12th Parliament · 1st Session
Mr. Speaker (Hon. Norman Makin) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and offered prayers.
page 1988
Attitude of Banks to Government
– I ask the Prime Minister if there is any foundation for the report that as the bill providing for the shipment of the gold reserve to London to avoid default in respect of Commonwealth obligations maturing there next month has been defeated in another place, the banks will as a last resort come to the aid of the Government? If this be so, how can the banks make further moneys available when they have declared that they have already reached the end of their resources and cannot further assist the Government ?
– The measures being taken by the Government to meet the obligations of the Commonwealth are not complete, and I cannot make any statement on the subject at this juncture.
page 1988
– Will the Prime Minister state whether the Government has considered the advisability of calling to the bar of the House, to give evidence on the economic position, Jock Garden, author of the Lang plan,and Mrs. Lyons, political proselytizer of the Leader of the Opposition ?
Question not answered.
page 1988
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -
In view of the following facta, viz. : -
– It is true that certain economists have urged that the maldistribution of gold throughout the world is one of the chief causes of the present financial troubles, but I am not aware that these economists have urged the issue of large quantities of silver coinage as a means of overcoming these troubles. The present silver currency in Australia is maintained to meet the actual needs of the community, and it would be impracticable to issue and keep in active circulation any large quantity of coinage beyond present requirements.
page 1988
asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
Will he supply the following information: -
The number of½yard and1 -yard power shovels manufactured in Australia during the last three years?
The number of the same class of shovels imported into Australia during the same period?
The landed cost in Australia, duty paid, also the cost exclusive of duty?
The selling price of the same machines made in Australia?
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. The official records do not show the number of such shovels manufactured in or imported into Australia.
page 1989
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -
Will he ask the British Government if they will consider steps to prohibit the “dumping’” of butter into Britain by the Russian Soviet, so that Australia’s share of the Empire market may be safeguarded?
– The matter will receive consideration.
page 1989
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -
With reference to the report of a German move to obtain a conference during the visit of the German Chancellor (Dr. Bruning) and the Foreign Minister (Dr. Curtis) to London next month to discuss war debts moratorium, is the Government favorable to Australia being represented if the opportunity offers, in view of the great importance to Australia of war debts at the present time?
– The German Chancellor and the Foreign Minister are paying a visit to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in September next, but I know of no intention to hold a conference on the subject of war debts. Should such a conference be proposed, action necessary to safeguard the interests of Australia will be taken.
page 1989
asked the Treasurer, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow . -
page 1989
Unions Registered
– Yesterday the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Keane) asked me the following questions, upon notice -
I am now in a position to furnish the honorable member with the following answers : -
page 1989
Interest and Exchange
– On the 8th May the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Keane) asked the following questions, upon notice -
The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -
page 1989
– On the 14th May, the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Keane) asked the following questions, upon notice -
The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -
page 1990
World Conference - German Customs Duty
– On the 8th May the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Crouch) asked me the following questions, upon notice -
I am now in a position to furnish the honorable member with the following reply : -
The conference was of opinion that mediumterm and long-term credit is as useful to organizations as to individuals, and that it should also serve to facilitate the construction of elevators, of grain stores and of cooperative warehouses, and the organization of co-operative societies for the marketing of grain, and of other agricultural products.
The conference also decided torequest the International Institute of Agriculture to continue its studies with reference to agricultural credit, and to endeavour to draw up a general scheme for the organization of short-term agricultural credit.
On the 1st May the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker) referred to a report published in the press to the effect that the German Government proposed to reduce the import duty on wheat, and that the reduced duty would apply to 20,000,000 bushels, and asked whether I was able to confirm that report.
I undertook to have inquiries made into the matter, and, accordingly, cabled to the High Commissioner, London, asking him to be good enough to investigate the statement, and advise me of the result. I am now in receipt of a reply from the High Commissioner intimating that the German Embassy, London, referred the matter to Berlin, and now states that there is no reduction in the duty on wheat (which is now 6s.8¼d. per bushel), but a rebate of one-fifth of the duty (equivalent to1s. 4d. per bushel) is granted to millers who use imported flour during the period April to June, 1931. This concession is restricted to one-fifth of the total quantity of wheat milled in Germany during that period. The German Embassy is unable to state the quantity of wheat affected by the concession.
page 1990
Customs Duties
In Committee of Ways and Means: Consideration resumed from the 14th May (vide page 1974), on motion by Mr. Forde -
That the schedule to the customs tariff be amended -
Division IV. - Agricultural Products and Groceries.
Item 73 (Matches and vestas of all kinds).
.- For many years the protection afforded to the match industry under various tariff schedules has been regarded as more than ample, and I am familiar with a number of computations showing that if the Commonwealth paid out of the Treasury the wages of all employees in this industry and allowed matches to be admitted duty free lie tax upon the consumer would be less than it is under these protective duties. Notwithstanding that, this Government’ has seen fit to impose additional duties amounting to virtual prohibition. I do not propose to discuss the item at length, because the discussion on previous items has already demonstrated that supporters of the Government intend to vote on close party lines. For the first time in the history of tariff-making in this Parliament we have seen the party whip at work, and again and again on the few divisions taken on this schedule, Government supporters have voted solidly behind the Minister. That would not be so remarkable if any considerable number of honorable members remained in the chamber, but throughout the discussion the benches on the Government side have been almost empty. Despite this welter of increased taxation, involving the construction of a new price level in respect of many household commodities, ministerial members have displayed complete indifference, but at the cracking of the whip have trooped in to the support of the Minister, and voted for the high duties he has imposed. That has been an unfortunate feature of the consideration of this schedule. Apparently the protection previously afforded the industry was not high enough to satisfy the Minister and his Government. I shall place on record the increases on a percentage basis. On the seven items concerned they are 50 per cent., 100 per cent., 50 per cent., 80 per cent., 50 per cent., 100 per cent., and 40 per cent. Nobody could suggest that those percentage increases are the result of careful investigation. It is evident that adequate time has not been given to the inquiry into the match industry by the Tariff Board, the Minister, or his departmental officers. The rates have been fixed much as if the task of fixing them had been allotted’ to an office boy. It has already been shown that prohibitive duties have been imposed to assist already established industries, such as those engaged in by our biscuit and confectionery companies, and the Minister has failed to produce a scrap of. evidence to show either that a request was made for them or that ‘they were warranted.
– What is the motive underlying the imposition of these duties?
– I have not the faintest idea. Honorable members are persistently begging the Minister to be fair with the committee, and at least advance some reason for these wild tariff schemes. This kind of thing is a direct invitation to Australian manufacturers to create monopolies.
– The honorable member . stated that the monopolists were opposed to the duties. He cannot have it both ways.
– It is but human nature that they should exploit the community if the Minister gives them an invitation and an opportunity to do so. Inevitably the imposition of these duties will lead to a stiff all-round increase in prices, and to a direct increase of the burden on primary producers, exporters, and manufacturers other than those benefited. In reality, the Minister is making war upon the manufacturers^ the very class that he is ostensibly setting out to assist.
There, unfortunately, one must leave the matter. If the Minister would give the committee reasons for the duties, an endeavour might be made to discuss them. If no protest is made against these startling increases, the honorable member advances no explanation. When there is a protest, he puts forward halfadozen reasons, each equally ridiculous and groundless. Then the whip is cracked, the numbers are summoned, and the item goes through.
.- I should have thought that by this time the Minister would be prepared to relent somewhat in regard to the rates of duty which he introduced last year. When this high- schedule was originated the honorable gentleman’s party had just returned from the poll, exulting in the first flush of victory.. Among, other things the party had promised to impose very heavy duties, ostensibly for the purpose of establishing industries in Australia. At that time wages had reached their peak, but it was the hope of the Government that they might be further increased. Since then wages have suffered an all-round decrease^ and there is a prospect of their falling still further. It is not evident to the Minister and to the Government that the standard of assistance that industry might have required in 1929 is not on all-fours with present requirements. Wages have fallen, as also has the cost of raw material, so that the outgoing of manufacturers have undergone a general reduction. In the circumstances they do not require the high protection that might have been necessary when the -duties were imposed. It should he apparent that to give a protection higher than is needed by industry is simply asking manufacturers to take advantage of the monopoly thereby created. Unfortunately, these impositions are on the food and every-day requirements of the people. The committee has examples of their excessive nature in the duty of 4d. per lb. on coffee, and fid. per lb. on tea. There is no chance of producing either of those commodities in Australia.
– Order !
– I merely mention these facts to illustrate how unnecessary are these onerous duties on every-day requirements. I shall compare the attitude of the Government in these matters with that adopted by it with regard to wheat. The wheat industry is sorely in need of assistance, and to alleviate the hurden of the farmers honorable members on this side suggested a tax on flour. That the Government refused to accept on the ground that it would be a tax on the food of the people. Yet the schedule imposes excessive duties on many items of foods which are in every-day use by the people of Australia. One must conclude that when a duty would assist the rural industry it meets with the disapproval of the Government, but that when it would benefit the city industries the Government stands strongly behind it. I believe that the motivepower behind the Government is the urge of the unions to impose these high duties in the expectation that that will bring about higher wages. That is all very well from the point of view of the unions, but it must be obvious to all that what is being done is at the expense of the rest of the community. If the farmers had as effective a union as the workers they would no doubt receive similar assistance from the Government. Lacking that coercive means they are left without help, and obliged to contribute to the maintenance of the progressively high duties, which are imposed to assist city industries.
An unfair distinction is being made in favour of city industries, as against rural industries, and also in favour of the more populous States as against the more sparsely settled ones. That state of affairs will continue until a total change of government is effected. The policy of the Government has resulted in the payment of very high salaries to a chosen few, and it has also made half a dozen manufacturers exceedingly rich; but on the whole it has left the city stranded. It has resulted in great cities like Sydney and Melbourne suffering sorely from the present depression. It is of no use to swell the population of the cities while contracting that of the country areas. There must he co-ordination between the two. Statistics disclose that in recent years the trend of population has been from the country to the labour centres in the cities. That great fattening process is reaching its inevitable crisis. The huge cities of Sydney and Melbourne are top heavy, and will not recover equilibrium until the policy of the Government is discontinued. I have very little sympathy with those who stress the extreme hardship that is now being felt by the people in the great cities. That is simply the result of the predatory policy which has assisted the cities at the expense of country centres. This policy has been pushed too far.
.- I support this increase in duties. Honorable members opposite have claimed that there is no justification for it; that over a period of years there have been successive increases of this nature in order to afford protection to the Australian matchmaking industry. It is true that the Government have endeavoured to establish that industry in this country. On the last occasion when a deputation from those concerned made representations to the Minister a considerable consignment of Russian matches was on the way to Australia. Some were already being sold in the suburban retail shops of Sydney at a price with which it was im- possible for local manufacturers to compete. As a matter of fact, the cost of the raw materials used in the manufacture of pur matches was greater than the total selling price in Australia of the finished Russian product. The match industry, more than any other, is entitled to the sympathetic consideration of this House.
– “Why?
– For the good and sufficient reason that the conditions of labour in that industry are almost ideal.
– But are not the conditions of labour ideal everywhere .under arbitration?
– They are not. Special consideration is shown by this firm to its employees.
– But the original duty on matches was so high that it yielded a return in excess of the entire wages paid to employees in the Australian match industry.
– That may be so, but it does not necessarily follow that the price of matches to the public has been increased to the same extent. The match manufacturing industry has been successfully established in Australia, and is providing profitable employment for many persons. The factory is turning out a product not inferior to that produced in any other part of the world. Some time ago the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Yates) paid a visit to Bryant and May’s factory in Melbourne, and afterwards had nothing but praise for the manner in which the industry was carried on and the conditions under which the employees worked. Their surroundings are probably more beautiful than are those enjoyed by any other workers. They have a splendid dining-room at their disposal, an entertainment hall and library is provided, and_ all their wants are catered for. It is the duty of the Government to see that the tariff is maintained at a sufficiently high level to protect the industry from unfair overseas competition. Honorable members opposite are continually crying out about the conditions of labour in Russia. They say that it is impossible for other nations to compete against the forced labour in the Soviet Republic. Surely, then, they must approve of the action of this Government in taking the necessary steps to protect an Australian industry against the competition of matches imported from Russia. I believe that the Swedish match combine was largely responsible for flooding the Australian market with matches at a price with which the local manufacturers could not compete. The combine expected that, having destroyed the local industry, it would once more be able to find a profitable market for its surplus products. I support this proposed increase in duty. I have no prejudice against Soviet Russia so far as its social and economic experiments are concerned, but-
– What about the slavery that is practised there?
– Slavery is practised in other places besides Russia. If the honorable member wishes to learn something about modern slavery, let him read in a recent issue of the Review of Reviews an article dealing with labour conditions in Italy under “Mussolini. I desire to ensure the preservation of an important Australian industry in which we can exercise some supervision over labour conditions. The firm of Bryant and May has demonstrated that it is prepared to provide satisfactory conditions for its workers, and it should be protected.
.- I have not risen to question the grandeur of the match-making factory in the State of which the honorable member for Corio (Mr. Lewis) is a representative; what I take exception to is the uneconomic aspect of this industry. It can be shown that if we retired every man and woman employed in the industry, paying them the full award wages, we could make a profit of £250,000 on the deal. The fact that a few employees in a match factory have gardens and tea rooms for their entertainment is small comfort to the three or four hundred thousand persons who are unemployed as a result of the policy of this Government. It is in the minds of honorable members opposite that other countries should buy from us, but that we should buy nothing from them. They talk about the balance of trade, and the Government thinks it has done much by raising the tariff so high that no imports can be brought into the country. The importing industry has been practically strangled, and while it is true that so far our exports and imports almost balance each other, this has been accomplished by piling up a deficit of £11,000,000. There is no prospect of our ever exporting matches from Australia. We have had the best advice obtainable on economic matters, and we have been told that Australia is attempting too much in trying to establish all sorts of industries. The statements of the honorable member forCorio (Mr. Lewis) themselves constituted a condemnation of the matchmanufacturing industry in Australia. He said that the cost of material was more than that of wages. That demonstrates that the industry is not natural to the country. In my correspondence this morning I received a letter setting out ourbalance of trade with various countries. From 1924 to 1929 we imported from Belgium, France, Germany and Japan goods to the value of £66,160,000. During the same period those countries imported from us goods valued at £229,610,000, the difference in Australia’s favour being £163,450,000. Yet there are honorable members opposite who do not hesitate to offend those countries who have been such valuable customers.What is wrong with buying matches from Japan at a third of the price at which we can make them here? The Japanese people are buying our wool, wheat, and meat, and they would buy much more of those commodities if we showed more willingness to trade with them. The honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) talking about slave labour in Eastern countries, said that the English pound would buy seven times as much in Japan as it could buy in England. If that is so, the pound is worth fourteen times as much in Japan as it is in Australia. Honorable members opposite think they have created a high standard of living in this country. They have not. They have created a damnable standard. Can any country, whether inhabited by white people or black, have a lower standard of life than that of the hundreds of thousands of men and women in Australia who are out of work to-day, and dependent on the dole? This is one of the finest countries in the world, but it has been ruined by the unsound policy of which this schedule is an expression.
I am certain that no non-party economic conference would sanction imposing tariffs to bolster up losing industries as this Government has done.
Mr.CROUCH (Corangamite) [11.12]. - I do not intend to oppose this duty, because I believe that the conditions in the match factories are excellent. I wish to point out, however, that a very dangerous element has been recently introduced into the match trade in Australia. The Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) might give consideration to this matter with a view to raising revenue. About two years ago the success of the matchmanufacturing industry in Australia drew a threat from the combine known as the United Swedish Match Factories Corporation, that it would either establish factories within Australia behind the shelter of the tariff wall, and eventually swallow up the existing factories, or that it would come to an arrangement with them by which its competition would be stopped. The history of this match trust is interesting. In the American quarterly review known as Foreign Affairs, for the month of October, 1930, there is an article on the development of the match trust, in the course of which it is stated -
Several years ago Americans came to the conclusion that the export of their products could best be furthered by the merger of various producers into large corporations. The stipulations of the Sherman Act were recognised as being out of date. The same fact was perceived by the Swedish match producers long before the war. They realized that most of their output went abroad, and that their interests were not furthered by the multiplication and competition of agents of different concerns. Accordingly, as early as 1903 six Swedish factories merged with the Jonkopings-Yulcan Match Manufacturing Co., and several other enterprises were annexed in the years following. The success of this merger, reflected in increased earnings, induced those companies which were still independent to combine (in 1913) in a rival organization - the United Swedish Match Factories Corporation - This latter initiative came from Mr. Ivar Kreuger, under whose energetic leadership the new corporation made relatively greater progress than the older JonkopingsVulcan. But since the supplies of poplar wood (aspen) and chemicals for the manufacture of matches were seriously affected by the war, competition between the two companies became more and more costly; it was finally brought to an end in 1917 when they merged in a holding company, the Swedish Match Company.
The procedure adopted by this trust is interesting. In a large number of countries the manufacture of matches is in the hands of monopolies. In France, the people are supplied with matches that one has difficulty in striking. The French Government surrendered its monopoly of match manufacture to the Swedish combine.
– For £15,000,000.
– That is interesting. This great organization made a practice of approaching countries that were in financial difficulties, offering them large sums of money for the monopoly of match manufacture there. Thus the Swedish concern has developed into a universal trust of such magnitude that it had to add to its business of match manufacture a large financial and banking institution. Let me quote again from the same article -
During the past three or four years, Mr. Kreuger’s policy of expansion has been pursued ata gallop, and hence has caused some worry as to how he might weather an economic crisis. Only the head of the concern could know the effective strength or weakness of the foundations on which he had grounded his company’s far-flung and - it seemed to outsiders - unmanageably huge interests. Since the great crisis on the New York Exchange last autumn, however, we are much better informed as to how things stand. Of the eight big Kreuger securities, the four most important are listed in New York.
The various steps furnish an interesting example of the growth of a so-called “international trust.” Backed by very substantial credit from Swedish banks, Mr. Kreuger first succeeded, just after the war, in getting possession of a whole series of foreign match factories on very favorable terms. As the Swedish money market was then pretty well exhausted, Mr. Kreuger from 1922 to 1924 strove to gain access to the great supplies of Capital in England and the United States, and by successfully floating stocks, debentures and bonds he gradually assembled funds for the further consolidation of his interests. In the years following he similarly tapped the capital resources of Holland, Switzerland, France and Germany. Thus a great enterprise, originally working with purely Swedish capital, gradually advanced throughout the whole world, using foreign capital at each step of its progress.
Most of the States which tax matches were greatly in need of capital in the years after the war. To countries which needed ready money and possessed match industries which the Swedish Match Company desired to annex, Mr. Kreuger suggested substantial loans in exchange for concessions of the monopolies for the manufacture or sale of matches, or both. Not only did the countries in question get ready money, but also, in most cases, they began receiving large revenues from the match tax. The company has so far struck bargains of this kind (the terms varying) with nine European States: Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Jugo-slavia, Bumania, Greece, and more recently, Germany (1929) and Danzig (1930). There have also been three South American contracts, with Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia.
In connexion with these new-style contracts, the Swedish Match Company is supplying the States mentioned (except Peru) with loans to a face value of not less than 253 million dollars. About 94 per cent. of this nominal value - 238 million, that is - has actually been, or is to be, paid. When the fullsums have been delivered, they will yield the company a yearly interest of some 15¾ million dollars, or about62/3 per cent. on the money actually paid. This takes no account of the probable substantial earnings of the monopolies themselves. The 253 millions, with interest rates between 5 and 8½ per cent., are distributed as follows: Germany, 125 millions (of which 50 fell due on August 30, 1930, and the remaining 75 will be due on May 29, 1931 ) ; Hungary, 30; Rumania, 30; Jugo-slavia, 22; Turkey, 10; Poland, 6; Latvia, 0; Lithuania, 0; Greece, 4.86; Estonia, 1.88; Ecuador, 2; Bolivia, 2; Danzig, 1.
It is interesting to examine the policies of the Swedish Match Company whenever abnormally high protective tariffs are laid down upon its products. A number of countries, such as India, Australia and Egypt, have raised their tariffs on matches to as high as 200 per cent. of the cost price. But such exorbitant duties do not hinder the expansion of the company; in the long run, indeed, they help, for the company simply establishes its own factories in the countries in question, thus turning the high tariffs to its own profit, since its greater experience enables it easily to meet the competition of the native factories. This was the company’s policy in India, where it has set up several large plants in recent years. Such must be its policy in Australia, and presumably in Egypt as well. In view of the prohibitive new tariffs adopted by the United States, the Swedes will doubtless build factories of their own in that country, in order not to lose their share of the American market.
The Treasurer needs money, and he might consider with advantage whether it is worth while offering the right to make matches in Australia to this organization. My chief concern is for the welfare of the working classes. I realize that the manufacture of matches provides employment for Australians, and I do not see why we should import any article that can be made in this country. Match factories have been built in different parts of Australia, and, instead of allowing the present manufacturers to combine with the Swedish company, I would say to that company, “We will give you this monopoly upon your payment to us of a sum such as you have given to other European countries.” Many manufacturers have not a scrap of patriotism. They would readily employ black labour, or take any opportunity to apply to the courts for a reduction of wages regardless of the tariff protection which we give them to maintain a good standard of living for our people. The present excellent conditions of the workers in our match factories result only from the restrictions of the arbitration law. Most of the manufacturers are pure exploiters. If the Swedish company is extending its operations to this country, I wish the Government to make a bargain with it that will enable the employees in the Australian factories to retain their present wages and industrial conditions.
– The honorable member would sell the monopoly.
– Yes. The Swedish company gave £15,000,000 to the French Government for certain rights, and it has paid large sums to other European governments. We should take care that the import duty is used for the benefit of the people of Australia, and at the same time we should ensure that the present conditions of the workers are maintained.
.- The longer one listens to the arguments advanced in this debate the more one feels that every opportunity is given for the granting of favours, either to the manufacturers or to the workers. Many honorable members do not care much who pays the piper. Matches are used in every household, and their purchase is a constant item of expenditure. The committee should pause before it sanctions a duty of this description, which would add to the domestic expenses of the people. Recently it was discovered that the splints used in the making of matches here are imported. The sulphur also is obtained from beyond Australia, so what material used in the industry is Australian? Of course, a certain amount of employment is provided, but I am satisfied that it would be to the advantage of most of the girls who work in match factories if they were engaged in household duties.
– Queensland hoop pine is largely used in making the splints.
– The Minister ought to know whether Bryant and May’s import splints.
– That firm is a large buyer of Queensland hoop pine.
– It may have been,, but it is not now. Match manufacture is not a healthy industry. In 1914, the duty on matches was 8d. per gross, British, and ls. 2d. per gross foreign. In 1921, the rate was increased to ls. Id. and 2s. respectively; and, in 1929, to 2s. Id. and 3s. Under the present tariff, the duty is 3s. lOd. British, and 6s. foreign. These rates amount to an embargo on the importation of matches. The time has come when we should insist on an amendment of the Customs Act. We should not permit the Minister, or the Government, to place an embargo on the importation of goods, unless parliamentary approval of such action is obtained within a reasonable period. I believe that the exercise of such power by a Minister has been declared by the law courts to be ‘ invalid. At any rate, I doubt whether such action is legal. As Mr. Page, at one time chairman of the Tariff Board in the United States of America, has said, it is astonishing what a tremendous power men in high positions wield in connexion with tariff matters. Doubtless, corruption has become rampant in tariff affairs in that country, and I hope that Australia will not have a similar experience.
Can it be said for a moment that the present import duties on matches are levied to produce revenue? They, virtually, give a monopoly to the local manufacturers. Who are Bryant and May? A great number of firms have been registered in Great Britain with British names. The London Daily Mail, of the 22nd October, 1929, published the following paragraph: -
The “Match King”.
Mr. Kreuger, the “ Match King “, controls practically all the match trade of the world. In Britain he is associated with the British Match Company, which owns large factories in this country and in Canada.
He controls the match trade of the United States, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, South America and Japan. When Mr. Kreuger secured the French match monopoly his company paid the French Government £15,000,000.
If the French Government was able to sell its match monopoly to such advantage, perhaps the Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) would be able to make something for the people out of the monopoly in the Australian match industry. The Government is now giving the local industry a monopoly, and is receiving nothing for it.
– We should be able to get £20,000,000, and that would enable us to pay our way.
– If monopolies were granted under these conditions, the big companies at present operating might not contribute so much as they do now to party funds, but that would not matter. It is understood to be a common practice for these big companies to contribute to the funds of both parties. In my opinion, it would be better to sell to the matchmaking interests the right to a monopoly in Australia for, say, ten or fifteen years and to fix the price at which matches must be sold, than to impose a duty of 6s. per gross on matches. If monopolies are to be granted, it is desirable that the people should receive some benefit from them; they should not be granted for nothing. There is no justification for the present high price of matches in Australia.
I have a table showing the price levels throughout the world for various commodities. The price of wire and iron c.i.f. Antwerp or Bremen is now £1 per ton less than it was in 1913, and the price of other goods is relatively lower. We have to carry on our affairs in some kind of relation to the affairs of other countries. The duty on matches in 1914 was ls. 2d. per gross, but to-day it is 6s. per gross. This is monstrous. I trust that before very long honorable members will challenge the right of the Government to place an embargo on importations without the consent of Parliament, and that they will insist upon duties of the description now under consideration being lifted.
– It might interest honorable members to know that in 1905, when I was in Japan, I made an investigation into the matchmaking industry. At that time women workers in England were making matchboxes under sweated conditions for 2£d. per gross. But I discovered that the boxes were being made, filled with matches, and exported from Japan at less than Id. per gross. The facts in regard to my in quiry are given in my book Flashlights on Japan and the East, at page 61, from which I abstract the following paragraph
In the year 1902 Japan manufactured 328,800,090 gross of matches at a cost of 8,608,571 yen. Beckoning the yen at 2s. (the actual value is 2s. 0-Jd.), this works out at a trifle over five-eights of Id. (0.635) per gross. In face of these figures it seems that even Scandinavia must shortly surrender the business of match manufacturing absolutely to Japan.
When I returned to Australia, I asked of what use it would be to impose a duty of 100 per cent, or even 1,000 per cent, on matches. It was my opinion then, and it still is, that the match-making industry should be nationalized. I understand, and will accept as a fact, that the matchmaking industry controlled by the Kreuger combine is second only to the tobacco combine in power. The only country not retaining the monopoly of tobacco which has successfully fought the American tobacco combine is Japan. The English tobacco companies lost £3,500,000 in the fight. At a time when the French nation was experiencing very great difficulty in meeting her obligations, the American tobacco combine, backed by the Standard oil interests, actually offered £200,000,000 in gold to France for her tobacco monopoly; but the offer was refused. Of course we must remember that the French people were obtaining about £20,000,000 a year from the tobacco monopoly at the time of which I ant speaking.
The matches made at the Bryant and May factory, Richmond, are of good quality, and the employees who work there are well treated. The conditions iu regard to light, and welfare arrangements generally, are satisfactory, and far different from the conditions of the workers when Sir Alexander Peacock introduced the first factory bill into the Victorian Parliament about 30 years ago. I am sorry, however, that the wages of the workers in the match-making industry have been reduced. There is, in my opinion, no justification for this, because the company has been making good profits.
I hope that the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Forde) will agree t« a substantial increase in the duty ob books of matches, which are covered at present by the n.e.i. duty. When I inquired about book-matches from the manager of the Richmond match factory, Iwas told that better book-matches were being imported from England than were being made in Australia. When I asked the gentleman whether a similar argument was not used in regard to all local manufactures, he admitted that it was so. These book-matches are being made in Australia by Matches Limited, of Sydney. In all the circumstances, I consider that it would be desirable to prevent any matches from entering Australia.
It is very difficult for a parliament to fight a wealthy business combine. Years ago, the Standard Oil Company sent a representative to Australia with the object of overcoming local opposition to the combine. The delegation was able to ‘‘buy” two gentlemen who were members of Parliament at that time. One of these has since joined the great majority, and the other has been out of politics for a long while. The gentleman who came here in the interests of the combine made the very unwise statement that if it were necessary he would buy the Australian Parliament. I told him in Queen’s Hall, Melbourne, that he might be able to buy a majority of members of the House, or possibly a large proportion of the members of the Parliament; but that not even the Standard Oil Company was rich enough to buy the men and women outside of Parliament.
– That was an unworthy and utterly untrue statement to make.
– I should have used the word “ if “, and said that even if that person were able to buy a majority of members, and so on. This happened a good many years ago. I should be sorry to think that any money power could buy a parliament.
I hope that the Minister will take proper steps to protect the book-match making industry of Australia. I have not yet had an opportunity to inspect that factory, but I shall do so as soon as possible, in order to sec that the conditions of the workers are what they should be. I repeat that I hope that some day the match-making industry will be nationalized.
– I am certain that the great majority of the people will agree with me when I say that the price of matches in Australia is altogether too high, and much higher than it should be. It has been said that the conditions of the workers in this industry are good; but those conditions are determined by the Arbitration Court or by wages boards. The honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Crouch) has just told us that, in spite of the prosperity of the industry, the wages of the workers in it were the first to be reduced. But in any case, there is no justification for providing extraordinarily good conditions for a few workers in a particular industry at the expense of the great majority of our people. It is not just to the general body of workers in this country.
– It is creating an aristocracy.
-It is creating an aristocracy of labour in certain of these industries. I maintain that the workers in every industry should receive the protection of this Parliament. All should be able to work under good conditions; there should be no preferential treatment given to employees in any industry. The workers in the match industry, just because there is a heavy duty on matches, should not be better off than the employees in, say, the tinsmith’s industry or any other industry which is not so heavily protected. At whose expense is preferential treatment being meted out to a limited number of employees? It is at the expense of the whole of the workers of Australia. This Parliament cannot justify that position. An impartial investigation would demonstrate that the tariff could be so adjusted as to enable the working conditions of the workers to be of a general standard throughout Australia. Under an efficient tariff, matches could be sold to workers outside the industry and to the general public at half the price that is being charged for them to-day. The honorable member for Corio (Mr. Lewis) has shown the hollowness of the proprietorship of the match industry in this country. The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) pointed out that this industry is part of a huge world-wide combine. Yet we in this Parliament are pretending by means of the tariff to help this Australian industry, knowing all the time that, in the interests of a combine that has nation-wide connexions, we are piling up the duties and increasing the cost of matches to the Australian public. That combine paid £15,000,000 to the French Government for the right to operate in France, yet we allow it to operate here without the payment of a single shilling. “We have increased the duty on matches to 6s. As the duty has increased so the price of matches has increased, until to-day it is out of all reason. There is no justification for these heavy duties, and those who vote for the Government’s proposals must take the responsibility of their action.
. This is the first time that I have spoken on the tariff in the committee stage, and I am sure that the Sydney Morning Herald and other newspapers of this country are anxious to know whether the arguments and logic used by honorable members opposite have caused me to change my attitude towards the Government’s proposals, and, in particular, the duty on matches. Judging by the remarks of the Free Traders on the other side of the chamber - the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) and the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) - they seem to have a peculiar conception of what would happen if the Government saw fit to reduce the duty on matches. Their argument that the removal of this duty would save the farmers a considerable sum of money, and would ena’ble matches to be obtained more cheaply from Japan, does not appeal to me. When those honorable members were boys a small tin of matches cost ls. In their grandfather’s day there were no matches at all, and if a person’s fire burnt out he had to renew it by obtaining live coals from his neighbour. When Captain Cook landed here he discovered that the aborigines lit their fires by rubbing dry sticks together. We derive considerable revenue from the use of matches. In the old days, there was no revenue from matches, and it is quite likely that in the future, as a result of the more ex tensive use of electricity, fewer matches will be used.
– Smokers use most matches.
– That is so. Even the female friends of the members of the Opposition smoke a considerable number of cigarettes, and, of course, that adds to the revenue of the Commonwealth. Matches are like money, the more they are in circulation, the more revenue we receive.
– Would the honorable member suggest an excise duty on matches ?
– No. The employees in the match factories within Australia, who smoke cigarettes, and thereby consume a considerable quantity of matches, help to provide employment elsewhere. They pay a tax on the cigarettes that they buy, and in that way keep money in the country. “ Despite the arguments of honorable members opposite, I intend to vote for this duty as it stands.
– The argument of the Opposition in respect of the wages paid in the match industry requires to be answered by the Minister. I believe that the policy of the Labour Government in regard to the protection of our industries is along the lines of safeguarding to the workers what it considers to be a proper standard of wages and hours of employment, and if the employer, or, as in this instance, the manufacturer, after having ‘received a measure of tariff protection, reduces the wages and increases the hours of work in his factory, that protection should be withdrawn. As the debate proceeds I intend to bring forward ‘other instances to show that the employers have taken advantage of the assistance given to them by this Government. It cannot be denied that they have approached representatives of trade unions and of labour in industrial constituencies seeking their support in regard to tariff protection, and any support that I have given in that way has been on the understanding that a proper standard of hours and wages will be observed if the protection asked for is granted. The Opposition has alleged that the manufacturers in this industry have not only reduced wages and lengthened the hours of work, but also increased the price of matches to the public.
If the Minister cannot satisfactorily explain the position of this industry and other protected industries, I shall vote against this duty with the object of reducing it to the rate which applied before this Government took office.
.- Various statements have been made by certain honorable members in the course of this debate, and I shall deal first with the question raised by the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) in regard to the wages paid in protected industries. I remind him that the Federal Labour Party’s platform provides for the policy of new protection.
– It includes the protection of the consumer.
– I shall deal with that aspect of the matter later. The Federal Labour Party’s platform reads -
That is the policy of the Australian Labour Party in regard to protected industries, but, unfortunately, because of the limitation of the powers of this Parliament under the Commonwealth Constitution, we have no control of prices.
– Yet the Government has instituted embargoes.
– The Commonwealth can use certain powers in respect of protection.
– We can remove the protection from people who are exploiting the workers or the consumers. The Prime Minister has already stated in this chamber that that power will be exercised if the manufacturer attempts to exploit the protection that is given to him. My attitude is this: Any manufacturer in Australia who asks for adequate protection on the ground that he has to pay a certain standard of wages and observe certain conditions of employment has no right, once he has obtained that protection, to approach the Arbitration Court and ask for a reduction in wages and an increase of working hours so that he may pocket additional profits.
– Is it not the weakness of that form of control that an alteration of the tariff penalizes a whole industry?
– Unfortunately the removal of protective duties penalizes the honest employer as well as the dishonest, and for that reason it is desirable that this Parliament should have greater control over trade and commerce, so that it can deal with offenders in another way. But most manufacturers, when appealed to by the Government, have withdrawn their applications for variations of awards. The match industry received increased protection. Subsequently the conservative newspapers started an agitation for a 20 per cent, reduction of wages, and even appealed to the patriotism of employers to join in that crusade against the workers. Many of them, because of their association with various organizations, which urged that a reduction of wages was necessary to save Australia, applied to the Arbitration Court for variations of awards. The match manufacturers were amongst them, but to their credit withdrew their application.
– For what reason? As a quid pro quo for these duties?
– No. Extra protection was granted’ to them because they had to pay high wages and observe certain conditions, and they realized that it would be dishonest to ask for a reduction of wages immediately after the Government had granted to them increased protection because of the labour conditions. The match industry is now working under an agreement between the employers and the union representing the workers.
– A conspiracy!
– Honorable members opposite proposed to destroy the Arbitration Court, and to substitute round-table conferences at which employers and employees could come to mutually satisfactory agreements. Such conferences have been held, and the representatives of the workers and manufacturers in the match industry have reached an agreement, which they have registered in the Arbitration Court, but now honorable members opposite scoff at it. That shows the limits to which they will go in furtherance of the propaganda for an allround reduction of wages and the lowering of industrial standards.
– When the employers and employees come together, and agree to certain wages and conditions, is the Government prepared to impose any duty necessary to en’able that agreement to be implemented ?
– Every case is considered on its merits, and no general rule can be laid down. I have never known employers agree to an unreasonably high wage; therefore, the fact that employers and employees in the match industry are in agreement is proof that the wages to be paid represent the happy medium.
The honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) airily criticized the manner in which these tariff schedules have been prepared. He was never an active Minister for Trade and Customs. He followed in that department Mr. Bruce, who all ‘his life had been associated with the big importing interests, and as Minister for Trade and Customs for eight of nine months, obeyed his conviction that those interests should be safeguarded. At that time the secondary industries were languishing, and Mr. Bruce selected to succeed him as Minister for Trade and Customs a gentleman who had declared in favour of a tariff holiday. The honorable member for Henty said in 1928 that we were carrying the policy of the fiscal protection of industry much too far. Because of that attitude, the manufacturers realized that it would be futile to approach him for assistance, but when the Labour Government came into office, pledged to a high protection policy, which had been endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the electors, the new Minister for Trade and Customs became very busy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) had stated in his election speech -
Breaches in the tariff wall will be repaired at once. Labour stands for the fullest possible protection to all industries, primary and secondary.
Immediately after the election it was the duty of the Governmen t to put that policy in operation. As Minister for Trade and Customs, the honorable member for Henty had been an absolute failure, and he was almost defeated in a Nationalist stronghold. The talis about the manner in which this Government has increased taxation through the tariff is amusing to any one conversant with the facts. Between 1922-23 and 1928-29, the Bruce-
Page Government collected £271,000,000 by means of revenue duties, or £47 2s. 6d. per head of population. Taking a period of eighteen months during the seven years referred to, the amount per head collected was £9 13s. lid., while during the eighteen months ended the 31st March, 1931, the” amount per head collected by this Government has been £8 5s. 4d.
– I rise to a point of order. Is the Minister in order in discussing the deeds and misdeeds of the Bruce-Page Government ? Honorable members were asked to assemble half an hour earlier to-day in order to expedite business; yet, the Minister, instead of directing his remarks to the item before the committee, is wasting time egregiously.
– The Minister is in order in replying to criticism of the Government’s policy, but I ask him not to delve too deeply into past history.
– I have only spoken five minutes since the House met at 10.30 a.m.; for the rest of the time I have had to listen to honorable members opposite saying that the Government’s protectionist policy is increasing prices to consumers. The protection given to the match industry is justified. When the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) was Minister for Trade and Customs, he was approached by representatives of manufacturers and unions shortly after the Government assumed office. They drew attention to the large importation of matches from Russia and Sweden, and, in the interests of a great Australian industry, which is producing matches equal to any that can be bought elsewhere, and is employing, approximately, 1,000 persons, the Government decided to increase the protective duties. For that I make no apology. As a result of the new duties the importation of wooden matches has decreased from 1,015,322 gross of boxes in 1928-29, to 718,347 gross of boxes in 1929-30. All types of matches - wooden safety, wax, and paper bookmatches - are manufactured in Australia ; but the wooden safety are produced in the largest quantities. The local consumption of these is 3,000,000 gross of boxes a year. Australian production is steadily increasing, but approximately 20 per cent, of our requirements is still being imported. About 1,000 persons are employed in the industry under very good conditions. Good luck to them! I would like all workers to enjoy equally favorable conditions. .-: the manufacture of matches, materials of Australian origin, including Queensland hoop pine, are utilized to a large extent, and the quality of the completed product is excellent. The new duty will raise the cost of the imported match to approximately that of the Australian product. There are members of the best clubs who think that it is not fashionable to use matches other than those made in Sweden or Japan. If they desire to continue that form of swank they must be prepared to pay a little extra into the revenue. One company has invested £60,000 in the manufacture of book matches and 25 hands are employed. This is an increase of ten employees, and is due to the new duties. The company makes two distinct match books, one for advertising and another for general use. Imports of advertising matches had almost eliminated the company’s production of this line and had seriously affected the sales of match books for general use. The large stocks of advertising matches held by agents from overseas companies are now becoming depleted and orders are being placed with the local manufacturers. The company’s output has almost doubled under effective protection, and extra machinery which has been installed, will, in the course of a few weeks, allow the original output to be trebled and the price to be reduced by 20 per cent. The Tariff Board has twice reported on the match industry, once in 1925 and again in 1930. The latest report related to the application of section 6 of the Industries Preservation Act to safety matches imported from Russia, and, during the course of the inquiry, it was ascertained that Russian matches were sold in Australia at 3s. lOd. per gross of boxes, after paying a duty of 2s. a gross under the 1921-28 tariff. The selling price of safety matches produced by Bryant and May at Richmond, Victoria, is 4s. lid. a gross c.i.f. main Australian ports, while the product of the Federal Match Company of Sydney, is selling at 4s. lOd. a gross.
The proposed increase of duty on the line of matches previously quoted as selling at 3s. lOd. a gross is ls. a gross, which will make the selling price of the imported article approximately that of Australian matches. Wooden safety matches, of Russian, origin, have recently been gazetted under section 6 of the Industries Preservation Act in order to protect the local industry against the importation of goods which may be sold at less than a reasonable selling price. Since the imposition of the increased duties, the Swedish Match Company, the largest overseas company trading with Australia, has announced that in order to maintain its Australian trade it has decided to establish a factory in Australia.
– Has it not cancelled that decision and acquired a controlling interest in the Australian companies ?
– I shall deal with that. It is popular to denounce huge combines. Some of them are a menace, but while combines continue I would prefer them to operate in Australia and give employment to thousands of our people, rather than abroad flooding the Australian market with the products of cheap labour. If we are to contend with these monopolies, it is better to force them to come within the Australian tariff wall than to have them dumping their products in Australia to the detriment of our industries. Even the Melbourne Age, a very reasonable journal and in no way a supporter of the Labour party, has this to say about the establishment of branch factories in Australia -
One of the most gratifying results of the series of tariff schedules introduced by the Federal Government during the last six months is the decision of large enterprising firms to establish branch factories in Australia.
A reference was made to the Swedish Match Company Limited. That company is associating with and extending the factory of the Federal Match Company, in Sydney, at an estimated cost of £80,000 for plant and building. Is not that a good thing for the unemployed in New South Wales? I believe that it is very desirable to have these companies come to Australia and spend their money here. State and Federal Governments have legislation which enables them to co-operate and take the necessary steps to deal with any emergency that may arise from an abuse of the privileges given to these monopolies. I am hopeful that, by an. amendment of the Constitution, which will no doubt be countenanced by the people on the next occasion that an appeal is made to them, the Commonwealth Parliament will obtain full power to deal with such matters. It is said that the extension of that big factory in Sydney will be completed in September next, when 100 extra hands will be employed in addition to the 150 now there. The company is also establishing a factory in Western Australia, at a cost of £50,000, which will employ 100 hands. It is expected that building operations will begin almost immediately, and that the factory will be opened at the end of the year. Bryant and May’s factory in Melbourne ha3 also been extended in the last twelve months at an expenditure of £25,000, giving work to 100 additional persons. I believe that had the BrucePage Government remained in office, Bryant and May’s Melbourne factory, instead of expending that amount in providing additional employment, would now be employing but half its present hands. Probably it would be contemplating a cessation of operations because of the dumping of Russian matches in Australia, which would have been encouraged by this Government’s predecessor in office. I have advanced adequate reasons to refute the freetrade propaganda of honorable members opposite. I hope that the item will go through as it stands.
.- Since this Government assumed office our unemployment figures have increased by about 200,000, and there are at present some 400,000 unemployed in Australia. That speaks eloquently of the tragic failure of this tariff. Yet the Minister has just resumed his seat, after rising for about the thousandth time to tell honorable members that the tariff has provided additional work for Australians. More than one in every four workers in the Commonwealth is at present idle, and probably one-half of the balance in work have their employment rationed. Still, the Minister has the impudence to refer to the work that has allegedly been created as a result of the operation of his tariff activities. I do not claim that all of the unemployment in the country has been brought about by the imposition of these duties, but I do assert that there would be thousands more in work now were it not for the terrible dislocation of industry that has resulted from the tariff schemes of the Minister for Customs.
I have no wish to traverse old ground, but honorable members will recollect the time when the Minister began his tariffmaking; how he declared in Sydney that the tariff changes would provide immediate work for 50,000, and at a later date would make additional work available for hundreds of thousands in the community. Actually more than 2,000 persons have been thrown out of employment each week since the honorable gentleman made that absurd claim. Notwithstanding all the raving to which we were compelled to listen this morning, the honorable gentleman has been able to quote only one specific case where more men have been employed through the application of these duties, and that was the match industry, the number being 25.
– That is one of a number of instances that I gave.
– Had the honorable member been given an extension of time, no doubt he would have proved that his tariff has solved the unemployment problem. I was very much interested in the extraordinarily important point raised by the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley). Recently wages have been substantially reduced in many of our Australian industries. There has been a heavy reduction because of the fall in the cost of living, and a further straight-out decrease of 10 per cent, effected by the finding of the Federal Arbitration Court, and other industrial tribunals.
– The advantage of the exchange position to manufacturers must also be considered.
– I shall come to that. Simultaneously with the drop in wages we have had this doubling of protective duties. Further, a great advantage accrues from the existing exchange rate. Manufacturers are at present enjoying far more protection and less competition than was the case when the Minister began his tariff-making. But where is the benefit to the consumers? Can any honorable member point to a number of lines which have been reduced in price satisfactorily to set off the reduction in wages, or the benefits that have been granted to Australian industry? It is extraordinary to find a Labour Government, which kept the Federal Arbitration Court in being and allowed it to make these wage cuts, really standing as the author of wage reductions and at the same time further enriching the barons of industry.
The Minister has again given us his daily recital of what will happen to those manufacturers who abuse the protection given to them by increasing prices, or refuse to maintain existing rates of wages. We know that the Government has taken no punitive steps against manfacturers who have violated the privileges enjoyed by them by the grace of this Government. We know that the Government has no power to remove tariffs in that way, nor would it dare to run counter to the desires either of substantial manufacturers or of the unions. Why, then, does the Minister insult the intelligence of honorable members by treating them daily to all thi3 moonshine.
– In some industries only one or two firms are involved. It would be easy to deal with them.
– Then why has not the Minister dealt with them?
– The Government has not yet been able to prove anything against them.
– Nor will it be able to do so, any more than it would be able to prove a case against the unions that are the bulwark of the Labour party.
I claim a little of the indulgence that was extended by the Deputy Chairman to the Minister. The honorable gentleman referred to my humble record as head of the department which he now controls. If this tariff-making is for the benefit of Australia, I thank God that when I was Minister for Trade and Customs, I let the tariff schedule alone. Had I remained in that position there would have been a certain amount of tariff revision, but even if I had not made any alteration, this country would now be in an incomparably happier and richer position than it is at present. The Minister suggested that, because of my well- known tariff views, manufacturers were diffident about even coming near me. Imagine manufacturers ever being diffident about approaching a Minister if they thought that they could make out a sound case for an increase in the tariff! There are two great groups of secondary industrialists in this country, one situated in Melbourne, and the other in Sydney. Broadly speaking, I found the Melbourne position absolutely satisfactory to manufacturers under the conditions then obtaining. Frequently during my term of office I visited Melbourne, and on each occasion let the Chamber of Manufactures and others know in advance. On a number of occasions I asked those representative gentlemen if they had any major grievances. The reply was that they had not ; that they merely wished certain anomalies to be corrected, and certain cases to be brought before the Tariff Board ; that otherwise they were quite satisfied with existing conditions. It must be kept in mind that those gentlemen represent some 50 per cent, of Australia’s secondary industries. The case was quite different in Sydney. There they were not at all diffident about, approaching me, as was claimed by the Minister. They made strong representations for increased duties, which were under consideration when I was Minister. That shows most clearly that there was no general request, let alone an urgent demand, for a tariff schedule of this kind.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. McGrath).Order! I have given the honorable gentleman quite sufficient latitude. He must connect his remarks with the item.
– The Minister has been unable to show that duties such as these were even dreamed of by the match manufacturing industry of Australia. T apologize to the committee for occupying so much of its time, and there I leave the matter.
.- Possibly it may be gratifying to some to think that Parliament met half an hour earlier to-day merely to listen to a sequence of second-reading speeches on this item. There is one matter of striking importance to which I desire to refer. I dealt with it previously, when commenting on the fiscal policy of the Government.
When an application is made by an industry for assistance through the tariff, an expert investigation should be made into the prospects of the industry, not only from the point of view from which these are usually regarded by the Tariff Board, but also to determine whether the product of the industry is likely to remain in demand. It frequently happens that as a result of some new invention or scientific discovery the demand for a particular article falls right away. Moreover, the habits and tastes of the public vary from time to time, and this also may affect the progress of particular industries. There is now on the market a device which bids fair to displace matches to a very large extent. Simply by striking it on a gas ring or other hard object, a spark can be obtained, and for a cost of no more than 6d. it will produce a light 15,000 times.
– Is that device available now ?
– It is. We should take these matters into consideration when moulding our tariff policy. In this country there is a considerable amount of sterile capital invested in undertakings to turn out products for which the public demand has diminished or disappeared. The Government should take the lead in conducting the necessary investigations, and make available the knowledge acquired to those contemplating investing capital in industry.
– I have been sitting in my place this morning like Patience on a monument, waiting for an explanation from the Minister as to just why these exorbitant duties were imposed. I listened carefully to what he had to say, but in the whole mass of his irrelevant verbiage, I failed to discover any reason for the action which the Government has taken. He succeeded in proving, indeed, that the industry has been successfully established in Australia, and that ideal labour conditions obtain in it. He also succeeded in proving, as we can see for ourselves by analysing the schedule, that the proposed increase in duties will reduce rather than increase the revenue of which the Government stands so sorely in need to-day. The one fact which emerges from all the discussion is that the new duties will in crease the cost of this very necessary commodity to the consumers. This aspect has been airily brushed aside by honorable members opposite. They are not concerned with the consumers ; they want the high duties irrespective of their consequences. Listening to them I am reminded that -
The toad beneath the harrow knows,
Just where every tooth-point goes;
The butterfly upon the road
Preaches contentment to the toad.
In rebuttal of the arguments of honorable members opposite I need only say that there are 400,000 good reasons walking the streets of Australia why these duties should not be increased.
.- As a general rule I support the protection of local industries when it can be shown that such industries are economically practicable. I feel, however, that close investigation should be made of the industries to which we have recently given protection. For instance, the protection of the match industry costs South Australia annually £27,000, as was pointed out by the recent royal commission on South Australia’s disabilities. Unfortunately for South Australia, climatic conditions there make the manufacture of matches impracticable, so that she has to draw her supplies from elsewhere. I am hopeful that some means will be discovered for more evenly distributing the cost of protection. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts is at present hearing evidence on the disabilities of South Australia under federation. Recently I placed a question on the notice-paper asking the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) why the terms of reference of that inquiry, first made public in September of last year, were altered in May of this year.
– What has this to do with matches ?
– The duty on matches constitutes one of South Australia’s disabilities.
– The match companies have a c.i.f. price for all Australian capitals.
– I could enumerate other items in this tariff which impose a heavy burden on South Australia. For instance, there is sugar-
– Order! The honorable member must confine his remarks to the item under discussion.
– I realize that we shall have an opportunity later of discussing sugar. Besides that, however, there is the item, timber-
– Order, I ask the honorable member to apologize for deliberately disobeying the Chair.
– I am sorry; but I was going to show that there was a connexion between timber and the match industry.
– The honorable member may proceed.
– I support the protection of suitable Australian industries. It is only rightthat they should be fostered, but not at the expense of any particular section of the community. I believe it would be possible to decide which industries can be profitably carried on in Australia, and which can not. We should then concentrate upon the potentially successful industries, and the sooner we embark on that policy the better.
Question - That the item be agreed to. - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. MgGrath.)
AYES: 33
NOES: 21
Majority . . . . 12
In division:
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Item agreed to.
Sitting suspended from 12.49 to 2.15 p.m.
Item 74 agreed to.
Item 78 -
By omitting the whole of sub-item (e) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item: -
By adding a new sub-item (h) as follows: - “ (h) Almonds, viz.: -
Unshelled, and Kernels, n.e.i., per lb., British, 4d. ; intermediate, 4d. ; general, 6d.
Kernels asprescribedby departmental by-laws, British, free; intermediate, free; general, free.”
.- This is another of the items on which prohibitive duties have been imposed. Can the Minister say when any of the prohibitions will be removed? I have considerable sympathy with duties that indirectly may benefit rural industries, but I should like information from the Minister in connexion with this and all other items, as to any steps being taken by the Government to ensure that the primary producers will benefit, if anybody benefits, from the increase in rates. Is provision to be made as, for instance, when the wine and the cotton bounties were imposed, to ensure that the manufacturers will pay a reasonable price for the farmers’ products? Otherwise the only effect, in many cases, of piling up duties in favour of the manufactured article will be an improvement in the position of the manufacturer, and, possibly, no more than a slightly stronger demand for the rural product. From information that I have received with reference to peanut kernels, the present price obtained under the Government bounty in Queensland is about £77 per ton, c.i.f., in main ports, whereas the latest overseas quotation that I have is £12 10s. per ton, c.i.f., Sydney. The difference appears to be substantial, and it does not indicate a pressing need for the increase of the duties. If the consumption were 1,000 tons per annum, the additional cost to Australia by the use of the local article would be about £64,500 a year. The duties appear to make this little item a very expensive one. I should like the fullest information that the Minister can supply on all items. Hitherto all that we have had from him is what we have succeeded in literally dragging fromhim, after a great deal of argument from this side of the chamber.
– When I do give an explanation, a growl is heard because I talk.
– Not at all. If a number of the items had been allowed to pass without debate, no information would have been proffered by the Minister.
.- Almond-growers in South Australia are greatly affected by this item. Most of the Australian almonds are grown in my State, but I believe that there are opportunities for producing them in some of the new irrigation areas in other States. While the growers agree, in the main, with the duties set out in the schedule, it appears to contain an anomaly which robs the duty on almond kernels of its value. The growers feel that they will not be fully protected if almond kernels are allowed to come in under section h of the item as it stands. A pound of unshelled almonds provides, on the average, only six ounces of kernels. I believe that the labour employed in cracking almonds in those countries which supply a considerable quantity of this commodity to Australia at the present time is such that the local growers need some protection against foreign competition. I believe that they have waited on the Minister, and have stated their case to him. They have also appeared before the Tariff Board. They have no objection to “ kernels as prescribed by departmental bylaws “ being admitted free of duty. These kernels come in in the form of marzipan, which is used by confectioners, but, with the schedule as it stands, overseas suppliers get an advantage that is detrimental to the interests of the Australian growers. Of course, the latter realize that for the time being they must submit to overseas competition, because they cannot entirely supply the local market. I have no doubt that the Minister will accept the suggestion of the growers, and will amend the schedule accordingly.
I have statements regarding the possibilities of almond-growing in Australia, not only from the growers themselves, but also from Mr. George Quinn, Chief Horticultural Instructor for South Australia, and others. Unless the protection asked for is granted it will be practically impossible for the growers to carry on the industry. Almonds are mainly grown on the foothills in. South Australia, where the climatic conditions are favorable, and in some instances suitable land is very expensive. Even on the irrigation areas, a good deal of initial outlay is involved in establishing almond orchards. I am informed that, if the industry is given the desired protection, there will shortly be upwards of 30,000 acres of almonds under cultivation. The Minister is familiar with the needs of the industry, andI understand that he is prepared to amend the sub-item to make it read as follows : - “And on and after the16th May,1931-
And on and after the 1st January, 1934 -
– I suppose that the honorable member has no doubt as to the ability of South Australia to supply the whole of the Australian market.
– I am advised by those interested that they have no doubt on that point.
– Would the extra duty lead to an immediate expansion of the industry ?
– Yes. Other avenues of production are needed in Australia, on account of the glut in the wheat and dried fruits industries. Almond culture is a suitable occupation for persons residing on small areas, and, therefore, the initial outlay is not so great as it is in other industries. Sometimes almonds may be grown as a side line. For instance, a poultry farm might well be surrounded by a double belt of almond trees, which would make an excellent breakwind, as well as prove of commercial advantage.
– I wish to be clear as to the suggested amendment, because I had intended to submit a similar proposal. Sub-item h 1 reads - “Unshelled, and kernels, n.i.e.”. I think that the intention is to leave out the words “ and kernels, n.e.i.”.
– That is so.
– Regarding the phrase “kernels as prescribed by departmental by-laws “, is it not necessary to substitute “ kernels for use in the manufacture of marzipan, as prescribed by departmental by-laws “ ? I understand that the honorable member is asking for an increase in the present duty on almond kernels, and provision for a deferred duty to operate in 1934. I realize that an increased duty on commodities of this nature will be of considerable benefit to primary producers, upon whom the duties imposed upon the products of secondary industries have fallen very heavily. Throughout this tariff discussion I shall, wherever possible, give the primary producers every assistance. The honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Price) mentioned that the duty at present imposed on matches costs South Australia no less than £27,000 a year. As 80 per cent, of the almonds produced in the Commonwealth are grown in South Australia, the imposition of a deferred duty will result in increased areas being placed under crop in that State, and thus compensate in a measure for such duties as those on matches. In many instances settlers on the foothills and on the plains surrounding Adelaide have been able to derive some income from the production of such commodities as almonds. As we imported 500 tons of almond kernels and almond pastes last year, this is an item upon which the duties could be increased, and production thereby encouraged.
– Why are not almonds grown more extensively?
– Production has not been increased, because of the fact that, until the last year or two, many have not been compelled to obtain an income from this and similar sources, and also because a number of almond groves have been subdivided for building purposes. In and around Adelaide there are many householders who, until this year, did not gather the almonds grown on small properties. But, having been able to proceed very easily owing to the fictitious prosperity caused through inflation after the termination of the war, they are now pushed to such an extent that they are compelled to market their almonds. Last season unemployed men visited the orchards, principally where women owned the property, and purchased the almonds, which were taken home, cracked by children, and sold. The almond-growing industry will not be properly developed unless it receives sufficient encouragement, and as this is a way in which it can be assisted, I intend to support the amendment.
.- As mentioned by the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb), South Australia is at present producing 80 per cent, of the Australian . production of almonds. Before proceeding to discuss the subject, I should like to know whether the Minister ‘ proposes to accept the amendment suggested by the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Yates). The production of almonds is undertaken extensively in South Australia, and I believe that, if the industry received further protection, it would develop considerably. The belt of almond trees which surrounds my property not only serves as a breakwind, but has for some time been producing profitable crops. As I understand the Minister has some information to give the committee on this subject, I shall not discuss it further at this juncture.
.- The honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) asked whether, in the event of bounties being given to primary industries, the growers were protected. For the information of the honorable member, I may say that, under bounty legislation, they are protected by fixed prices for their produce. There are some instances, of course, in which primary producers are protected by duties, and Others in which they form themselves into organizations and come to the best arrangement possible with those who purchase their products. I visited South Australia last year, and, in company with Mr. Keith Rainsford, president of the South Australian Fruitgrowers and Market Gardeners Association, inspected many of the orchards in which almonds are grown. Mr. Rainsfordvisited Canberra recently in support of the requests he had previously made on behalf of the almond-growers. He made out a very good case, which was investigated by me, personally, and by the officers of the department. The Government considered that in view of all the circumstances it was unreasonable to give these producers all the protection they asked, but it was thought that some further measure of protection was necessary. As a representative of one of the eastern States, I should like to say that this Government is anxious to do all it can to establish and develop industries in South Australia and Western Australia, in accordance with the policy of protection which an overwhelming majority of the people of Australia has endorsed. In a few years’ time, I believe that the electors of South Australia and Western Australia will send representatives to this Parliament who will as enthusiastically advocate a policy of protection as do the representatives of the eastern States at present. As the Minister controlling the department, I have always given sympathetic consideration to applications for protection from South Australia and Western Australia.
– So long as these applications are for higher duties, the Minister will give applicants almost anything.
– The Government has always given very sympathetic considera tion to applications from Western Australia, particularly in regard to the free admission of mining machinery, because of the remoteness of that State from the big manufacturing centres in the eastern States. Before I deal with the amendment suggested by the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Yates) there are other items to which I wish to refer. Item 78 d relates to “nuts, edible, unshelled, n.e.i.” The amendment to be made to this sub-item will have the effect of leaving the sub-item open. Item 78 e relates to “ kernels n.e.i., pastes n.e.i. and meals “ for which the duties are now, British preferential,4d; intermediate, 4d., and general, 6d. The amendment of this item consists of inserting the letters “n.e.i.” after “kernels and pastes “. These amendments are necessary because the sub-item previously covered peanut butter and almond kernels. Special provision has now been made for almond! kernels. This item refers to all kernels, except almond kernels. The remaining sub-items are unaltered. I move -
That the item he amended by inserting after sub-item (e) the following: - “By omitting the whole of sub-item f and inserting in its stead the following sub-item: - “And on and after the 10th May, 1931-
Peanuts unshelled per lb., British 2d.; intermediate, 3d.; general 4d.”
This amendment is proposed in order to make the intention of the item clear. In the past it has applied to peanuts in the shell, but, owing to the addition of the letters “n.e.i.” after the word “ kernels “ in sub-item e, sub-item f might be construed as covering peanut kernels. The intention of the present amendment is to ensure that the practice observed in the past will be observed in the future. It is not known how long the present embargo on peanuts will remain operative, hut the amendment I have moved is to rectify an anomaly.
– I entered upon the discussion of the tariff with boundless enthusiasm to support primary production; but I am now beginning to realize that primary producers are not so much in need of my support as I thought. I am getting the impression that the Government is becoming most generous in many respects. At present the price of peanuts is about £77 a ton, while the latest overseas price c.i.f. Sydney, is £12 10s. a ton. Assuming that 1,000 tons of nuts are used annually in New South Wales, the consumers are being penalized to the extent of £64,500 a year. There are, of course, some industries of national importance in this country for which some sacrifice must be made.
Rice is the next item which we shall consider, and the public is being penalized in that case also. I wonder how long it will be possible for sectional interests in this country, which have some political strength, to secure concessions at the expense of the people?
– The consuming public also has some interests.
– I have been trying to discover who has been watching the interests of the consuming public in this chamber. The duty on peanuts should be reduced. If I thought there was the possibility of obtaining the support of the majority of honorable members, I would move for a reduction; but it would be useless to do so. Consequently I must content myself with saying that the method that is being adopted to assist the primary producers in this industry is wrong. This system of robbing Peter to pay Paul will break down before very long, and we shall be forced to take effective steps to reduce the cost of living and the cost, of production, so that our primary producers may be able to compete on the market at world’s parity rates.
.- I also protest against the adoption of this method of helping the primary producer. Our producers want the cost of production reduced. That is the proper method of helping them. The foolish practice of granting a concession to Western Australia one day, to South Australia the next day, and to Queensland the next day should be abandoned. It simply means that one party scratches the back of another party so that later its own back may be scratched. I am not willing to vote for concessions for one set of producers simply to obtain a concession for 4the producers in whom I am interested. It is ridiculous that we should proceed in that way. Some time ago a duty of £8 per ton was placed on onions because a quantity of onions was imported from Japan. The adoption of that absurd policy is deplorable. Apparently the press of Australia is not willing to tell the truth to the people in regard to some of these items. While the Government is crying out for revenue it is at the same time imposing prohibitions on importations, which is having the effect of seriously reducing the revenue. The granting of a concession of £40,000 to the cigar manufacturers was regrettable from every point of view. The present price of peanuts is £77 per ton, whereas the price of imported peanuts c.i.f. Sydney would be only £12 10s. per ton. On a consumption of 1,000 tons this means that the peanut eaters of New South Wales are being taxed to the extent of £64,500. That is a scandalous state of affairs. I know that some honorable members are justifying their attitude on this item by the contention that if concessions of this kind are to be granted, the primary producers might as well share in them. Mostly the city people are favoured.
– Surely the Australian working man should be able to get a job.
– If the Australian worker were left alone he would be all right. He is as able and willing as any worker in the world. I hope that the Government will bend its energy to the preparation of the policy which will bring about a real reduction in the cost of living.
– There are some peanut-growers in my electorate, and in their interests I advise the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Parkhill) not to look at this subject from the personal point of view. I know that the honorable member is a peanut eater. Probably he buys 3d. worth of peanuts on a Saturday afternoon and eats them while swinging in a hammock in his garden on Sunday afternoon. Possibly before this duty came into operation there were 57 peanuts in his 3d. bag, while the number is now reduced to, perhaps, 56. One peanut does not make very much difference to him, but in the aggregate, single peanuts make a great difference to the hardworking peanutgrower, who has to rise early in the morning to cultivate his crop.
I am interested in the welfare of the peanut-growers and desire to protect them from Chinese competition. Even if the honorable member has to go without one peanut on a Sunday afternoon, let me appeal to him to give up his affection for the Chinese product and make the sacrifice gladly in the interests of these hard-working primary producers.
– There should not be any opposition to this item, for no increase has been made in the duty.
– The item has been rearranged. There is, of course, a complete prohibition against peanut importations to-day.
– But the duty has not been altered. The embargo on peanuts was first imposed by the Bruce-Page Government in 1927.
– But it was not effective.
– It was totally effective against green nuts and kernels. It was imposed on the ground that disease was being imported with the peanuts.
– That was a back-door method of granting protection.
– Subsequently certain importers claimed that they could kill the disease by baking the peanuts in bond. A section of the trade was thereupon allowed to import peanuts and bake them in bond; but the general embargo continued. Under those conditions about a thousand tons of peanuts entered Australia annually. In 1929, on behalf of the Peanut Board, I made a strong appeal to the Government to grant a complete prohibition against peanut importations, because 3,000 tons of peanuts were lying in our silos, and our own growers were unable to compete successfully with the Chinese producers, who were marketing baked peanuts at a price with which Australians could not be asked to compete. The matter was referred to the Tariff Board, and a complete embargo was granted without any protest being offered by the honorable member for Warringah.
– I was not a member of this Parliament in 1927, when the embargo was imposed.
– A complete embargo was granted in 1929, after the honorable member had been elected to Parliament.
– But the matter was never discussed in Parliament.
- Mr. Bruce promised that the embargo should be continued for eighteen months, as was asked; but after the present Government assumed office it was decided to continue it indefinitely. The 1,000 tons of peanuts imported annually under the partial embargo may now be supplied by the Australian growers. As a result of the embargo, large quantities of peanuts are now being produced in the Northern Territory. All that has been done is that the embargo has extended the production of peanuts over a large area of Australia. It has given the Australian growers command of the whole of the Australian market instead of three-fourths of it. Seeing that the only competitor previously was China, I think that it is only reasonable that this industry should be preserved to Australians.
– I desire to remove a slight misunderstanding on the part of some honorable members. There is no increase of duty under this item ; it is merely a re-arrangement. At the request of the Queensland peanutgrowers, the Bruce-Page Government imposed an embargo on the importation of peanuts for a period of eighteen months, expiring on the 30th June, 1930, on the definite understanding that the growers would not ask for a continuance of the embargo, or for any increased duty after that date. They were informed that if they were not prepared to accept those terms, they would not get the embargo at all. Those conditions were accepted by the growers under duress. They hoped that before the eighteen months expired, there would be a change of government, and that, in consequence, adequate protection would be afforded to the industry. In the fullness of time, a new government came into power, and the embargo was extended. I inspected the peanut fields in the Kingaroy district, and found that the growers there had a surplus production of 4,000tons of peanuts - sufficient to supply Australia’s requirements for one year. I point out that although the late Government placed an embargo on the importation of peanuts to the 30th June last, it gave so many exemptions that more peanuts were imported than before the embargo was imposed. I made the embargo absolutely effective, and, as a result, the Australian growers now have the whole of the Australian peanut market. The growers of peanuts are not confined to Queensland; the industry has also been established in the Northern Territory, largely because of representations made by the honorable member for Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson). The peanuts grown in the Northern Territory are similar to the best Chinese, being white in the shell. Owing to the red nature of the soil, Queensland peanuts have not so good a colour. Experiments have been carried out to give Queensland nuts the desired straw colour, but in the matter of colour they are still inferior to those grown in the Northern Territory. I believe that there is a great future before this industry, which already provides a good living for a number of persons. I repeat that this item does not increase the duty.
– Had it not been for the statements of the Minister and of the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser), this item would look more respectable than it does now. The Minister stated that the peanut-growers accepted the embargo on the distinct understanding that after eighteen months they would not ask for any extension of it, or for increased duties. Now he says that they failed to observe the undertaking into which they had entered. I admire the Minister’s candour, although I do not compliment him on his judgment. I realize that all that I can do is to protest against the principle upon which this assistance to a primary industry is based. The general public is being exploited in the interests of a favoured section of the community. The system is wrong and should be changed.
– I rise to correct the statement nf th.° Minister that the growers of pea nuts accepted an eighteen months’ embargo under duress,” believing that they had to take it or nothing.
– That is what they told me when they asked to be absolved from the undertaking they had given.
– They asked to be absolved from the undertaking because, owing to importations, they did not get the eighteen months’ embargo. I made all the representations to the late Government on behalf of the peanut-growers, and I still have a letter from the Director of the Marketing Board of Queensland, showing that Mr. McGregor asked me to endeavour to secure an eighteen months’ embargo on the importation of peanuts for the reasons stated. I also have letters from the board supporting Mr. McGregor’s contention, and giving reasons why, at that time, it was thought that a period of eighteen months would be sufficient.
– The official file shows a minute by the late Minister for Customs, to the effect that the embargo was not to be extended beyond the 1st of July, 1930.
– That is so. Before imposing the embargo, the Government asked the growers to give an assurance such as was offered. I have the letters with me, and can produce them if desired. The reason why the growers asked for a continuance of the embargo was that when the House was not sitting, and it was impossible to protest against his action, the then Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Gullett) granted certain exemptions which enabled the importations of peanuts to equal those of the previous eighteen months. The embargo on baked peanuts was of no value at all. I brought the matter under the notice of Mr. Bruce who said that the embargo would operate for the full period of eighteen months that had been promised. Later, a new Government came into office, and the total embargo was extended.
Amendment agreed to.
– I have here the amendment for which the honor- able member for Adelaide (Mr. Yates) asked. I move -
That the item be further amended by adding to sub-item (h) the following: - “ And on and after the16th May, 1931 -
Almonds, viz.: -
And on and after the 1st January,1934 -
After consultation with me, Mr. Keith Rainsford said that this amendment would suit those engaged in the industry.
Amendment agreed to.
Item, as amended, agreed to.
Item 79 agreed to.
Item 80 (Onions)
.- I appeal to the Minister, when we have before us a substantial increase in duty on a particular item, to have the courtesy to explain to honorable members the reason for the increase. Item 79 has been passed, and the Minister did not say one word about it. We are willing to facilitate the tariff debate; but, in fairness to honorable members, I think that the Minister should explain the reason for any large increases of duty.
.- The other day we heard speeches from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lyons), and the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett), to the effect that it was deplorable that this Government should spend so much time in debating the tariff.
– The Minister is endeavouring to smuggle these items through the committee.
– If I were to make a speech on every item of the tariff, the debate would never finish. Honorable members have had the tariff schedules before them for eighteen months, and have, therefore, had ample time to study each item. If they require any informa tion they can ask me for it. I am anxious to meet the wishes of honorable members, and now that I have been asked for information, I am prepared to supply it. From an examination of the statistical figures covering the imports of onions for the year 1928-29, I find that the bulk of the importations came from two countries - New Zealand and Japan - and during 1929-30, from Japan and the United States of America. Under the New Zealand preference agreement, Australian onions are admitted into that country at a duty of £1 a ton, while similar duties are imposed against New Zealand onions imported into Australia. During the year 1929-30, New Zealand imported 9,441 cwt. of Australian onions, valued at £2.678, while Australia imported 3,113 cwt. of New Zealand onions, the value of which was £1,562. The duty under the New Zealand preference agreement cannot be varied except by mutual consent, or only after six months’ notice of the intention to vary the duty has been given, and, in view of the figures which I have quoted, I do not propose to take any action to increase the duty on New Zealand onions. Considerable quantities of Japanese onions were imported during 1928-29 and 1929-30, and the increased duty is intended to check importations from that country, in which production costs are much lower than in Australia or New Zealand. I have given much attention to a proposed reciprocal treaty between New Zealand and Australia, and it is therefore inadvisable at present to take any action that would mitigate against the good feeling that now exists between these two countries. Some years ago the then Minister for Trade and Customs, Mr. Pratten, visited New Zealand, with a view to arriving at a trade agreement, but his visit was unsuccessful, chiefly because of the fact that, just prior to that, we had imposed a duty on butter and a number of other products of New Zealand, and as a result considerable resentment existed between the two countries. Pending the drawing up of a reciprocal treaty between New Zealand and Australia, it is not advisable for us to impose any further duties on New Zealand products.
Item agreed to.
Item 82. (Pickles, Sauces, Chutney. Olives and Capers).
.- The Minister still seems to be a little reluctant to explain to the committee these extraordinary increases in duty; but I do not wonder that he is a little shy in connexion with this item. It is true that the commodities affected are in the nature of primary produce; still I do not think that in this instance the heavy increase in duty can be justified. I have before me the Tariff Board’s report of the 27th June, 1930, and I shall briefly indicate to the committee the extraordinary manner in which the Government has ignored that report and added substantially to the increases of duties suggested by the board. This item covers pickles, sauces, chutney, olives, and capers, and the sub-items deal with the quantities. The Tariff Board recommended in respect of quarter-pints and smaller sizes, a duty of ls. 3d. per dozen. I am dealing only with the British preferential tariff. That recommendation the Minister has adopted, but for some extraordinary reason the Tariff Board’s recommendations in respect of the larger sizes have been ignored and substantially higher rates have been imposed. For half-pints and over quarter-pints, the Tariff Board recommended 2s. per dozen, and the Minister has imposed a duty of 2s. 6d. per dozen. As the quantities become greater the duties become higher. For pints and over half -pints the Tariff Board recommended 3s. 6d. per dozen and the Minister has imposed a duty of 5s. per dozen. For quarts and over pints the board recommended 6s. 6d. per dozen, and the Minister has imposed 10s. per dozen. The Minister has flouted the recommendations of the Tariff Board, and I trust that he will give a satisfactory explanation of his altogether arbitrary action. .1 come now to the question whether the great preserving companies were in need of these substantially increased duties. I have with me a summary of the annual report of the Rosella Preserving Company for the year 1929. This is a very fine company, turning oi.t a good product. I applaud its industry and efficiency. It is one of the manufacturers of this country of which we should be exceedingly proud. I am speaking in no hostile way in referring to it. This company has been phenomenally successful, even under the old rates of duty. Mr. Harold Burston, in his criticism of the balance-sheet of the Rosella Company, said -
Each year since 1925, the Rosella Preserving Company has added 25 per cent, to its capital. The first was a bonus issue from reserves and in four years the capital has been increased from £525,000 by £100,000 of cash issues at par.
That represents a considerable watering of stock, apart altogether from the excessive dividends to which I shall refer in a moment. Mr. Burston continued -
Recently extensive building operations have been on hand at Richmond, at Windsor, New South Wales, and in Adelaide, and to cover this capita] expenditure another issue also on par terms is about to be offered. Last year the Rosella Company made a splendid recovery from the big decline of earnings shown in 1928. This table summarizes the results since the 1925 bonus issue.
Iri the year 1926, this company, which is now being so generously larded by the Minister, showed a gross profit of £147,000, a net profit of £44,000, and a dividend of 174 per cent. In 1927, its gross profit was £173,000, net profit £54,000, and dividend 17£ per cent. In the year 1928, to which Mr. Burston refers as a bad year, this company showed a gross profit of £150,000, a net profit of £30,000, and a dividend of 10 per cent. In 1929 when they were getting back into normal times the gross profits were £181,000, the net profits £51,000, and the dividend was 12£ per cent. Yet the Minister for Trade and Customs in aid of this flourishing company not only increases the duties, but also puts them far higher than was recommended by the Tariff Board. Again I say it is tariffmaking gone mad. It is extraordinary that a Labour Government, of all governments, should set out to heap money collected from the pockets of the consumers into the coffers of a great wealthy company of this sort. There is no guarantee, stipulation, or condition in this item that some share of the large opportunity for profit-making shall go to the grower of the raw material. Already, the big preserving companies of Australia have a virtual monopoly of the Australian market. Australian manufacture provides 92 per cent, of our total consumption of sauces and pickles ; therefore, under this duty there will be no increased demand for supplies of the raw material, and it is 100 to 1 against the primary producer receiving any benefit in the shape of an additional price for his product. In the circumstances, I cannot see what good a duty can possibly do.
– What is the motive?
– I do not know. The Tariff Board points out that the 8 per cent, of sauces and pickles that are imported cater for an exclusive and limited trade and do not compete with Australian packs. A comparison shows that the price of Moreton’s pickles is 22s. 6d. a dozen, whilst that of the local pack is 13s. 3d. a dozen.
– Was that under the old rates of duty?
– Yes. It is impossible to see how this increase of duty or any action on the part of the Government can increase the output of Australian factories or enable the manufacturers to buy greater quantities of the raw v material. The primary producers, therefore, cannot benefit from it. The increase is simply a straightout invitation to the big companies of Australia to charge more for their products.
– Instead of extending their businesses and exporting.
– Quite so. I cannot even begin to understand the motive that has actuated the Government.’
– The honorable member should have quoted the Rosella company’s figures for 1930.
– I suggest that this tariff has not been drawn up to cope with the present depression.
– The company did very badly last year.
– Of course’; every company did very badly last year, and no amount of tariff increases would have corrected that position. It was due to a diminished consuming or purchasing power. I should like to know from the Minister why he is doing these extraordinary and mysterious things. Under this proposal there can be no benefit to the worker, the primary producer, or the consumer. It simply provides an opportunity to certain manufacturers if they are so disposed - I do -not say they are - to exploit the general public.
.- The trading of Leggo and Company, in
Bendigo last year, was done at an absolute loss, and the firm’s factory is bulging with stock on hand which is not saleable in Australia, for what reason I do not know. The whole of the output of the Bendigo works is made from produce grown in the neighbourhood of Bendigo. Market gardening is a big industry and affords a great deal of employment, but these factories which provide a market for the growers cannot keep going without some assistance in the shape of tariff protection. I think, therefore, the Government has acted wisely in increasing the duty. It will be admitted that if we can produce pickles and sauces we should do so.
– But we are already supplying practically the total Australian consumption.
– I suggest that the industry is well worth encouraging. It is one which enables people with small means to earn an excellent livelihood, in close proximity to the packing factories. The profits that have been earned by a particular firm are not relevant to the issue. When these duties were first imposed we were told that some ‘huge factories were to be opened in Australia, but I understand that that is quite unnecessary, because already we have in Australia sufficient factories to make all the pickles and sauces we require. This protection will ensure employment in the factories and in the country districts which supply the raw material to the factories.
– Whilst the Minister has accepted guidance from the Tariff Board in respect of some of the sub-items, he has ignored its recommendations in respect of others, and increased the duties inordinately.
– What is sauce for the goose is apparently not sauce for the gander.
-^ That is so. In the schedule which he introduced in 1929 he accepted the Tariff Board’s recommendation ; now he has departed from it. Some explanation’ of that change of view is due to the committee. If he had good reasons for his action, he would save a lot* of time by taking honorable members into his confidence. Unfortunately, we have to drag information from him, and if he can get an. item passed without offering an explanation of it, he readily does so. He employs catch-as-catch-can rules, his one fixed idea being to wangle the schedule through the committee. When the local manufacturer is already in possession of 92 per cent. of the Australian market, what justification can there be for increasing the duties? The usual claim of protectionists is that industries are entitled to assistance in their infancy, and that after a little coddling they will prosper without artificial support. But although the pickle and sauce industry dominates the local market, it apparently requires increased protection. I cannot approve of this claim. After all, tariff protection amounts to taking funds from the public purse or the pockets of the people to help an industry to establish itself. Such favours should be granted after due consideration and in accordance with some scientific plan. The Minister, however, imposes extra duties regardless of the financial position of the industry concerned.
– Only after expert inquiry.
Mr. ARCHDALE PARKHILL.No; if that were so, my complaint would be unfounded. But the views of the experts have been ignored. There are certain imported commodities with which local manufacturers do not attempt to compete.
– Hear, hear! Such as the standard lines of Crosse & Blackwell, Lazenby, and Moreton.
– Yes; those goods have been imported under the British preferential duties for years, and have done no injury to Australian industry. I am willing to give reasonable protection to the pickle and sauce industry, because local conditions are favorable to its development; all the raw materials required are produced locally. In spite of that this Parliament is heaping on higher duties for which there is no justification.
– I hope to be able, in a few words, to remove the misapprehension under which apparently the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Parkhill) is suffering. I can assure him that he need not worry about this duty on pickles because the emergency tariff of April, 1930, imposed a total prohibition on importations.
– Then why increase the duties?
– Because the tariff proposals of last year are not permanent and the prohibition might, some day, be lifted. That, however, will be a matter for the government of the day to determine. We do not consider that the time has yet arrived. The duties recommended by the Tariff Board are those which were contained in the tariff resolution of the 21st November, 1929. Further amendments were made to the rates operating under sub-items b, c and d in the tariff resolution of March, 1931.
– Why?
– It was ascertained that the rate per gallon on the sizes specified under these sub-items in the November, 1929 resolution was lower than the rate specified under sub-item f at 2s. 9d., or 4s.1d. per gallon. The amendments made in the March, 1931, resolution, rectifies this anomaly. The honorable member for Warringah spoke of the members of the Tariff Board as if they were tariff experts. As a matter of fact only one, Mr. McConaghy, the chairman of the Board, and the officer who is second in charge of the Trade and Customs Department, is a tariff expert. The others represent the agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial interests. We may safely assume that it took them some time to get even a working knowledge of tariff matters. The honorable member for Warringah also appears to be under the impression that there are no tariff experts in the Trade and Customs Department at Canberra or in any of the States. Actually we have in the central office in Canberra officers much more expert in tariff matters than are the members of the Tariff Board. In working out the protection recommended by the Tariff Board in 1929 - I remind the committee that even the Tariff Board makes mistakes - it was found that the rate per gallon on the different sizes would vary. For example, in sub-item a, quarterpints and smaller sizes, the rate per dozen equalled a rate per gallon of 3s. 4d.; in sub-item b, half-pints and over quarterpints, the rate per dozen equalled a rate per gallon of 2s. Sd.; in sub-item c, pints and over half-pints, the rate per dozen equalled a rate per gallon of 2s. 4d. ; in sub-item d, quarts and over pints, the rate per dozen equalled a rate per gallon of 2s. 2d. and in sub-item e, exceeding a quart and not exceeding a gallon, the rate per gallon -was 2s. lid. Why all these variations ? The experts in the department, after carefully considering those items, made a recommendation which I approved and is contained in the present schedule, namely quarter pints and smaller sizes, per dozen ls. 3d. ; half -pints and over quarter-pints, 2s. 6d.; pints and over half -pints, 5s.; quarts and over pints, 10s. Since two pints make a quart the rate for quarts is twice the rate for pints. I assure honorable members that they need have n© hesitation about passing the item.
Item agreed to.
Item 85 (Rice).
– This proposal is similar to that with regard to peanuts; but. as the committee appears to be unanimously in favour of the item, I am afraid that a protest from me will be of little avail. This is entirely the wrong way in which to develop the industry. The populations of our large cities, and particularly the working and middle-class people, are being deliberately and unjustly exploited in the interests of a small section of the community. I have every sympathy for our primary producers, but this is not the best way to help them. Apparently the only industries which are not being assisted in this way are wool and wheat, and very soon, I fear, an attempt will be made to bring them under the same arrangement. This proposal will redound to the discredit of the Government, and ultimately it will not benefit our primary producers. I protest against it, although I am aware thai the committee will adopt it.
.- When the 1921 tariff schedule was presented, the duties on rice were reduced, as at that time rice was not being produced in Australia. Subsequently rice-growing was undertaken in the Mumimbidgee irrigation area, where the conditions are ideal and under the 1928 tariff the rates of duty on rice in operation prior to the 1921 tariff were re-imposed to stimulate and encourage the development of the industry. The growers are now in a position to supply the whole of the Commonwealth’s requirements, and surplus production must be exported. The further increases of 5s. per cental on uncleaned rice, and 6s. 6d. per cental on cleaned rice now proposed, are intended to safeguard the whole of the Australian home market against importations from countries where rice is grown by cheap coloured labour. The Tariff Board, after inquiry, submitted a full report on the industry, and, subject to certain measures to prevent profiteering, recommended the duties now imposed.
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
page 2017
Land Tax Valuations - Price of Petrol: Alleged Restraint of Trade - Government Savings Bank of New South Wales: Effect of Closing on Farmers - All for Australia League: Issue of Circular to Employees of Firms.” Motion (by Mr. Scullin) proposed -
That the House do now adjourn.
– During the last few days a number of questions have been asked by honorable members with regard to the valuation of land for taxation purposes. The Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) promised to have the matter remitted to the office of the Commissioner for Taxation for report as to why there should be an increase in valuation in these times of general depression. I have received the report from the Commissioner, which reads as follows : -
On the motion for the adjournment of the House of Representatives on the 18th March, 1931, Mr. Gregory drew attention to the complaint that there have been large increases in the annual valuation of unimproved land for taxation purposes, and he asked for an inquiry into the matter on the ground that, with the general decrease in values, it seemed that land valuations for taxation purposes should not be increasing.
In response to a similar question a week earlier, the Prime Minister had stated that a report would be called for from the Commissioner of Taxation.
In reply to Mr. Gregory, you invited his attention to the Prime Minister’s statement and promised to reply to him when the report mentioned came to hand.
Following upon your minute of the19th March,1931, calling upon me for a report in this matter, I requested each Deputy Commissioner of Land Tax, by circular memorandum, of the same date, to furnish me with a statement of the position in his State. Since then similar questions have been asked in the House of Representatives by Messrs. Cameron (Barker), Hill, Latham and Hawker, and representations relating to the same subject have been made to you by the Taxpayers Association of South Australia. Having received the required statements from the Deputy Commissioners of Land Tax, I am now in a position to furnish you with a report in the matter.
It is necessary to preface this report by stressing the fact that the assessments which are the subject of the complaints under notice mark the commencement of a new triennial period, and that, consequently, in the fixing of values for the purposes of those assessments, the valuation at 30th June, 1930, was the first opportunity that has arisen of reviewing the values assessed in respect of ownership at 30th June, 1927. As will appear from this report, the review of the values assessed for 1927 has necessitated a number of increases which, in the majority of cases, are attributable not to any rise in values between 1927 and 1930, but to the fact that the values assessed for 1927 were lower than those which would have been assessed if there had been an opportunity of bringing the valuations up to date at that time.
At the outset it may be stated that the reports from the Deputy Commissioners show that, in every State, there has been no general increase in the assessed values of land for ownership at the 30th June, 1930, above those applied for ownership at the 30th June,1927. In a number of cases reductions have been made. In the majority of cases in which increases have been made, the properties affected were assessed for 1927 on old appraisements, and the increase in the assessment for 1930 is the result of taking the first available opportunity of bringing the owners concerned into line with other owners who have been paying taxes on up-to-date valuations for the past three years.
– There has been a general increase in valuations.
– The Commissioner claims that that is not so. The report traverses the whole of the cases that have been mentioned, and quotes from reports submitted by Deputy Commissioners of Taxation, giving a number of examples.
It explains why the valuations as at the 30th June, 1930, show some increases over those previously made. It must be kept in mind that they were arrived at as the values as at midnight, 30th June, 1930, and that many of the events, that are now known to have influenced the fall in land values, had not then occurred. The report continues -
It must not be forgotten that, when Parliament in 1927 repealed the provision for retrospective assessments, the department had built up a valuation system suitable for retrospective assessments. The sudden cancellation of this provision had the effect of bringing into the 1927 assessments many properties based upon a value that had been made from five to eightyears previously. For instance, in one locality the valuation which had just been completed was carried into the 1927 assessment on a basis of £1,400 per foot. In an adjacent locality property which ranked relatively fairly close in value to the£ 1,400 per foot land had not been check valued and was therefore brought into the 1927 assessment on a basis fixed some years before of £900 a foot. As the land-owners, in cases such as this, have permanently escaped three years’ assessments on up-to-date valuations, it cannot be said they are unjustly treated in being now brought into line with owners who. since 1927, have been assessed upon the basis of such valuations.
Another aspect of this matter which ought not to be overlooked is that the complaints under notice are being made with the mind of March-April, 1931 (being referable to assessments which have only recently been issued) and are obviously based largely on events which have occurred since the 30th June, 1930, whereas the department’s valuers were called upon to fix values with one mind of June, 1930. The valuers’ duty in this regard has been clearly laid down by the High Court, and is well expressed in the following dictum of Isaacs J. : * -* “The facts existing at the date of valuation are the only relevant facts. All circumstances subsequently arising are to be ignored. Prosperity unexpected or depression, which no man would ever have anticipated, if happening after the date named, must alike be disregarded.”
At the 30th June, 1930, many of the events which are now known to have influenced the marked fall in land values had not occurred. For example, at that date -
The Wheat Marketing Bill, with a guarantee of 4s. per bushel for the current season’s wheat, had not been rejected by the Senate: and
There was no knowledge of the subsequent fall in the prices of wheat and wool. A ease which typifies the criticism of the valuation asat June, 1930, by reference to subsequent events is that of a taxpayer who was reported in the Melbourne press to have announced in February, 1931, at a meeting of property-owners, that he had offered tosell his city property to the Government at less than the department’s unimproved valuation of the laud. As there is a building of several stories covering the whole of the area of this particular land, the taxpayer’s announcement would undoubtedly tend to create an impression of exceptionally harsh treatment. As a matter of actual fact, the taxpayer has been attempting for two years past to arrange to finance the erection of an up-to-date building to replace the present antiquated structure, so that his offer “ to give a substantial building in “ ought not to carry much weight. The other facts of the case are as follow:-
The land was assessed as at the 30th June, 1930, at £560 per foot; the 1927 assessment was based on a valuation of £450 per foot, made in 1924; the property was submitted at public auction in March, 1930, without success, but the taxpayer’s reserve was £850 per foot; the taxpayer in June, 1930, submitted to the department a statement in which he valued the property at £875 per foot (a figure which must be considered as relative to the land only ) .
The position, therefore, is, in round figures, that land which the department has assessed at a value of £44,000, the taxpayer valued, in June, 1930, at £70,000, and offers now to sell for £43,000.
It is not correct to state (although the statement has frequently been made by taxpayers’ associations and others) that the department has adopted peak values in its assessments. On the contrary, the margin below peak sales is such as to justify the continuance of the 1927 assessments into the 1930 period, even in localities where current sales snow an amount below peak prices.
The following is a summary of the position as reported from each State: -
No general increase in assessments. The values applied in the 1927 assessment were those that had been fixed in some cases prior to 1923. The department was unable to increase these valuations by the sudden introduction of the amendment to the 1927 act, wiping out retrospective assessments and preventing any increase in valuation for three years.
The department had not adopted peak values in its assessments and whatever decline took place from the peak values it would not necessarily nor equally affect the level of values which had been assessed.
No general increase in assessments. Increases, where made, are justified by evidence, and would include revision of appraisements made eight years before.
No general increase. The increases that have been made relate mostly to properties either not previously inspected or previously assessed upon old appraisements. In exceptional other cases of increases, these are supported by evidence in the possession of the department.
No general increase in assessments. Almost all assessments were issued on values applied for 1927. The exceptions to this rule would relate to properties assessed on old appraise ments that did not stand in line with the general assessment of properties at the 30th June, 1927.
The Federal Valuation Staff values for both State and Federal land tax.
The values assessed for federal land tax at the 30th June, 1930, were generally much less than those determined for State land tax at the 30th June, 1929, but although less than the State figures for 1929, they are, nevertheless, in Borne cases’, higher than those applied for federal purposes at the 30th June, 1927. In localities where the evidence gave justification, substantial reductions have been made.
No general increase has been made. In a number of instances reductions have been made. Where increases have been made these are supported by data in the possession of the department.
The position may be summed up generally as follows : -
That such localities are still considered to exist may be gathered from the following extra-departmental expressions of opinion : -
Mr. W. F. Goyder, President of the Real Estate Institute, Sydney, is reported to have made the following statement in January, 1931 : - “ Viewed dispassionately, if must be admitted that property has not suffered the same depreciation as have stocks, shares, and other investments generally referred to as ‘ gilt-edged ‘. This is proved by the fact that investors to-day seeking real estate bargains find that in 99 per cent. of instances property is soundly held, and the search proves fruitless. There have been buyers prepared to pay good prices for investment properties, but the owners have preferred to hold, as their returns were being maintained.”
In the provision of Valuation Boards of Review, the Government has afforded a cheap and convenient method for the taxpayer to have his assessments adjusted. These boards exist in every State, and include one member being a local business man, with particular knowledge of the State’s conditions. Proceedings before these boards conform as nearly as possible to a round-table conference, and the taxpayer is able, personally, or through an agent, to state Iiia grievances.
In the foregoing, I have dealt solely with the position of assessments for the current financial year, which arc the assessments for the first year of tue second triennial period.
Although section 20 of the Land Tax Assessment Act forbids any increase in values during a triennial period, I am advised that the department may, in a proper case, base its assessment in the second or third year of a triennial period on lower values than those used in the assessment for the first year of the period.
In the circumstances, and having regard to the general indications (which are recognized and admitted by the Chief Valuer, and some of the senior valuers of the department) of a marked fall in land values in many parts of Australia, I have instructed all Deputy Commissioners that the assessments for 1931-32 should be based on such lower values as, by the application of the usual departmental rules of determining land values (which rules take cognizance of market values as demonstrated by sales), may in any case be found to exist.
– No, in the ordinary assessment.
– I have received more complaints with regard to the manner in which the oil combine is treating some of its customers. ]” shall quote from a letter which I received from a retailer who handles Automotive Products petrol, which is. sold at a cheaper rate than are the products of the major companies. He believes that it is for that reason that this treatment has been meted out to him. He states - 1 am enabled to sell Automotive Products petrol and oils at prices which are cheaper than the products of the combine, and which return to me a satisfactory profit, at the same lime giving to the motorist quality at reasonable rates,” The outcome of my being a retailer of Automotive Products products which, according to the major companies are contraband goods, has been that I have been forced to pay cash on delivery for their produets, whereas in the past, I have always operated an account with them on the 30 days’ basis. Without doubt, I, with others, am being victimized and forced out of business. All sorts of inducements have been offered to me provided I promise to discontinue the sale of Automotive Products spirits and oils, and hand over those pumps, &c., to the major companies, and handle only their products.
This man refuses to agree to that. That autocratic treatment of retailers applies to other items besides petrol and oil. Here is a letter that this man received from C. 0.. Wakefield and Company -
On and after Monday, the 13th April, all supplies of Wakefield Castrol motor oils will be invoiced to you at current list prices. Ail previous arrangements are hereby cancelled. This will not affect the attractive rebates which we arc offering to you under the terms of our reseller agreement.
Another letter reads -
We would refer you to our letter of the 23rd February in which we advised you that we would grant you a special rebate on the prices of motor oils and motor greases, and we wish to advise that this special rebate of (id. per gallon on motor oils, and Id. per pound on motor grease will be discontinued as from the 25th instant.
A number of letters have been forwarded to me with regard to this matter. Previously, the Prime Minister replied to my representations to the effect that it was questionable whether the Commonwealth Government could deal with the trouble, that it more probably came within the province of the State Governments. I suggest that there should be co-ordination between the Commonwealth and State Governments, in an endeavour to compel these people to conduct their businesses along proper lines.
– Is not our Commonwealth Oil Refinery Company in existence to meet such a contingency?
– I have been a valiant champion of the Commonwealth Oil Refinery in the past. I know that it did excellent work in the public interests, particularly a few years ago when it was chiefly instrumental in keeping down the price of petrol. If it is true that the Commonwealth Oil Refinery has joined forces with the major companies and is assisting to victimize small traders, it is time that the Government took action in the matter. I am sure that honorable members will not tolerate this kind of treatment being meted out to honest traders. There seems to be an organized endeavour to force out of business those who seek to trade in petrol and oil other than those supplied by the major companies. Sometimes publicity checks people from carrying out their nefarious designs, and I hope that my representations will bear fruit, and that the Government will take whatever action is necessary to prevent these practices.
.- I have received correspondence asking me to put before Parliament the case of a section of the farming community which is suffering hardship because of the closing down of the Rural Credits Department of the Government Savings Bank of New South Wales. Several thousands of cases are concerned. Last harvest, these farmers deposited the small returns that they received from their crops with the rural credits branch of that bank, on the understanding that they would be able to withdraw their deposits in small sums each week, over a period of twelve months. Owing to the closing down of this institution, these men have been cut off from all monetary supplies, and they have absolutely no means of obtaining the credit that would enable them to continue their operations. The amount which they received for their crops was comparatively small, and their credit was rationed to such an extent that they were only just able to carry on. Some depositors in this bank are being permitted to withdraw from it a few pounds a week; but the circumstances surrounding the case of these men are different. The bank holds a lien on their assets, and they were working on overdrafts, the limit of which had not been reached. Because of the fact, that legislation, which was agreed to by this House, was rejected by another place, these men have no avenue in which to seek relief. I enter a most emphatic protest against the action of another place in rejecting legislation that would .have enabled these men to obtain at least £50 or £60 with which to tide them over the present difficult period. The responsibility that rests upon members of another place is a very grave one.
If the members of the Cabinet can influence the directorate of the Commonwealth Bank, it should be in the direction of giving special consideration to this section of the farming community. They are entitled to receive weekly an amount equal to that which an ordinary depositor is allowed to withdraw. One of the best men that I know on the land has written to me in the following terms : -
Unless I can get financial assistance within the next few days, I shall have to think seriously of assigning my estate for the benefit of my creditors, or else put my pack up and walk off my ‘ farm, and join the other unemployed, and apply for the dole.
That is a deliberate statement by a responsible citizen of this country. By his own personal exertion he had reached the stage that he would have been independent had it -not been for the closing down of this institution and the withholding of the assistance that would have been available to him under the legislation that was rejected by another place.
– I suggest to the Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) that the report on land taxation valuations which he read a few minutes ago should be printed and circulated among honorable members. Such action would be very greatly appreciated.
– I shall endeavour to secure an additional number of pulls of the Hansard report.
.- Has the Attorney-General (Mr. Brennan) made inquiries into the serious allegations of malpractice that I voiced in this chamber last week relative to the issue of a circular by an organization styled the All-f or- Australia League?
– The honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Keane) was good enough to supply me with a copy of the document to which he has referred, and he wishes to be informed of the opinion of the Law Department in regard to it. I am afraid that I cannot afford bini very much consolation, so far as the arm of the law is concerned. I think he must rely upon the force of public opinion rather than upon legal enactment, to deal with this circular. I am considerably encouraged by the fact that a few moments ago the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) expressed the view that a little publicity i.s often useful as a corrective of nefarious practices. I have great confidence that that excellent dictum will be applied in the present case. I am bound to say that the circular quoted ‘by the honorable member for Bendigo represents a reversion to that type of political savagery which brought the Labour party into being. May I read one or two lines from it? It commences with the intimation that the firm in question-
– A Flinders-lane firm.
– That this firm “ refrains from trying to influence the minds of members of our staff in matters outside our own business “, but that it is constrained to depart from that practice, for certain reasons which are mentioned. The circular then goes on to say that “ the first essential is to remove the prevailing lack of confidence.” I seem to have heard that phrase somewhere else, and to recollect its having been repeated with a good deal of frequency, the result being that it is no longer fashionable. Then the writer of this circular - who has no desire, if you please, to influence the minds of members of the staff - intimates that “ inflation “ - whatever that may be thought to mean - “ is not to be advocated, because that is unacceptable to our creditor? “. Not because it is wrong or impracticable, or for other reasons undesirable, but the employees of this particular firm are not to hold these views because they are unacceptable to the creditors. That is not only a new political doctrine, but it is a new moral doctrine - that one may not hold opinions and utter views because they are unacceptable to one’s creditors. It is a very serious thing to be controlled by one’s creditors in the physical sense; but when one is also to be controlled in the moral sense to the extent of what opinions one holds, one is compelled to wonder whether those who stand behind the All For Australia League have, or have not, really changed.
– Loud laughter!
– Not loud; there is really nothing to laugh at. This is a document, not to be laughed at, but to be thoroughly ashamed of, and it is the more to be ashamed of because we can be certain that the circular which has been submitted to certain employees and employers, was not drafted by any employer, but was prepared in its present stereotyped form by the All For Australia League, and circulated throughout the country as a means of coercing, not only employees, but employers as well. I do not think that the law affords the constituents of the honorable member for Bendigo any protection. But I know Bendigo; I was born there. I heard an honorable member opposite claim to have given service to the Labour party for the last twenty years ; but I remind him that the Labour party, 40 years ago, renounced as odious tyranny the process now being employed by the All For Australia League. If that process is being employed by any honorable member on that side of the House who still professes to hold Labour principles, I can only ask him to reconcile as best he can his practice with his profession.
.- I am in agreement with the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton), who referred to _the action of certain oil companies in allegedly fixing prices, and threatening to take measures against those who sold below them. I am not acquainted with what has been done in that industry, but, of course, it is quite within the right of traders to demand cash in payment for their goods instead of allowing terms. In other industries, however, price fixing has been practised, and I intend to refer to them more fully when we come to them in the course of the tariff discussion. I know that certain firms manufacturing machinery were induced to begin operations in this country because tariff protection was afforded to them. Under shelter of the tariff they have built up their industry, and have responded to the assistance given by raising the price of their commodity, and refusing to supply dealers who sell below the fixed price. That certainly constitutes restraint of trade, because it prevents the public from getting their goods at the lowest price. I realize that it is difficult to stop this practice, but 1 am hopeful that action will be taken by the Government which promised, when first the new tariff schedules were introduced, that it would deal promptly with any one found to be profiteering.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
House adjourned at 4.15 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 May 1931, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1931/19310515_reps_12_129/>.