do not think that any has been made - steps will be taken to put matters right; Even if, in the twocases whichhave been mentioned, a mistake was made, it is rather petty to bring the matter up in the House and to charge me with being contemptible. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 12 midnight.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 13 May 1931, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1931/19310513_reps_12_129/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant