House of Representatives
19 May 1931

12^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- NEW SOUTH WALES INTEREST PAYMENTS
QUESTION
- FILM CENSORSHIP
QUESTION
- CANADIAN CONVERSION LOAN
QUESTION
- RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYED
QUESTION
- LOAN NEGOTIATIONS
QUESTION
- BRITISH PENSIONERS IN AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- OIL FUEL AT DARWIN
QUESTION
- LAND TAXRE-ASSESSMENTS
QUESTION
- SUGAR AGREEMENT
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH LINE OF STEAMERS
QUESTION
- CARRIAGE OF AIR MAILS
CANBERRA ADVISORY COUNCIL ELECTION
DEATH OF SENATOR H. E. ELLIOTT
QUESTION
- DEFAULT BY NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT
QUESTION
- IMPORTATION OF AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY
QUESTION
- RAIL MOTORS
QUESTION
- UNIFORM CUSTOMS DUTIES
QUESTION
- PRIVATE WEALTH OF THE COMMONWEALTH
QUESTION
- GALVANIZED IRON PRICES
QUESTION
- COST OF GRISTING WHEAT
QUESTION
- SUBSIDIZED AERIAL SERVICES
QUESTION
- PRIMAGE ON PASTURE SEEDS
QUESTION
- IMPORTATION OF CRUDE OIL
QUESTION
- SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DISABILITIES
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH BANK
QUESTION
- SHIPPING BOARD
PAPERS
QUESTION
- TARIFF
ADJOURNMENT
CATHOLIC EDUCATION
- Protest to Prime Minister
- Proposed Abolition of Physical Training

– I have seen the report to which the honorable member has referred.

page 2023

QUESTION

RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYED

Use of Drill Halls and Barracks

Mr CROUCH:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Defence make a statement to the House regarding the possibility of using unoccupied country drill halls to house the unemployed and others in distress?

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The proposal to use military barracks and drill halls for the housing of the unemployed throughout the Commonwealth has received careful and sympathetic consideration by my department, but for various reasons it has not been found desirable to accede to it. Apart from the fact that drill halls are. in constant use and contain valuable stores and equipment, they are most unsuitable for housing purposes. They are generally situated in closely settled areas,, sanitary and ablutionary facilities are totally inadequate for any large number of men living on the premises, and insufficient yard room is available for cooking facilities. If drill halls which are in use are handed over for the accommodation of unemployed, it will be necessary to remove all stores, and in respect, of a number of large drill halls there isno other storage room available in departmental buildings. In addition, the training of the units using the halls would! have to be discontinued. I might add that in many places there are nonmilitary grounds or buildings which are not in use, many of which would be moresuitable for occupation by the unemployed. Although the granting of relief to those in distressed circumstances isprimarily a matter which comes withinthe province of the State authorities, thePriine Minister recently notified theseveral State Premiers that the Commonwealth Government was prepared toassist State Governments so far as itcould by the loan, of certain equipmentand stores. In addition, large quantitiesof military clothing have been madeavailable for distribution in the variousStates. In Victoria, the department-. handed over a portion of the Broadmeadows Camp for the housing of the unemployed. The Liverpool Military Camp in New South Wales has been offered to the New South Wales Government for the same purpose, and the Black Boy Military Camp in Western Australia has also been made available for the housing of the unemployed. Any defence buildings which are not required by the department are handed over to the Works Department for letting or disposal. It will be seen that my department is sympathetically giving what assistance it can, but I regret that, for the reasons I have indicated, it is not practicable to give approval for the housing of unemployed in military barracks and drill halls used for defence purposes.

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– Have any of the military stores that have been made available for the unemployed yet been sent to Queensland? I have been advised that none of these stores has yet arrived in that State, although many people there are making application for them.

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The clothing for Queensland is being handled and dyed in Sydney, and I understand that at least a portion of it has already been forwarded to that State. I shall let the honorable member know to-morrow what the actual position is.

Mr CROUCH:

– As the Camperdown drill hall is unused, unoccupied, and so far as I can ascertain, has not been handed over to the Public Works Department, will the Minister allow it to be used for the housing of unemployed persons, of whom there is a large number in the surrounding district?

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not know the exact position regarding the Camperdown drill hall, but I shall give consideration to the request.

Mr ELDRIDGE:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– A statement has appeared in the press to the effect that this week an auction sale is to be held of certain naval stores, including unwanted equipment, at Garden Island and elsewhere. Will the Minister direct that all such equipment, that might with advantage be used by unemployed citizens, shall be diverted to that end instead of being auctioned ? That course was recently followed with certain military clothing.

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not aware that any of the articles being offered for sale are suitable for use by the unemployed. It is the policy of the Government to make available for the unemployed all suitable articles, such as clothing, &c.

Mr ELDRIDGE:

– Blankets and tents are being offered for sale.

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I shall look into the matter, and see what can be done in the direction indicated by the honorable member.

page 2024

QUESTION

LOAN NEGOTIATIONS

Mr LYONS:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Newspapers report that negotiations are in progress between the representative of the Commonwealth Government in London and certain financial institutions which are likely to take up the £5,000,000 of treasury-bills falling due on the 30th June. Will the Prime Minister say whether there is any justification for those reports?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– I have no knowledge of the source of such statements, or upon what they are founded.

page 2024

QUESTION

BRITISH PENSIONERS IN AUSTRALIA

Mr MACKAY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Treasurer say whether the negotiations for the payment of British pensions in Australia, that are being conducted between the Treasury and Mr. Gilbert, representing the British Ministry for Pensions, have been concluded ; if they have, what is the result ?

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

– The negotiations have been in progress for some days, but I have not yet been advised as to whether they are complete.

page 2024

QUESTION

OIL FUEL AT DARWIN

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I ask the Minister for Defence whether the Government proposes to take any measures for the protection of the huge quantity of oil stored at Darwin for the use of the Navy?

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Proposals for the protection of the oil supplies at Darwin have been approved. The Government decided to remove the garrison from Thursday Island to Darwin, but for financial reasons action is being deferred for the time being.

page 2025

QUESTION

LAND TAXRE-ASSESSMENTS

Report of Commissioner of Taxation

Mr GULLETT:

– Does the . Treasurer consider as satisfactory the report of the Commissioner of Taxation upon land tax assessments which the honorable gentleman presented to this House onFriday afternoon last?

Mr THEODORE:
ALP

– The method of arriving at land values for taxation purposes, and the operation of that method by the Taxation Department, is a matter which should be considered. I am not at present in a position to say whether or not I regard the present system as satisfactory. I think that the House, if it wishes, should have the opportunity to consider it, and, if necessary, alter the method provided for under the act.

page 2025

QUESTION

SUGAR AGREEMENT

Mr NAIRN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Recently a telegram was forwarded to the Prime Minister from the Australian Women’s Federation to the following effect: -

According to press reports sugar agreement is not yet signed. We, therefore, urge Parliament should decide this matter so that effect may be given to the voice of all sections of the people who request reduction in price.

I ask the Prime Minister whether that agreement has been signed, and, if not, whether he will defer its completion until the opinion of this House has been expressed on the subject?

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– The sugar agreement has not yet been signed. The signing of all previous agreements has been an administrative act. On this occasion the Government will permit the House to discuss the sugar agreement, probably on Thursday next, and will be guided by its decision.

Mr RIORDAN:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– What has caused the delay in completing the sugar agreement? Has the agreement been submitted to the Queensland Government for signature, and, if so, has that Government signed it?

Mr SCULLIN:

– One or two points that- were raised specifically by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company required investigation, but we are now approaching the completion of the agreement.

page 2025

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH LINE OF STEAMERS

Lord Kylsant

Mr CROUCH:

– Has the attention of the Treasurer been drawn to a report that was cabled last week to the effect that Lord Kylsant, who is associated with the shipping company that purchased the Australian Commonwealth line of steamers, has been brought up on two criminal charges for offences arising from his connexion with that company? Are the payments due to the Commonwealth for the purchase of that line properly secured, or will the Commonwealth, in the event of the liquidation of the company with which Lord Kylsant is associated, have to claim priority in respect of a Crown debt?

Mr THEODORE:
ALP

– I am afraid that I am unable to give, off hand, an answer to the honorable member’s question. The payments under the agreement have all been promptly made up to the present; I cannot say whether we have adequate security to cover outstanding payments. Therefore, I ask the honorable member to place his questionupon the notice-paper, so that I may obtain that information for him.

page 2025

QUESTION

CARRIAGE OF AIR MAILS

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– With respect to any negotiations entered into with the Imperial Airways or the Dutch authorities regarding the carriage of air mails, will preferential consideration be given to the carriage of the mails by the shortest route -via the air port at Darwin to the eastern States - instead of via Wyndham in Western Australia?

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That question has already received some consideration, and I promise the honorable member that I shall give it further consideration.

page 2025

CANBERRA ADVISORY COUNCIL ELECTION

Mr BAYLEY:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister give consideration to the advisability of demanding a deposit from all candidates at future elections of the Advisory Council at Canberra. The multiplicity of candidates at the recent election has added considerably to the expense of the election, and, in one or two cases candidates received only one vote.

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– At the next Advisory Council election the matter raised by the honorable member will receive full consideration.

page 2026

DEATH OF SENATOR H. E. ELLIOTT

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Norman Makin:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I have received from Mrs. Elliott, widow of the late Senator H. E. Elliott, a communication thanking the House for the resolution of sympathy forwarded to her.

page 2026

QUESTION

DEFAULT BY NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT

Formal Motion for Adjournment

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received from the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, “ The question of expediting the proceedings, or of securing summary judgment, by the Commonwealth against the continued default of the Government of New South Wales “.

Five honorable members having risen in their places,

Question proposed.

Mr Crouch:

– I rise to a point of order. To-day it was held that this matter being sub judice could not be discussed in this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I recognize that the text of the communication forwarded to me by the right honorable member for Cowper does bring it perilously near to being a matter that is sub judice, but before I can interfere, I must hear the opening sentences of the right honorable member. . If his speech transgresses my ruling I shall call him to order. It is difficult for me at this juncture to discern to what extent the motion is likely to involve the legal proceedings that are now proceeding between the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- What is known throughout Australia as the Lang plan can be said to have failed. That plan is not really a plan, but a plot and an outrage. It is no more a plan than is the knocking down of a man by a thief in the street in order to rifle his pockets.

Mr Eldridge:

– That is cheap criticism.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– That plan has failed. It set out to bilk the oversea holders of Australian stocks of the interest that was due to them. It. succeeded in bilking, not the bondholders, but the Commonwealth Government and the taxpayers of Australia of certain revenues due to this country, and they are suffering as the result, both in their pockets and reputation. Every one in Australia who desires to see the good name of Australia maintained must combine in an effort to bring this plan. to an end at the earliest moment. It is quite obvious that there can be no confidence in the stocks of Australia while’ that plan remains. There is no chance of confidence being restored in Australia while New South Wales, which owes to the Commonwealth something like £13,500,000 of interest annually, defaults to the extent of £11,000,000, making it practically impossible for the Commonwealth to balance its budget. According to the figures given last Friday default by New South Wales has already amounted to £2,183,000. Against that amount can. be offset £584,000, leaving a balance of £1,599,000, for the recovery of which the Commonwealth Government has taken action along certain definite lines. According to a statement in to-day’s press,, no defence is being entered by the New South Wales Government-

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Norman Makin:

– I cannot permit the right honorablegentleman to discuss that aspect of the case.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– This matter isone of extreme urgency. It deals not merely with the claim for £557,519, which at present is sub judice, but also with the default which is continuing month aftermonth. I do not wish to embarrass the Government. I rise merely to suggest a means whereby this default can bebrought to the speedy end which, I takeit, we all desire. So far the Commonwealth has failed to take advantage of” the procedure provided in the High Court rules, whichpermits a plaintiff toinsist on summary judgment being: given within four days of the entering of” an appearance by the defendant. That summary judgment will be given by thecourt if no substantial defence is offered by the defendant. That is the position in this case. If the action I have suggested cannot be taken in connexion with the claim for £557,519, which is at present in dispute, I urge that it can be taken in regard to the other default of over £1,000,000. I am convinced that judgment on that amount can be secured so quickly that Australia will be able to take steps to right itself almost at once. The rule provided by the High Court procedure, which has also been adopted by the Victorian Supreme Court, has been adapted from the English legal procedure. Order V., Rule 4, of the High Court Rules provides -

In any action in which the plaintiff seeks to recover a debt or liquidated amount in money payable by the defendant, with or without interest, the writ of summons may be specially ‘indorsed with particulars of the nature of the claim and of the amount, if any, sought to be recovered.

The action that would lie against New South Wales would be an action to recover a debt or liquidated amount payable by the defendant. The claim is one in respect of money paid by the Commonwealth Government on behalf of New South Wales to the bondholders of the State, and, therefore, it comes within the meaning of the words “ a debt or liquidated amount in money”.

Mr Theodore:

– Whose opinion has the right honorable gentleman quoted?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– I have merely given a summary of the actual position. Later, I shall read the rules which deal with the case, and leave it to the House to say whether they do not provide a means of securing an immediate judgment in this matter. A writ has alreadybeen issued.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There can be no discussion on a subject that is at present engaging the attention of the High Court. Any observation in regard to the writ that has been issued would be distinctly out of order.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– I intended to refer to the writ only incidentally, in order to point out that it had been specially endorsed, and that, therefore, the Government’s advisers were aware of the procedure to which I have referred; and also to urge that, in respect of any balance that becomes due, the Government should not merely endorse the writ that may be issued, but should also pro ceed to the action that I shall now indicate can be taken. When a writ is issued for a debt or liquidated amount, and it is specially endorsed as I have indicated, the procedure invariably adopted by ordinary citizens is that, as soon as an appearance has been entered by the defendant, the plaintiff applies for leave to sign summary judgment. That is done by taking out a summons, which is heard before a single justice four clear days after the service of the summons. On the hearing of the application the defendant must show cause against such application by affidavit or, by leave of the justice, by oral evidence, or by offering to bring into court the sum claimed. If the defendant cannot show a bona fide defence to the action, or does not bring into court the sum claimed, the court will order summary judgment for the full amount claimed. That is the position I desire to see created in this case. It is set out in Order XIII. of the High Court Rules, that -

When a defendant appears to a writ of summons specially indorsed under Order V., Rule 4, the plaintiff may, on affidavit made by himself or any other person who can swear positively to the facts verifying the cause of action and the amount claimed, if any, and stating that in his belief there is no defence to the action, apply to a justice for liberty to enter final judgment for the amount so indorsed, or any part thereof, together with interest, if ‘ any, and costs. The justice may thereupon, unless the defendant, by affidavit or vivo voce evidence, or otherwise, satisfies him that he lias a good defence to the action of the merits or discloses such facts as entitle him to defend, make an order giving the plaintiff leave to enter judgment accordingly

The New South Wales Government has said that it has no defence in relation to the claim of £557,519. In the circumstances, I urge that, in respect of the balance of the State’s indebtedness, the Commonwealth should apply for summary judgment and take the proper action to recover the money. So far as the present matter is concerned, it is possible for the plaintiff to ask the court to proceed forthwith to try the action, instead of waiting until the 28th of July. Seeing that the New South Wales Government has admitted that it has no defence, if the Commonwealth does not take action against the State, it will lay itself open to the imputation that it is not desirous of having the matter settled. In view of the serious position of the finances of the Commonwealth, it is difficult to believe that the Government is indifferent to the default of New South Wales. As a New South Welshman, I urge the Government to take the most speedy and effective action possible to recover from New South Wales, so that the position of Australia in the money market may be relieved, and the stigma that rests on every Australian Government removed. If New South Wales fails to pay its debts, the electors of that State, particularly those in the New England, the Riverina and some other districts, should be placed in a position to decide on the course ‘ that they must take to compel the State to honour its obligations. This matter is of great importance, and I urge that it be cleared up as early as possible.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! So that no honorable member may be mistaken as to the motion that is before the House, I shall read the letter received by me from the right honorable member for Cowper, which forms the basis of- the motion. It is as follows : -

I desire to inform you that 1 intend moving tlie adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the question of expediting the proceedings or of securing summary judgment by the Commonwealth against the continued default of the Government of New South Wales.

Mr ELDRIDGE:

Mr LYONS:

– A tragedy is being enacted in New South Wales to-day - the Lang tragedy. The Government can depend absolutely upon the co-operation of honorable members on this side of the chamber in bringing that tragedy to a summary end.

Mr CROUCH:
Corangamite

.- In my opinion, this matter should, not have been brought before the chamber by the right honorable member- for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page). He, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lyons) have said that their object in directing attention to the subject was not to discuss it, but to endeavour to bring the action to judgment more speedily, if possible. The right honorable member, reading from some document which had been provided for him, said that under certain rules of the New South Wales court, summary judgment could be obtained in a more speedy way than that taken by the Government. I am not conversant with the practice of the New South Wales court, but I am surprised that the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn), who is aware of the procedure in the courts of Victoria and Western Australia, and of England, should have seconded the motion. Our procedure for summary judgment in Victoria, and in all the other States, with the possible exception of New South Wales, is taken under what is known as Order XIV., Rule 1, which provides that if no defence is entered by affidavit, a plaintiff may proceed to speedy judgment. In my opinion, the Commonwealth has acted judiciously in this matter. Apparently our Order XIV. is governed by Order LXVIII., of The Annual

Practice, 1931, of Great Britain, which reads -

Subject to the provisions of this order, nothing in these rules, save as expressly provided, shall affect the procedure or practice in any of the following causes or matters: -

Criminal proceedings.

Proceedings on the Crown side of the King’s Bench Division . . .

– Order ! I suggest that the honorable member for East Sydney is, perhaps unconsciously, reflecting upon the Chair. No greater latitude will be given to one honorable member than to another.

Mr WARD:

– I shall conclude by mentioning that the Leader of the Opposition said that this was a subject upon which the Opposition could co-operate with the Government. Since there seems to be little difference between the policy of the Government and that of the Opposition, it is rather remarkable that this should be the only matter upon which there can be co-operation; but I would suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) that it would be futile to proceed further with his “ get-together “ movement.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2033

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY

Raising of Embargo

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether, in view of the special construction of the imported harvester-thresher necessitating tractor power, and the desire of many farmers in possession of tractors for this type of harvester, the Minister will repeal the embargo on the importation of harvesterthreshers, and permit their importation subject to customs duties?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– The representations that have recently been made by the honorable member on this subject will be fully inquired into, and. the request made will receive careful consideration.

page 2033

QUESTION

RAIL MOTORS

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

asked the Minister for Markets and Transport, upon notice -

In view of the success reported by the Far East Review of March last, of carriages mounted on Dodge chassis used on the Sunning railways of South China, will the Minister obtain full information from Shanghai concerning the matter?
If so, will he place the information obtained at the disposal of the various railway departments of the States in order to assist such departments to reduce their deficits?

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

An endeavour will bc made to obtain the information desired by the honorable member.
Any information obtained will be placed at the disposal of the various railway departments of the States.

page 2033

QUESTION

UNIFORM CUSTOMS DUTIES

Mr GREGORY:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Is it a fact that at the Customs House, Sydney, duty on goods in January last was assessed at ordinary value, plus the value of the exchange rate at that date?
Was this method of assessing duty operating at other ports?
Will excess duty, demanded at exchange rate, be refunded?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

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

In relation to certain foreign goods this occurred in some cases.
Some instances appear to have arisen where a difference in practice existed.
The situation is being examined and refunds will be made if the circumstances warrant such refunds.

page 2033

QUESTION

PRIVATE WEALTH OF THE COMMONWEALTH

Mr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What was the estimated private wealth of the Commonwealth on 30th June, 1925?
What was the amount per inhabitant?
Will he state the latest figures available in his department, giving the date of such figures, showing the approximate private wealth of the Commonwealth, and the amount per inhabitant?

Mr THEODORE:
ALP

– The following information has been supplied by the Acting Commonwealth Statistician : -

£ 2,837.000,000.
£478 per head.
The latest figures available relate to the 30th June, 1927. The estimated total private wealth of Australia at that date was £3,004,000,000, and the average amount per head of population, £497.

page 2033

QUESTION

GALVANIZED IRON PRICES

Mr GREGORY:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Has his attention been drawn to an advertisement in the Auckland Weekly News of the 22nd April last, in which a trader advertises for retail sale galvanized corrugated iron, of 20-gauge, 5, 0, 7 and 8 feet, at £20 19s. Gd. per ton; 9 ft. at £21 19s. «d.; 10 ft. at £22 19s. 6d., and also fencing wire, No. 8 galvanized, at £14 12s. 6d. per ton?
What are the retail prices of similar lengths of galvanized corrugated iron, and of No. 8 galvanized fencing wire in Australia?
What are the wholesale prices of these articles at Sydney or Melbourne?
Is it a fact that on 2nd April last, quotations f.o.b. Antwerp or Bremen for the following goods were: - Plain galvanized fencing wire, No. 8, £0 5s. per ton; barbed wire, No. 12, galvanized, £8 12s. 6d. per ton?
What are the wholesale prices of these goods in Australia?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– Information is being obtained.

page 2033

QUESTION

COST OF GRISTING WHEAT

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

What price does Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited pay for crude oil landed at its refinery ?
How does this price compare with crude oil bought in California, plus freight that would be charged from California?
Does the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited pay any duty on oil it brings into Australia; if so, what amount?
How does the cost of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited’s refining compare with refining in America?
Has the Anglo-Persian Oil Company any interest in the parent company of the Australian Shell Company?
Is the Shell Company importing part distillates and calling it crude oil for the purposes of avoiding customs duty?

I am now in a position to furnish the following reply : -

The managing director, Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, advises that it is not considered desirable in the interests of the company to make this information public.
It is understood by the managing director, Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, that crude oil could not be obtained as cheaply from California.
The Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited is subject to exactly the same duty as all other oil importers. Crude petroleum oil having a petrol content of 35 per cent., or less, is admitted free of duty under security for the production of petroleum products by distillation. Once-run distillate imported under security for the production of petroleum products by distillation carries a duty of 2d. per gallon on each once-run distillate. Excise duty at 4d. per gallon’ is paid on petrol distilled in Australia from these products.
Owing to higher cost of stores and chemicals in Australia the cost of refining is higher than in America.
No.
No. The Shell Company imports crude petroleum oil having a petrol content exceeding 35 per cent, under security for the production of petroleum products by distillation.

Duty at 2d. per gallon is paid on such crude petroleum oil. Excise duty at 4d. per gallon is paid on the petrol distilled in Australia from the crudepetroleum.

page 2036

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DISABILITIES

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– Recently the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Price) asked me the following questions, upon notice : -

In connexion with the claims of South Australia for further financial assistance from the Commonwealth, will he inform the House of the terms of reference of the matter to the Public Accounts Committee, and state fully -
1. The original terms of reference set out in September, 1930; and
2. The amended terms of reference set out in March, 1931 ?
What is the explanation for the Government altering the terms of reference?

I am’ now in a position to furnish the following reply: - 1. (a) The original terms of reference were conveyed to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee on the 27th September, in a letter from the Acting Prime Minister reading as follows: -

I desire to inform you that, at a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, held in Melbourne during the month of August, a resolution was passed to the following effect : - “ That the claims of South Australia for further financial assistance from the Commonwealth be inquired into by the Federal Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee “.

In accordance with this resolution, I desire to invite your committee to make a thorough investigation into, and to report to the Commonwealth Government upon, the financial position of South Australia.

b ) The full terms of the amended reference were announced’ to Parliament on the 26th March, 1931, and will be found in Hansard, page681.

It was necessary for the Government to consider the requests of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, for special assistance in conjunction with the budget for 1931-32. The Government were of opinion that any inquiry by an independent body should be limited to information as to the essential facts together with a recommendation to the Government. Examination showed that past inquiries by independent bodies based on general terms of reference had gone far beyond what was necessary for this purpose. After full consideration, the Government decided to set out more specific terms of reference, and to invite the Public Accounts Committee to submit their recommendations for each of the three States concerned in the light of the amended reference.

page 2036

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Mr THEODORE:
ALP

– On the 5th May, the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) asked the following question, upon notice : -

Is it a fact that between the 22nd and the 24th April last, an amount approximating £400,000 was withdrawn from the Commonwealth Bank by British merchants trading in Australia, and placed in private banks with British charters?

The following reply has been furnished by the Commonwealth. Bank: -

The transactions between the bank and its customers should not be made available for public information. In any case, no abnormal transactions took place in the bank between the dates mentioned.

page 2036

QUESTION

SHIPPING BOARD

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

– On the 29th April, the honorable member for Barton(Mr. Tully) asked me a number of- questions, upon notice, in regard to Cockatoo Island Dockyard, and I promised to have inquiries made in regard to parts 6, 7 and 8, which were as follows: -

Did Mr. Payne draw a sum of £800 in lieu of accumulated leave?
If so, who sanctioned such payment?
Is it a fact that similar consideration would not be extended to a public servant in any other department?

I am now in a position to furnish the following replies: -

Mr. Payne has . advised that lie commenced eighteen weeks’ leave on the 27th October, 1930, and drew salary in advance, amounting to £44811s. 6d. He found it necessary to return to duty on the 4th November, 1930. He, however, retained the salary which had been paid to him in advance, and did not draw further salary until that advanced to him had been worked off. The amount of leave granted annually is three weeks, and the leave in respect of which the salary of £44811s.6d. was advanced had accumulated for six years.
Mr. Payne, as manager of the dockyard.
An officer of the Commonwealth Public Service located in the capital cities would not be permitted to accumulate recreation leave in respect of more than two years’ service, viz., six weeks, and, therefore, would not be entitled to draw salary in advance in excess of that period. So far as furlough is concerned, it is the practice to pay an officer, proceeding on furlough the salary which would be payable to him during the currency of such furlough.

Where an officer is recalled from recreation leave, the Treasury view is that such officer should be permitted to retain that portion of the salary so advanced as covers the current fortnightly pay period, but that salary paid in advance in respect of any further fortnightly period should be refunded.

page 2036

PAPERS

The following papers were presented: -

Norfolk Island Act - Ordinance of 1931 - No. 1 - Executive Council.

Scat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act-

Ordinances of 1931 -

No. 7 - Medical Practitioners Registration.

No. 8 - Dentists Registration.

Public Health Ordinance - Regulations amended -

Boarding Houses.

Infectious Diseases.

page 2036

QUESTION

TARIFF

Customs Duties

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 15th May (vide page 2017), on motion by Mr. Forde -

That the schedule to the customs tariff be amended -

Division IV. - Agricultural Products and Groceries.

Item 94 -

By omitting the whole item, and inserting in its stead the following item: - “ 94. Soap -

Toilet, fancy, or medicated, per lb.; British,1s.; intermediate, 1s.6d. ; general, 2s.; or ad val., British, 45 per cent.; intermediate, 55 per cent.; general, 60 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty,

N.E.I. : Soap substitutes and compound detergents for washing and cleansing purposes, not including saponaceous disinfectants, ad val., British, 40 per cent. ; intermediate, 45 per cent.; general, 50 per cent.”

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- The duty on soap was raised on the 21st November, 1929, and subsequently the matter was referred for inquiry to the Tariff Board, which reportedon it on the 30th June, 1930. The board intimated in its report that, though it had advertised in all States its intention to inquire into the existing duty on soap, no application for an increased duty had been received from any soap manufacturer in Australia. Despite the fact that no such request was made, the Government has seen fit to increase the duty by as much as 50 per cent. This action surely calls for some explanation from the Minister. Probably hecan explain it satisfactorily, and I hope he will. According to the Tariff Board’s report the importations of soap represent less than 1 per cent, of the Australian consumption. The actual figures, based upon official statistics, are as follow: -

The average yearly production of soap and soap extracts and powders for the two years ended 30th June, 1928 - this is the latest date available - were -

In the light of these figures it is difficult to understand how the committee can be expected to support the proposed increase. The Government’s proposals Amount, not to protection, but to prohibition. In the publication by Shann and Copland, known as The Crisis in Australian Finance, there occurs the following paragraph dealing with the soap manufacturing industry in this country : -

It is gratifying to note that, following the successful establishment of certain industries under a protective tariff, the selling prices of the products of those industries compare favorably with those charged in other countries for comparable goods. Operating under a duty of 30 per cent. British and 35 per cent, general . . Australia’s soap manufacturers supply 99 per cent, of the country’s requirements.

The proposals of the Government are nothing less than protection run mad.

Mr Gregory:

– The Government has imposed an embargo on the importation of soap.

Mr FRANCIS:

– Yes ; but we have had an assurance from the Minister that the Government will sooner or later lift the embargo, and we must then depend on the duty.

Mr Maxwell:

– It might save a lot of time if the Minister were to give his explanation now.

Mr FRANCIS:

– I should be glad if he would do so.

Mr FORDE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP

– At the present time the importation of soap into Australia is prohibited. “We can manufacture in Australia all the soap we require, and at a time like this, when we are endeavouring to rectify an adverse trade balance, the Government believes that there is no justification for importing soap from France or Italy or England or any other country, more especially as in the manufacture of soap we use so many of the by-products of our primary industries. It is proposed to make an all-round increase in the duty on soap of 10 per cent, ad valorem, together with an increase of 6d. per lb. on the fixed rate for fancy soaps under the British preference section, and of ls. 3d. per lb. under the general tariff. Since there is an embargo on the importation of soap, this is not at present a revenue-producing item ; but it should be so when the prohibition is lifted. If people then prefer to use the manufactures of Roger and Gallet and Morny, they should be required to contribute to the revenue. During the last few years there has been considerable development in the manufacture of soap in Australia. Local manufacturers are now marketing soap, similar in every respect to No. 4 castile, formerly imported from Italy, as well as a number of perfumed soaps. The duties were imposed primarily for revenue purposes, to operate as soon as the prohibition is lifted. The Tariff Board made an investigation into this item, and took certain evidence in public. The usual practice is to insert advertisements in the press notifying the persons concerned that an inquiry is to be held, and invariably those interested appear before the board to give evidence. In this case the Australian manufacturers were not represented at the inquiry, the reason being, I presume, that the high rate of exchange discourged importa- roni tion, and the bulk of the’ Australian requirements were being supplied locally. It is, however, probable that some importations will continue after the prohibition is lifted, and the extra duties will, therefore, be revenue producing. In its report of the 30th June, 1930, the Tariff Board stated -

There does not appear to be .any necessity, so far as the ordinary requirements are concerned, for the importation of soap into Australia.

Such importations as have taken place have apparently been made to meet a demand created by a section of the community who, in order to gratify a desire for the imported product, are prepared to pay for it a price higher than at which the local article can be purchased.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– Surely the Minister is not trying to disclaim responsibility for something done by the Government of which he is a member.

Unfortunately it seems to be the habit of members of the present .Government to disclaim responsibility for cabinet .action. For instance, an exMinister now sitting on a corner bench is frequently to be heard disclaiming responsibility for what was done by the Government when he was a Minister. No Government can carry on unless all its Ministers are loyal and willing to work together, and to accept responsibility for what their Government does.

Mr FORDE:

– Does the right honorable member object to the matter having gone to the Tariff Board?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– No, but the Minister cannot gay .one taring to-day and another thing to-morrow. One statement must be wrong, and, so far as the Minister is concerned, it frequently happens that all his statements are iricorrect. These duties are typical of the whole of the duties in this schedule. The Minister has “gone it blind”. Probably half of the increases were imposed without a proper examination by the Tariff Board, and many of the items are subject to duties which, as in this case, are now higher than have been recommended by the Tariff Board. I want to say ,a ‘word on behalf of the consumer, who surely is entitled to some consideration, A great deal has been said about keeping a few men - five, or ten, or perhaps fifteen or twenty - employed in particular industries, which may not be regarded as suitable for development in Australia, and about making certain that these employees shall get full wages regardless of the’ effect on the wages of all others in the community. The soap industry, however, is a natural industry, which has been able to build itself up, and even toexport, on the old rat.es of duty, and surely there is no occasion for increasing the duties, particularly when by doing so we open the door to exploitation.

Mr Cusack:

– Does the honorable member contend that the purchaser qf these soaps is a consumer?

Dr EARLE’ PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Certainly. If a man has to pay more for the soap he uses, his weekly wage is reduced. What is true of this item is practically true of almost every item. in the tariff. Duties have been increased with the definitepurpose of adding to the cost of living, although it means a reduction of the purchasing power of wages. How can it be said that the purchasing power of wages is. maintained when those wages are being steadily reduced by industrial tribunals?

Mr MACKAY:
Lilley

.- It has been suggested that if the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Forde) would explain each item as it is called on, that would tend to shorten the debate ; but after listening to the Minister’s effort on this item I am inclined to think that his explanations tend rather to extend debate indefinitely. Speaking on the general tariff debate, I mentioned that the Minister had in many respects departed from the recommendations of the Tariff Board. This item is no exception. “We are informed that 99 per cent, of the soap used in Australia is manufactured in Australia, and that we are even exporting soap; also that the 1 per cent, of soap that is imported represents a high class article which is principally made, in France. It has further been brought under our notice that France has been retaliating against the Commonwealth because of the high duties we are imposing on the small quantity of commodities coming to us from that country. My purpose in rising now is to protest against the Minister’s continued ignoring of the Tariff Board’s reports. The members of the Tariff Board have special opportunities to ascertain just what duties should be imposed, and their recommendation in connexion with soap, was -

The board considers that, having regard to all the circumstances as indicated herein, it is not justified in recommending any alteration in - the duties imposed by Item 94 a and b of the Customs Tariff 1921-1928, and it, therefore, recommends that such duties be not varied.

It is perplexing to an ordinary individual that these duties should have been increased to such a considerable extent while there is an embargo on the importation of soap. Surely both are not needed. One could understand the Minister’s explanation that a high duty is necessary, because revenue is required, if there were no embargo; but to double the rate of duty while there is an embargo in force, seems ridiculous. The manufacturers of soap have not asked for an increase of duty. When they had an opportunity to support an increase, they declined to do so. They were evidently well satisfied with the previous rates. I was waiting for the Minister to state that he contemplated removing the embargo.

Mr FORDE:

– The point is under consideration.

Mr MACKAY:

– If the embargo were removed, and the 1 per cent, of soap that is imported made liable to the impossible duties fixed in this schedule, verylittle customs duty would be obtained; but further injustice would be done to France which is a good customer for our primary products. Every member of this committee must be surprised at the Minister’s explanation. If he has no better explanation to offer on succeeding items he had better retain his seat. [Quorum formed.’]

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

– 1 was surprised to hear the answer of the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) to the question put to him by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Cusack) - whether the users of soap were consumers. I was surprised that he should have swallowed the bait so easily. The quantity of soap affected by these duties is very small indeed, and represents a highly-scented line.

Mr GREGORY:

– Would the honorable member rather put the money into the hands of a few manufacturers than into the hands of the Government?

Mr MARTENS:

– Some people will buy this soap no matter what it coats, and, so far as I am concerned, they are at liberty to do so ; but when the Australian manufacturers are in a position to make all the soap that is required in Australia, and quite up to the standard of the imported article, I claim that the Government is entitled to get revenue from those who still insist on buying the imported article. I am not one who believes that in ordinary circumstances the Government should impose duties for revenue purposes; but when there are people willing to buy imported soap of a special class, I think the Government is legitimately entitled to secure revenue from them, In reply to the interjection by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory), I contend that the lines of soap people are so anxious to get from abroad will not be manufactured in Australia, and, therefore, the Government will get the revenue.

Dr Earle Page:

– Under the embargo people cannot get those lines of soap at the present time.

Mr MARTENS:

– They may not be able to buy soap from overseas, but they seem to be just as clean without it. The people with whom the right honorable member for Cowper associates seem to be just as clean and as well off to-day as they were when they could import fancy soaps. The quantity of soap imported into Australia during the three years ended the 30th June, 1930, was as follows: -

Australia can do without this import trade, but if a certain section of the people insists on buying expensive imported soap, they must be prepared to pay the prescribed duty.

I suggest that the discussion on the various tariff items shows the wisdom of the action of the Government in amending the Standing Orders, and reducing the time allotted to members addressing the committee. I have sat in this chamber fairly consistently throughout the tariff debates, * and I am convinced that the Government might, with advantage, further reduce the time allowed by one-half. I say this because, in my opinion, a good deal of time has been wasted by honorable members opposite.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- The duties on soap, like many other imposts, show the warped fiscal outlook of the Government. There seemed to be nothing solid or constructive in the argument advanced by the Minister in favour of these duties. Nor will they contribute to the revenue that is so badly needed at the present juncture. During the present Government’s term of office, the customs revenue, I understand, has fallen off to the extent of about £11,000,000, and there is talk of default and inability to meet our obligations both at home and abroad. The local manufacturers of soap have not asked for a further increase in the duty, and the Tariff Board, far from suggesting these increases, has recommended thai there should be no increase. Yet the Government has deliberately increased the duties, and it has capped its action by imposing an embargo on this item, which makes it impossible to get any revenue from this source. Figures have been given showing that the factories in Australia were supplying 99 per cent. of the soap requirements of this country, and that we were exporting more of this commodity than we were importing. Our trade with France, to which the Minister has referred, is extremely favorable to Australia, and it would not be a had policy for us to buy a little from that country. The purchase of soaps of special quality, such as are not made in Australia, would assist to augment the revenue obtained through the customs. I urge that the tariff be not increased beyond the rates ruling prior to the 27th November, 1929. Accordingly, I move -

That the item be amended by adding the following: - “And on and after the 20th May, 1931, 94. Soap -

Toilet, Fancy or Medicated, per lb., British,6d., intermediate, 8d., general 9d., or ad val. British, 35 per cent. ; intermediate 40 per cent.: general 45 per cent, whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Soap substitutes and com pounded detergents for washing and cleansing purposes, not including saponaceous disinfectants, ad val. British, 30 per cent.; intermediate, 35 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.”.

Mr MAXWELL:
Fawkner

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

.- The duties on soap have been approximately doubled by the present Government. The Minister stated, in reply to the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page), that the reference to the Tariff Board had been made by his predecessor. I am sure he did not wish to mislead the committee, but the facts are that the duties were imposed on the 21st November, 1929, and the matter was referred to the Tariff Board on the following day. At that time, the Minister was assistant to the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton).

Mr Forde:

– The right honorable member for Cowper said that I was responsible for the reference to the Tariff Board.

Mr GULLETT:

– The honorable member was the assistant and colleague of the then Minister for Trade and Customs, and he should not apologize for the action then taken. The reference of this item to the Tariff Board was a sham, and should never have been made. For the first time in the history of the Tariff Board this Government has referred to it proposed duties for which no application had been made by local manufacturers. On its own initiative the Government has piled up duties. On the 30th June, the Tariff

Hoard recommended definitely against an increase of duty, in these terms -

The board considers that, having regard to all the circumstances as indicated herein, it is not justified in recommending any alteration in the duties imposed by Item 94 (a) and (B) of the Customs Tariff 1921-1928, and it, therefore, recommends that such duties be not varied.

The duties referred to in that recommendation were . the duties prevailing before the 21st November, 1929. The general invitation extended by advertisement to manufacturers to give evidence in support of the altered duties attracted no response, nor did one manufacturer proffer evidence in rebuttal of that tendered by the importing interests against the new duties. Yet the Government has continued the increased imposts. When these duties were raised there was no suggestion of embargoes; they were imposed in a fanatical, blindfold manner as an additional measure of protection. They cannot have been intended as revenue duties, because the effect of them was to shut out imports, and, therefore, diminish revenue. A serious principle is involved in tariff-making of this character. The Minister sneered at highgrade foreign soaps and the people who are disposed to use them. He dismissed such commodities as luxuries, which the Australian people would be better without. These soaps are the products of a great customer for Australian produce. In 1928-29 we bought from France £3,700,000 worth of goods, and France bought from us £15,141,000 worth. Yet for the sake of a few thousand pounds worth of high-grade soaps, the Minister takes the risk of antagonizing that market, which is one of the greatest mainstays of our pastoral industry. In 1928-29, France bought from Australia nearly £12,000,000 worth of wool. No foreign country has yet retaliated against Australia by increasing its tariff on our wool; but if this vicious and stupid tariff-making is persevered in, it will only be a matter of time when other countries will retaliate against us by increasing the duties on certain grades of wool. We have not a monopoly of the world’s wool; we have a partial monopoly of the world’s superfine wool, and the coarser grades are obtainable in other countries. The

Minister is shutting the door against the importation of high quality soaps on the ground that they are luxuries, but are not our super-fine merino wools luxuries in the countries in which they are consumed/? It is possible that the importation of those wools may be prevented by the French Government as representing unnecessary expenditure on the part of the French people, in the same way as this Government is condemning expenditure in this country on soaps of French origin. We run an extremely grave risk in im posing this . additional duty. Monopoly after monopoly is being created by this Labour Government. One day it is biscuits, another day confectionery, and to-day it is soap. Country after country is being antagonized. The provocation involved must eventually bring retaliation in its train. Unfortunately, that retaliation, when it comes, will affect the big primary industries - the mainstay of this country - upon which we as a people depend. I appeal to the Minister to admit his mistake, and to restore the duty to what it was formerly. I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse), and I trust that honorable members generally will give it favorable consideration. What is so depressing about this schedule is that the increases in duty on item after item, which alter imports only to a limited extent, make us enemies overseas. This fantastic policy of tariff revision does nothing to protect Australian industries, or to swell the Commonwealth revenue.

Question - That the amendment (Mr. Prowse’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. McGrath.)

AYES: 21

NOES: 32

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 96 (Unground Spice)

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- I wish to know why this item is free of duty? The Government has just forced through this committee a duty of 10 per cent, on soaps, because it objects to anything being imported into this country free of duty. The Minister says that soap is a luxury, but surely unground spices, n.e.i., are to be classed as luxuries. This is the only item I can find that is free altogether of duty. I ask the Minister to explain this anomaly.

Mr FORDE:
Minister for Trade and. Customs · Capricornia · ALP

– I did expect this item to pass without any objection being raised by the Country party. The right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) wishes to reduce the whole of the tariff by 25 per cent., and so throw thousands of men out of employment, yet he is now protesting against the admission of unground spices free of duty. The letters “ n.e.i. “ have been added on account of the removal of ground ginger to item 56 c.

Item agreed to.

Item 98 (Starch Flours and Custard Powders)

Mr FORDE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP

– The increase proposed under item 98 b is consequent upon an increased duty of1d. per lb. on cornflour, which comprises most of the raw material used in the manufacture of custard powder. The local manufacturers of custard powder can, and practically do, supply the whole of the Australian requirements. With regard to item 9S a, no alteration is being made in the rates of duty on starch flours. Item 98 of the 1921-28 tariff included custard powders. They are now included in item 98 b, and the duty has been increased.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- The Minister should give some explanation in justification of this increased duty on a food of the people. The manufacture of starch flours and custard powders was started in this country many years ago, and so far as I can ascertain, the industry has done remarkably well. It is certainly not necessary to build up this trade by preventing importation. The manufacturers, particularly in Victoria, are sound solid firms, and they made no appeal to the Minister for this increased duty, the only effect of which is to swell the household bill, and to prevent competition among the manufacturers. If the Minister requires revenue, he should reduce, rather than increase, the duty, so that the manufacturers may face competition. These heavy duties are continually increasing the cost of living, and yet we wonder why this country cannot progress.

Item agreed to.

Item 100.

By omitting the whole item and inserting in its stead the following item: - “100. Tea-

In packets not exceeding 20 lb. net weight,, per lb., British, 6d. ; intermediate,6d.; general,6d. (B)N.E.I., per lb., British, 4d.; intermediate, 4d.; general, 4d.”

Dr Earle Page:

– Were those suggestions received from beer drinkers?

Mr FORDE:

– The beer-drinkers pay a duty of 2s. a gallon on beer. Different people choose different beverages to drink with their meals. Some people regard beer as a necessity, while others look upon tea, whisky, and coffee in the same light. Tea is admittedly the universal beverage in British communities, and it is one of the items upon which the Government was loath to impose additional duty. Unfortunately, it had no option in the matter, as additional revenue is needed to provide for its social service commitments.

Canada.

Tea imported direct from country of origin and tea purchased in the United Kingdom, in packages over 5 lb., per lb., British preferential, free; intermediate, 9 cents.; general, 10 cents. Tea, n.o.p., per lb., British preferential, 10 cents.; intermediate, 10 cents.; general, 10 cents, and ad valorem, British, 10 per cent.; intermediate, 10 per cent., and general, 10 per cent.

South African Union.

In packets or tins not exceeding 10 lb. each in weight, per lb., 4d. all countries;
In larger packets, per lb. 2d. all countries.

New Zealand.

In packages 5 lb. or over, per lb. British preferential, free; general, 2d.; u.e.i., per lb., British preferential, 2d.; general, 4d.

France also has a duty on tea, of from approximately 2½d. to 5d. per lb. If revenues were buoyant, the Government would not think of imposing this duty, but it is necessary to do so if we are to maintain our old-age, invalid, and soldiers’ pensions. In the circumstances, I urge honorable members to allow the duty to go through as it stands.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- I cannot understand the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) and the Leader of the Country Party (Dr. Earle Page) challenging the action of the Government in connexion with this item. Here the Government is introducing a new principle, that of revenue-production, into the tariff, and honorable members complain about it! Obviously, it is necessary that the Government should raise a large sum of money. In a preceding item it made a present to the cigar manufacturers of about £40,000 a year, by reducing excise duties. That must be made up, and the choice of this Government is naturally a heavy duty on tea, a beverage that is necessary to the workers. The Government has also made a present of between £200,000 and £300,000 to the match manufacturers. Again, that is done by penalizing the ordinary householder. It is apparent that the real purpose of this tariff schedule is to produce revenue. Why the Minister should come to the committee and ask for a reduction in excise duty on Australian-made cigars, and at the same time impose an embargo on matches, appears to me to be beyond explanation.

Mr.Forde. - There has been a reduction in the price of matches since that embargo was introduced.

Mr GREGORY:

Mr Forde:

– The people can avoid the increase by buying tea packed in Australia in preference to tea packed in black-labour countries.

Mr BAYLEY:

– The Government has surely been unmindful of history. It must have forgotten the “Boston tea party “. Years ago our cousins in America threw tea into Boston Harbour in preference to paying excessive duties upon it. The people of this country will just as surely rise against this Government for placing an iniquitous tax upon their daily beverage. I intend to support the amendment which the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) intends to move to this item. It cannot be true that it is almost impossible to place an ad valorem duty on tea! We have been told that 50,000,000 lb. of tea, valued at £3,274,000, was imported last year. The duty on that quantity, at 4d. per lb. bulk and 6d. per lb. packet, would yield a revenue of £825,000. Surely it would not be impossible for the officers of the department to work out an ad valorem duty which would yield a like amount of revenue. If that method of imposing the duty were adopted, the working classes of this country would not be obliged to pay the same taxation on tea which costs1s. 8d. per lb. as the wealthy people pay on tea which costs from 3s. 6d. to 6s. per lb. It is a taxation maxim that taxation should fall upon the shoulders of the people in proportion to their ability to pay. For these reasons, I shall support the proposal which the honorable member for Henty intends to submit to the committee.

Mr STEWART:
Wimmera

Mr Stewart:

– What about the millions of pounds that have been thrown away?

Mr. MARTENS__ The honorable member for Wimmera referred in a general way to the millions that have been wasted, but when speaking did not give any specific instances. Every form of taxation is unpopular and I know of no other form of direct or indirect taxation that is more unpopular than a duty on tea. This form of taxation has been strongly opposed by the representatives of the organizations with which I am associated. The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart) referred to the imposition of a flour tax, but, in this instance, there is no analogy between tea and flour. There are many persons in this country who do not drink tea, but there are -not any who do not use flour; in some form;I regret that the Government has”, found it necessary to impose these duties; but as they are necessary in order to obtain revenue, I intend to. support, them’. The members of the: party to which I belong know why these duties were imposed; and when they were first suggested I agreed with the present.Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lyons), who was then, a-, member of the Labour party, that they were less objectionable than the alternative then mentioned.

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

.- Honorable members on this, side- of; the. chamber are as much concernedwith the revenue as are honorable members, opposite. I and other honorable- members, “have pointed out. that tea. is- more, heavily taxed than various other commodities, , particularly Australian-made cigars, which now pay only anormal excise duty. I objected to the principle, which, is- unscientific, seeing that duties are imposed irrespective of the capacity of the. individual to pay-. Under the presentsystem the poor, people who consume cheap tea have to pay. the same rate -of’ duty as- those who use the more expensive grades. I intimated earlier, in the debate that. I would test the feeling of the com- mittee on the imposition.of an ad valorem duty,, under which, the. same amount of revenue as is now collected would, be received. L recognize that the Government must have money, butI should, like a. lower- rate of dutyto be imposed on. the cheaper, grades of tea,, and. a higher rate, on the more: expensive blends. The Minister (Mr. Forde) spoke of the difficulties in ascertaining values, of tea exported from countries in which, coloured labour is-: employed. I remind : the. Minister that, in most of - these countries - tea is- not produced by. individual growers, but by large, companies, , mainly British whosein voices could be accepted asconfidently as are. invoices respecting, other com.modi ties. The Minister referred to. the’ difficulty experienced in; connexion with’ the. invoices in connexion with silk importations from Japan. That was only a passingdifficulty;- . When , I was Minister ‘ for Customs there< was some doubt as to whether such invoices were correct; and on the advice of the departmental officials an officer- was sent to Japan’. As a. result of his investigations’ it was ascertained that the revenue which the department had been losing was not great; and’ the difficulty, which was’ not’ a complex’ one, was eventually overcome” and the silk duties- are still on an ad valorem basis. There is no reason why tea should not be paced on the same footing.

Mr Gabb:

– Is the honorable member sure that the present revenue will not be affected if an average duty of 25 per cent, is-dopted?

Mr GULLETT:

– It will- not be affected on an average duty of 25 per cent

In packets not exceeding 20 lb. net weight, ad val., British, 30 per cent.; intermediate, 35 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.
N.E.I., ad val., British, 15 per cent.; intermediate, 20 per cent.; general, 25 per cent.

I have had to make my calculations hurriedly, and I cannot say whether the percentages I have stated will return exactly £800,000 revenue, but it would be a simple thing for the Minister to postpone consideration of this item until his officers have made the necessary calculations.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- I support the amendment of the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett), but I think his proposal would be improved if he made the duties under the first paragraph - that is, on packets not exceeding 20 lb. net weight, 25 per cent. British, 30 per cent, intermediate, and 35 per cent, general. At present the margin is too great between the duty on packages not exceeding 20 lb. and the duty on bulk tea. The duty of 25 per cent, general tariff on tea in bulk would’ apply to practically all imports. Indeed, I think it would cover practically the whole of them, because we import no tea directly from Great

Britain, and no countries, even those belonging to the British Empire, would enjoy the intermediate rate, unless some special agreement were made with them. Therefore, we are, in effect, discussing the proposed ad valorem duty of 25 per cent. It is customary, however, to include lesser duties in the other columns because the practice has been observed of maintaining the margin of preference to Great Britain, even on those commodities with which we do no trade with her. A duty of 25 per cent, would, according to last year’s figures, return a revenue of approximately £870,000 on the £3,482,971 worth of tea imported. The Minister, I think, said that it was expected to obtain something like £800,000 from the duty which the Government was imposing, so that the revenue would actually benefit if this proposal were accepted. The difference between this proposal and the Government’s is that those persons who cannot afford to buy expensive tea would, under the 25 per cent, duty, have to pay a tax of, probably, not more than 2½d. or 3d. per lb., while those with more money in their pockets, and with more expensiye tastes in tea, would, instead of having to pay a duty of 4d. per lb. as the Government now proposes, probably have to pay as much as 6d., or even more. Our proposal is for a graduated tax which would take into consideration the position of those housewives who have not very much to spend. If the Government cannot see its way to accept this proposal straight away, I trust that it will agree to the postponement of the clause until it can go more fully into the matter.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- I realize that, in increasing the duty on tea, the Government is after revenue, but I regret that it should deem it necessary to tax so drastically this household commodity. Tea is not in any sense a luxury. I therefore intend to support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) to make the duty, ad valorem, 15 per cent. British, 20 per cent, intermediate, and 25 per cent. Under this proposal, the cheaper grades of tea, used mainly by the bulk of the people and specially the working classes, will not be taxed so heavily.

Furthermore, the amendment will open the door to trade agreements between tea exporting countries within the British Empire. The following figures of imports into Australia, taken from the Trade Bulletin for 1929-30, are instructive : -

Our total imports last year amounted to approximately £3,300,000. Is it not better so to frame our tariff as to make possible trade agreements between the component parts of the British Empire? The tea planters in Ceylon and in Assam are living in the outposts of the Empire on our trade routes, and have played their part as British subjects during the war. Their interests should receive consideration in the debate on this item. If, as the Minister has suggested, the amendment will return a greater amount of revenue than will be obtainable under his proposal for a flat rate of 4d. per lb.; it is an easy matter to lower the rates. The amendment would not raise the price of tea unduly to the working man, who, under the Government proposal would have to suffer the exorbitant increase of 400 per cent.

Adopted.

Mr LYONS:
Wilmot

.- Although I was associated with the imposition of this tax in the first place, I think it is desirable that the committee should consider the amendment moved by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett), and that its object if it can be achieved, is one that we ought to seek. The imposition of an ad valorem duty was considered when first the duty was being discussed by Cabinet, and I understand that the department was of the opinion that it was. not practicable. If it is practicable, we should accept it.

Mr.Forde. - We cannot apply- the British preferential tariff to the product of Ceylon.

Mr LYONS:

– I understand there is that difficulty. If it is not practicable, the only course remaining to us is to go ahead and raise the revenue under the Minister’s proposal for a flat rate. I understand that, during my absence from the chamber, the Minister conveyed the impression to honorable members, or made the definite statement, that this proposal to increase the duty on tea originated with me.

Mr Maxwell:

Mr PATERSON:

– The figures just quoted by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) appear to be lower. They indicate that our total imports last year amounted to approximately £3,300,000 iu value, but the difference is so slight that we should stiLl be able to get considerably over £800,000 by an ad valorem duty of 22$ per cent. I, therefore, urge the Minister to give carefill consideration to the proposal to make the duties 15 per cent. British, 17$ per cent, intermediate, and 22$ per cent, general. Obviously the- 15’ per cent, and the 17$ per cent, would really not come into the picture very much. They would appear on the schedule; but as practically the whole of our tea is obtained from foreign countries, and even that which is obtained from within the British Empire would, unless arrangements were made to give special concessions to it, be calculated on the general rate. I submit that 15- per cent., 17$ per cent., and 22$ per cent, would be ample to provide even more revenue than the Minister aim? to get.

With regard to the duty on packages the Government’s proposal is 2d. per lb. extra. The Minister appears to think Chat the quantity of -tea imported in packages is sufficiently important to warrant that additional impost. The figures in the Overseas Trade Bulletin show that up to the year 1928-29 the quantity of tea imported in packages was only 300,000 lb. compared with a total importation of 50,000,0001b. The percentage of tea imported in packages is thus about 06 per cent., or about 1 lb. in every 170 lb. I should think it is a quantity that is hardly worth taking into consideration; but if the Minister favorably regards the proposal to impose an ad valorem, instead of a fixed, rate of duty, an addition of 10 per cent, to the 15 per cent., 17£ per cent, and 22-J per cent., I have already suggested, would in effect be really 11 per cent., taking into consideration the 10 per cent, which has always to be added by the Customs Department to the f.o.b. value. As 16.8d. is about the average price of tea upon importation, this 10 per cent, would make the additional duty on tea in packages about 1.85d. per lb., which comes quite sufficiently close to the 2d. per lb. the Minister proposes to collect. Indeed, it is considerably more than I think there is any need for, and I say that in confirmation of the remark I have already made that the figures quoted by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) were a little bit high. He suggested, if I remember aright, rates of 30 per cent., 35 per cent, and 40 per cent. I think that 10 per cent, extra on 15 per cent., 17£ per cent, and 22$ per cent, should be ample to cover tea imported in packages.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- The group to which I belong is opposed to the proposal of the Government to impose a duty on tea, and, of course, it is likewise opposed to the amendment. No sound argument can be advanced, particularly by a Labour government, in favour of a tax on a commodity which is not produced here and of which the working man ia certainly a large consumer. Instead of calling it a tax on tea honorable members should be honest enough to Call lt what it amounts to, and that is a tax on wages. The duties proposed cannot be defended on the ground that they are affording protection to an

Australian industry, because the whole of the tea consumed in Australia is imported. They can be justified only on the ground advanced by the Minister and others, that they are required to raise revenue. The Minister says that the only alternative to obtaining revenue by means of a tax on tea is to reduce pensions, invalid, old-age and war, and the maternity allowance ; but I maintain there is another alternative although it is one which the Government and honorable members of this House have not the courage to tackle. There has been much talk cif every one being prepared to bear a share of the sacrifice that is required to meet the present situation, but honorable members conveniently see to it that the only persons who are called upon to do any sacrificing are the workers. The moment it is suggested that those sheltered individuals who are deriving their incomes per medium of exorbitant interest rates should be asked to bear their share of the sacrifice, a cry is raised on both sides of the chamber that it means repudiation, or that the country is not prepared to meet its obligations. The group to which I belong have an obligation to the people who sent us here; and we are not desirous of having a tax put on tea which we regard as equivalent to a reduction in wages, or at any rate, as a scientific means of bringing about that end, although the Government will not at the moment admit that such is its policy. In reply to an interjection, the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb), informed the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Eldridge) that he was supporting this proposal as a revenue measure, and that he did not look upon tea as an absolute necessity. He said that water was good enough for the workers to drink. The honorable member and some of the friends of the workers on the other side of the chamber, whom I never knew existed until I came here, probably also agree that there is plenty of grass for the workers to eat. At any rate, that is the standard to which the patriots sitting on the other side of the chamber, including the honorable member for Angas, would like to reduce the workers of this country. If water is good enough for the workers to drink, as the honorable member for Angas says it is, and all of them begin to drink it and nothing else, the honorable member will then, have to tax water to secure the revenue which he is so much concerned about. If revenue is necessary so that the country can carry on, and preserve pensions and continue the payment of the maternity allowance, let the Government be courageous enough to recognize that there are only two courses open to them. They must either attack those who are deriving exorbitant rates of interest from the whole of the people of the Commonwealth; or be prepared, as an honorable member opposite has said, to accept what is known as the Melbourne agreement, the policy of Sir Otto Nie- meyer, and openly attack the wages and conditions of the workers. I was not in the caucus room myself, but I know that many members of the Labour party while in that room opposed a tax on tea. I hope that even at this late hour they will say that they are not prepared to tax what is a necessity to the workers. If they are desirous of getting the revenue they are so much concerned about, let them take it out of those who can afford to pay taxation.

Mr FORDE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP

– I wish to point out to the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) that the values given in the statistical bulletin already include the 10 per cent, statutory addition. I quote this from the first page of the Overseas Trade Bulletin 1927-

The value of goods imported from countries beyond Australia represents the amount on which duty is payable or would be payable if the duty were ad valorem. Section 154 (1) of the Customs Act 1901-1925 provides that “ When any duty is imposed according to value the value for duty shall be the sum of the following: -

(i) The actual money price paid or to be paid for the goods by the Australian importer plus any special deduction, or

) The current domestic value of the goods, whichever is the higher;

All charges payable or ordinarily payable for placing the goods free on board at the port of export ; and

Ten per centum of the amounts specified under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this sub-section.” “ Current domestic value “ is defined as - “ The amount for -which the seller of the goods to the purchaser in Australia is selling or would be prepared to sell for cash, at the date of exportation of these goods, the same quantity of identically similar goods to any and every purchaser in the country of export for consumption in that country.”

Mr Paterson:

– After that explanation I shall stick to the 15 per cent., 20 per cent., and 25 per cent. I merely suggested the lower rates because I thought that the 10 per cent, was not included.

Mr FORDE:

– The honorable member agrees with the proposal of the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett). As I have already said, I would not misrepresent any honorable member, and I am glad that the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Lyons) adheres to the decision that this revenue should be raised from tea, to which he was a party, when, as Acting Treasurer, he formulated his budget. No one who is associated with the adoption of a budget, which is always the responsibility of the Treasurer of the day, cares about placing a duty on tea, but, as the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) rightly said, when the Government was being asked by all sections of the community to try to balance the budget, revenue had to be raised. The Government had to face a fixed expenditure for invalid and old-age pensions, war pensions, interest and sinking fund, and the payment of the Public Service. That expenditure was inescapable, and at the same time there was a falling off in the return from income taxation. It was, therefore, necessary to cast round for some other means of raising revenue. The Government has adopted many means to that end. It has provided for a tax on interest as well as revenue customs duties. Honorable members opposite admit that they would not remove the tax on tea. It is only with them the matter of varying the incidence of the tax. They want to give the British preferential rate to Ceylon. That is impossible. It would necessitate a report by the Tariff Board and a decision by Parliament. Section 9 of the Customs Tariff 1921 provides -

Subject to this section, the provisions of the British preferential tariff may be applied wholly or in part to any part of the British dominions, and the provisions of the intermediate tariff may be applied wholly or in part to any part of the British dominions or to any foreign country.
The application of the British preferential tariff or the intermediate tariff in pursuance of the last preceding sub-section shall be by means of a proclamation which shall specify the extent to which and the time from which the tariff shall apply, and thereafter, so long as the proclamation remains in force, the British preferential tariff, or the intermediate tariff, as the case may be, shall apply, in accordance with the tenor of, and to the extent specified in, the proclamation, to goods the produce or manufacture of that part of the British dominions or of that foreign country which are shipped in that part or country, as the case may be, to Australia, and have not been transhipped, or, if transhipped, then only if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Collector that the intended destination of the goods, when originally shipped from that part or country, as the case may be, was Australia.
A proclamation shall not be issued under the last preceding sub-section until -
1. the Minister has referred to the Tariff Board the question whether, having regard to the reciprocal benefits which have been or will be granted to Australia by that part of the British dominions or that foreign country, as the case may be, it is desirable in the interests of the Commonwealth that the British preferential tariff or the intermediate tariff should apply to the part or foreign country, as the case may be, and, if so, the extent to which it should so apply, and the Tariff Board has reported thereon; and
2. each House of the Parliament has by resolution agreed that the application is, to the extent specified in the resolution, desirable in the interests of the Commonwealth.

– The honorable member for Angas has interjected. “We have heard of wood and water joeys, but we heard for the first time to-day from the honorable member of grass and water joeys. His constituents, it is to be hoped, will duly be informed of his humane policy of water and grass for suffering workers as announced by him to-day. Mr. Churchill continued -

And I am glad to think that the reign of His Majesty King George the Fifth will witness the total, immediate, and, I believe, final abolition : “And while the bubbling and loud-hissing urn

Throws up a steamy column, and the cups That cheer, but not inebriate, wait on each, So let us welcome peaceful evening in.”

It is certain that the discussion on this item has not been, conducive to a peaceful evening. Mr. Churchill went on to say -

I said that the remission would be total, and I have said so advisedly, and, although over three-quarters of the tea drunk in these islands is produced within the British Empire, Javanese tea enters to a great extent into the cheapest blends used by the poorest people. To maintain for preferential reasons a tax on this foreign tea would, therefore, exclude from the benefits of remission the very class for whose sake, most of -all, this serious sacrifice of revenue is being made.

AYES: 21

NOES: 35

Majority . . . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That the item (Tea) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. McGrath.)

AYES: 49

NOES: 6

Majority . . 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Item agreed to.

Division V. - Textiles, Felts, and Furs, and Manufactures thereof, and Attire.

Item 105 (Cotton, linen, and other piece goods, n.e.i.).

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I desire to draw the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Forde) to the fact that the employers in the industry with which this item is concerned now have an application before the Arbitration Court for a reduction of the wages paid to their employees, and also an’ increase in their hours of labour. I have received a communication from the General Workers Textile Union, which reads -

Dear Mr. Ward:

Further to my telephone conversation with you yesterday re tariff on textiles, I desire to say that our union has always supported and approved of any increased rate of duty on textile material, so that adequate protection might be given to those employed in the industry.

At the last federal election we subscribed cash and gave the services of our officials to the Australian Labour Party to help return a Labour government, and our influence was used to have restrictions placed on the importation of goods from overseas so that the interests of our members would be safeguarded and their employers protected from unfair overseas competition, which we hoped would giveus continuity of employment and maintain or improve our wages and conditions.

Our efforts to have the tariff rates increased were realized when the present federal Labour Government’s new schedule practically stopped the importation of all textiles that could be manufactured in Australia.

Since assisting the manufacturers to have their industries protected they have used all the moans they possess to lower our members’ wages and to debase their working conditions.

In New South Wales the employers took full advantage of all the anti-working-class legislation passed by the Bavin Government. In Victoria, and other States covered by the federal awards, immediately the 10 per cent, reduction in the basic wage was ordered by the court, the employers were successful in having the reduction applied to their employees. The protection given to the industry has not benefited the workers engaged in it, therefore, if the manufacturers who were protected because they claimed they could only maintain the wages and conditions of the workers by the shutting out of imported goods, now seek to lower the wages and conditions after being guarded by the Labour Government against outside competition, then it is the view of the Labour Council of New South Wales and of my union that no good purpose can be served by supporting the employers in their tariff applications.

It has accordingly been determined that every effort shall be made by the trade union movement, in conjunction with its political representatives, to induce the Federal Government to withdraw the protection already given and contemplated in the schedule now before the House.

Reg. Downing.

The letter is signed by the president of the organization, Mr. Reg. Downing. In view of those facts, I ask the Minister, on behalf of the group with which I am associated in this chamber, whether he is prepared to delay the discussion on the whole of the items in Division V. until a conference can be arranged between the employers and employees in the industry to ascertain precisely what are the intentions of the employers with regard to the application that is now before the court?

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

– I consider that the honorable member for

East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has raised a point that is not only worthy of a reply from the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Forde), but also demands the intervention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin). Surely this is a matter of first-class importance.

The intention of this tariff was surely not to make profits for the manufacturers greater. I submit that these duties were imposed for the benefit of the people of Australia as a whole. I do not wonder at the protest raised by the honorable member for East Sydney, or of that which emanates from the General Textile Workers Union. Here we have the employers, placed in a position stronger than ever, moving for lower wages and for longer hours, and at the same time giving no indication of a reduction in the prices of their commodities. They have higher duties, lower costs, and, I assume, a larger market. Where does the consumer come in? Where is the benefit, except to an exceedingly small section among the manufacturers? The obvious retort to such a position is that, as the manufacturers’ costs have come down, the duties should come down. The only factor that could justify the maintenance of the new duties would be the realization of the promise of the Government. The Government has given the manufacturers a monopolistic position, a larger market, and a greater output ; therefore, the community is entitled to cheaper goods. If, having obtained reduced costs, the manufacturers do not reduce the prices of their goods, the only thing for this committee and this Government to do in the interests of the workers whose earnings have been reduced, and whose purchasing capacity has been reduced, is to force the manufacturers to lower their prices by removing the duties, and so permitting the inflow of competitive goods from abroad.

I shall not labour the point. I ask that each item and sub-item in this extraordinarily important division should be dealt with seriatim, and I should like’ first to have an opportunity to discuss item “ (a) (1) (a), Cotton, linen, and other piece goods, n.e.i., ad valorem, 15 per cent., 15 per cent., and 25 per cent “. The change that has been made is threefold. Formerly, the duties were free,

British preferential; 5 per cent, intermediate ; and 15 per cent., general ; now they are 5 per cent., 15 per cent., and 25 per cent, respectively. I should like some explanation of these increases. It looks as though the Government is making this a revenue duty. If that is so, I protest strongly against the adoption of this means of obtaining revenue in. preference to other means, such as economies in administration, and so on. To impose additional duties on cotton, linen, and other piece goods, n.e.i., is to place a specific tax upon the workers of Australia without any consideration whatever of their capacity to pay. Cotton is, in the main, the wearing apparel of the poorer people of Australia; and I object to the price of cotton goods being increased by this means, simply to support the hopeless financial policy of the Government.

Mr FORDE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP

.- The proposed increases in the duty on “Item 105 (a) (1) (a),, cotton, linen and other piece goods, n.e.i.,” are being made in order to raise revenue. It is estimated that these increased rates of duty will result in the collection of approximately £265,000, after allowing for a 40 per cent, decline on the 1929-1930 importation figures. It will be observed that the preference to Great Britain under this item has been increased by 5 per cent. The only other alteration in the item is the removal of oil baize from its provisions. Oil baize prepared with rubber, oil, celluloid, or nitrocellulose is now grouped with leathercloth in. the new subitem 105 j, with rates of 35 per cent. British preferential, and 50 per cent, general. The Government has imposed this duty for the purpose of enabling it to meet a time of unprecedented difficulty in national finance. As has been stated previously, economies to the extent of £2,250,000 have been made in administration costs, and the saving of an additional £1,000,000 has been foreshadowed. But in order to enable the Government to continue the social services which it is under obligation to provide, it is necessary that more revenue shall be. raised.

Mr Nelson:

– What are the total importations of cotton goods?

Mr FORDE:

– The following table gives the full figures : -

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

.- The ideals of the new protection are being thrown to the winds. As I understand the new protection, it is designed with the object of assisting the manufacturers, but also of providing that such employers of labour as obtain protection from (the Customs House through the tariff shall pay their employees a fair wage, which will give them a chance to live a happy life. In addition to that the citizen who pays for everything is also to be protected. But to-day he is being taxed heavily and is not- protected. I do not blame this Government for that. But I believe that protection should be granted to the consuming public by a provision that only list prices shall be charged for goods. I was told in this House some time ago that there was not a single penalty provision in the 27 measures that were passed for the purpose of imposing sales taxation. If a business man put 100 per cent, on the price of his goods in order to pay the 2£ per cent, sales taxation, there is no legal power to punish him for doing so. That is deplorable.

I -hold in my hand a letter signed by the president of the General Textile Workers Union of New :South Wales, which states that wages are to be .reduced an this industry, notwithstanding that additional protection is being granted. I, therefore, repeat the request made by the ,honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) that -consideration of these items shall be postponed for a day or .two, with the object of enabling the .employers and employees in the industry to. confer for the purpose of trying to avoid unnecessary wage reductions. It would be very serious to me if wages were reduced in an industry which is receiving additional protection. It appears to me that unless we are very careful we shall shortly be required to revise our tariff completely. We are *giving .the .free-traders arguments against (protection which they never before had.

Mr Stewart:

– And the best use will be made of them.

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

– It is high time that the principle of ‘the referendum initiative and recall was incorporated in our legislation. A serious blow is being struck at our protectionist policy to-day.

Mr ELDRIDGE:
Martin

.- I should like the Minister to intimate whether he is willing to accede to “the request of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) to defer consideration .of this item in order to enable him to give consideration .to the representations of the organized workers in the industry and of the Trades and Labour Council in regard to it.

Progress reported.

page 2067

ADJOURNMENT

Physical Training in Schools - Government Contracts - Payment of Employees - Unemployed - Use of Drill Halls.

Motion (by Mr. Scullin) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr JONES:
Indi

.- It is not often that I claim the indulgence of the House by speaking on the motion for the adjournment, but I wish to refer to the possibility, or even probability, if not certainty, of the Commonwealth Government abandoning control of physical training in the schools of the Commonwealth. I speak as one who has had ten years’ experience in this matter. If there is one branch of the Defence Department which has shown good results, it is the branch which has charge of physical training in the schools. I understand that this work is being carried on by a small staff at the expense of only £4,000 per annum. A little time ago I saw pictures of trainees stabbing stuffed bales of straw with bayonets. If that kind of training is to he maintained in order to keep alive the ideals of war, and the physical training of boys and girls in the schools is to be abandoned, it is high time that a strong protest was made. I think that every honorable member will admit that physical training is the basis of mental training. Some great educationalists in America place such value upon physical training that they advocate that as much time should be given to physical as to mental training, and the great training depot for the British Army at Aldershot has as its motto Mens sana in corpore sano. In abolishing physical training in our schools - particularly as it was introduced by a Labour Government - the Government would be taking a very grave step, and I sincerely trust that it will give the matter further consideration. It was always a pleasure to see the competitions, not only within a State but between the States, as a result of which the champion team of the Commonwealth was selected. The displays given by the State teams were worth travelling a long distance to witness. I remember seeing such an exhibition, on the Melbourne Exhibition Ground, and any honorable member who has witnessed these displays must realize their value to those who participate in them. Under the system in operation, a small staff under the control of the Defence Department undertakes the training of the teachers throughout the Commonwealth. As the system which obtains is uniform, not only in each State but throughout the Commonwealth, boys or girls attending State or public schools may, on transferring from one State to another, continue their training without any disadvantage. From a health point of view the physical training is most important because a boy or girl student who is not physically fit can not expect to achieve good results mentally. During my experience as a teacher, I found that if the pupils were not responding to their tuition they would always benefit by a little physical exercise in the open air. The work undertaken by the physical training staff comprises physical education, organized games, swimming, life saving, and first aid, the importance of which no one will deny. As the expense of the whole scheme is only £4,000 annually, it would be false economy to abolish the system. I appeal to the Prime Minister to give consideration to certain representations which, I understand, have been made to him. The following paragraph appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on the 16th May:-

page 2068

CATHOLIC EDUCATION

Protest to Prime Minister

Proposed Abolition of Physical Training

Mr D CAMERON:
BRISBANE. QLD · NAT

– I support the pleas .which have been made by other honorable members in favour of ;the retention of our present system of physical training. I know” that the Government is being .constantly pressed to effect .every possible economy, and it may appeal” extraordinary that’ j should urge it at this stage npt to effect this particular economy which it contemplates. I .believe that it would be a grave mistake, however, to hand back the work of physical training to the States. To disband the present. small Commonwealth staff of expert physical training instructors would be a tragedy. They have done a great work in training the teachers of the State schools. I a.m. a great believer in physicial training for the young. ‘I know the results which have ‘ been achieved. I know the benefits which have been conferred on the boys and girls of our schools as a result of the efforts of this small but expert staff. I have urged previous governments to make this staff larger. I do not suggest now that further expenditure should be incurred, but I hope that before this proposed economy is effected, the Government will reconsider the matter, and see whether it is not possible to keep the staff intact.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- I desire to bring under the notice of the Government a matter which affects, npt only the Defence Department, but practically every other Commonwealth department as well, Most Commonwealth works at the pr.es.ent time are done under the contract system in preference to the day labour method. In my district a contractor undertook in May of 1929, to erect a telegraph line for the Post and Telegraph Department. The contractor was required to lodge a deposit as a guarantee of good faith, and presumably, to ensure that he would pay his employees what was due to them. The contractor got behind with the job, and the department forfeited the deposit, amounting to about £600. The men employed by him did ..npt receive -their pay. Numerous appeals :were [made (to (the department on their behalf, and eventually it agreed to pay them half the amount .owing to them. I .strongly object to happenings pf that kind. I hope that the Government will see that those employed ‘.by contractors in the future are protected from such risks. Une first claim against .the security lodged by .the contractor should be the wages ;pf his employees. Recently the Defence Department let a contract to a man to construct an aerodrome at Camoo-

Me.a. Tie contractor employed .a number pf men to carry out the work. “When 1<h.e job was finished he disappeared from the district, an,d his men have not been paid. Representations were made to the Defence Department, and it .got in touch with the (Works Department, -which sent -its inspector .to make inquiries; but all the inspector .could do was to report that the contractor .could not be found. Presumably, as soon as he received ibis final payment, he climbed into an aeroplane and flew aw.ay. He left behind him his workmen without any pay, and also left out .of their money the tradesmen who had been good enough to keep the workmen in supplies for months. “Whose business is it to see that the men are not cheated out of their pay? Surely there is something wrong with the system, or with the department, op with the official who was responsible for the inspection of the job before the final payment was made. I hope -that all future contracts will contain a provision to the effect that a contractor’s employees must receive their money before the contractor receives his.

In regard to the point raised by the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan), when I was informed that the contractor for the Camooweal aerodrome had disappeared, I immediately got in touch with the Works Department which controls such matters for the Defence Department, and was informed that they could not trace him. I understand that it is the usual practice for a contractor to lodge a deposit with the Works Department, and in order that the men who were employed by this contractor may bo protected, I shall forward to that department a copy of the remarks made by the honorable member for Kennedy.

As the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) has said, the work of giving physical instruction in schools was undertaken by the Commonwealth when compulsory training was in force. I admit at once the value of physical training, but the point is whether the Federal Government should carry on a work which is really the responsibility of the States. Many of the States have taken it upon themselves to preach economy to the Commonwealth Government, and to point to the Commonwealth as being the bad boy of the family, but they raise an outcry immediately an effort is made by the Commonwealth to transfer to the States a task that should be undertaken by them. The Commonwealth is now paying £4,000 a year in salaries and travelling allowances to seven physical training instructors. The honorable member for Henty has suggested that these men might be made available to the States if they are agreeable to undertake the work. There will be no difficulty in that respect. But so one can defend an expenditure by the Commonwealth of £4,000 a year to impart physical training instruction in the schools under the control of the States. I do not wish honorable members to think that I do not regard the work as very desirable. What I say is that those who are preaching economy to the Commonwealth cannot expect the Commonwealth to carry a burden of expenditure which they themselves should carry.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Houseadjourned at 10.34 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 19 May 1931, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1931/19310519_reps_12_129/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives19 May 1931

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES INTEREST PAYMENTS

Dr EARLE PAGE:COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

QUESTION

FILM CENSORSHIP

Mr YATES:ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

QUESTION

CANADIAN CONVERSION LOAN

Mr GULLETT:HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr SCULLIN:ALP

QUESTION

RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYED

Mr CROUCH:CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr FRANCIS:MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr CHIFLEY:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr CROUCH:

Mr CHIFLEY:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr ELDRIDGE:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr ELDRIDGE:

Mr CHIFLEY:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

LOAN NEGOTIATIONS

Mr LYONS:WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr SCULLIN:ALP

QUESTION

BRITISH PENSIONERS IN AUSTRALIA

Mr MACKAY:LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

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

QUESTION

OIL FUEL AT DARWIN

Mr NELSON:NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr CHIFLEY:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

LAND TAXRE-ASSESSMENTS

Mr GULLETT:

Mr THEODORE:ALP

QUESTION

SUGAR AGREEMENT

Mr NAIRN:PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr SCULLIN:ALP

Mr RIORDAN:KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

Mr SCULLIN:

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH LINE OF STEAMERS

Mr CROUCH:

Mr THEODORE:ALP

QUESTION

CARRIAGE OF AIR MAILS

Mr WHITE:BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

CANBERRA ADVISORY COUNCIL ELECTION

Mr BAYLEY:OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr BLAKELEY:DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

DEATH OF SENATOR H. E. ELLIOTT

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Norman Makin:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

QUESTION

DEFAULT BY NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Crouch:

Mr SPEAKER:

Dr EARLE PAGE:Cowper

Mr Eldridge:

Dr EARLE PAGE:

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Norman Makin:

Dr EARLE PAGE:

Mr Theodore:

Dr EARLE PAGE:

Mr SPEAKER:

Dr EARLE PAGE:

Mr NAIRN:Perth

Mr SCULLIN:Prime Minister · Yarra · ALP

Mr Gullett:

Mr SCULLIN:

Mr ELDRIDGE:Martin

Dr Earle Page:

House of Representatives
19 May 1931

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr YATES:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

Mr CROUCH:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr ELDRIDGE:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr LYONS:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

Mr MACKAY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr THEODORE:
ALP

Mr NAIRN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr SCULLIN:
ALP

Mr RIORDAN:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

Mr THEODORE:
ALP

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr BAYLEY:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Norman Makin:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

Mr SCULLIN:
Prime Minister · Yarra · ALP

Mr ELDRIDGE:
Martin

Mr LYONS:
Wilmot

Mr CROUCH:
Corangamite

Mr CUSACK:
Monaro · Eden

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr FORDE:
ALP

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

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr FORDE:
ALP

Mr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA