12th Parliament · 1st Session
Mr. Speaker (Hon. Norman Makin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and offered prayers.
page 2023
– According to the Daily Telegraph of to-day, although the statutory time has passed, no defence has been filed by the Government of New South W ales to the claim of the Commonwealth against that State in connexion with its default in respect of interest due on overseas loans. The Daily Telegraph suggests that no further action will be taken before the 28th July. Can the Prime Minister say what the Commonwealth Government intends to do in the matter?
– Obviously, as this matter is sub judice, it cannot be discussed in this House, nor can I answer questions regarding the probable conduct of the action.
page 2023
– Has the Minister for Trade and Customs read the criticism directed against a film by a reverend gentleman, and also by a magistrate, in which one of the principal characters is a man who commits two murders and finally dies a hero. If the Minister is aware of this criticism, has he asked for a report from the censor as to why the film was released?
– My attention has not been called to the criticism, but I shall ask the Censorship Board to submit a report in regard to it. The board has complete discretion, subject to the right of parties to appeal to the Film Censorship Appeal Board. I shall let the honorable member have a reply to his question later.
page 2023
– Has the Prime Minister seen a newspaper report that the Canadian Government has just successfully floated a conversion loan of £50,000,000 at 4½ per cent, and that the loan was substantially oversubscribed? Is it not a fact that the Dominion is suffering from the same low price levels as Australia?
– I have seen the report to which the honorable member has referred.
page 2023
Use of Drill Halls and Barracks
– 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?
– 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.
– 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.
– 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.
– 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?
– I do not know the exact position regarding the Camperdown drill hall, but I shall give consideration to the request.
– 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.
– 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.
– Blankets and tents are being offered for sale.
– I shall look into the matter, and see what can be done in the direction indicated by the honorable member.
page 2024
– 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?
– I have no knowledge of the source of such statements, or upon what they are founded.
page 2024
– 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 ?
– The negotiations have been in progress for some days, but I have not yet been advised as to whether they are complete.
page 2024
– 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?
– 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
Report of Commissioner of Taxation
– 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?
– 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
– 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?
– 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.
– 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?
– 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
Lord Kylsant
– 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?
– 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
– 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?
– That question has already received some consideration, and I promise the honorable member that I shall give it further consideration.
page 2025
– 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.
– At the next Advisory Council election the matter raised by the honorable member will receive full consideration.
page 2026
– 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
Formal Motion for Adjournment
– 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.
– 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.
– 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.
.- 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.
– That is cheap criticism.
– 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-
– I cannot permit the right honorablegentleman to discuss that aspect of the case.
– 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”.
– Whose opinion has the right honorable gentleman quoted?
– 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.
– 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.
– 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 -
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.
.- I second the motion. I do not propose to refer to the amount of £557,000, for which this Government has lodged a claim against the Government of New South Wales. From the information recently given to the House by the Prime Minister it would appear that the Government of New South Wales has defaulted in its interest payments to the extent of £1,599,000, so that in addition to the amount for which the writ has been issued over £1,000,000 is still outstanding to the Commonwealth Government.
I think that this House is interested in obtaining from the Attorney-General, or some other responsible officer of the Commonwealth Government, an assurance that active steps will be taken to enforce the payment of that interest as and when it becomes due. I gathered from an official return that was published last week that the short-term indebtedness due by the Commonwealth in London and in Australia on behalf of the States amount*, in round figures, to £40,000,000. On the basis of population, the proportion of that amount due by New South Wales would be approximately £15,000,000, but the return shows that of the total liability £19,000,000 has been incurred on behalf of the Government of New South Wales. So that while that Government was repudiating the Loan Council, and defying the Commonwealth Government, it was able to obtain £4,000,000 more than its due proportion of our short term indebtedness. This House is interested in seeing that effective steps are taken to deal with this matter. I hope that we may have a full statement from the AttorneyGeneral showing that the business is well in hand, indicating what steps have been taken, and giving an assurance that the most active measures are being used to recover the amount due by New South Wales through its having defaulted.
– The motion of the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page), and the remarks of its seconder, the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn), are most extraordinary.
– Why?
– In the first place this is a subject that cannot be discussed in Parliament. Further, no charge of lack of promptness can be levelled against the Commonwealth Government. Immediately the Government of New South Wales defaulted, the Commonwealth Government issued the necessary writ. Can the honorable member for Perth, or any other honorable member, suggest more prompt action that could have been taken by the Commonwealth Government. Neither this Government nor its legal advisers have been responsible for one moment’s delay in the matter. Our legal advisers were instructed to act as expeditiously as possible, and the procedure about which the right honorable member for Cowper enlightened the House was well known to them. This Government has retained a strong bar, and prefers to act on the expert advice of its counsel rather than on that tendered by honorable members opposite.
.- In moving “ That the House do now adjourn “, the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) indulged in some very cheap criticism of the Lang plan, obviously for propaganda purposes. The right honorable gentleman did not make the slightest attempt to expound the principles of that plan. Confident that he does not know what they are, I challenge the right honorable gentleman to state to this House what knowledge he possesses about the principal points of the Lang plan.
– It is not for want of trying to understand them. The Lang plan has not got any points.
– I do not know what points the honorable member’s plan had when he was Treasurer of the Commonwealth.
– Order ! The honorable member for Martin (Mr. Eldridge) must address the Chair.
– I was responding to the gibe of the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page). I am not aware that any plan he might have sponsored when Treasurer had any points.
– The financial agreement is one, and it is holding Mr. Lang in check at the present moment.
– Order !
– The financial policy of the right honorable gentleman was distinguished by colossal ‘expenditure of a most extravagant nature. It is the gentleman who sponsored that plan who now attempts to sneer at one about which he obviously knows nothing. This motion was introduced by an ex- Treasurer of the Commonwealth who proved so disastrous a failure in that capacity that he was described even by one of his colleagues as the most tragic Treasurer in the history of the Australian Commonwealth. He (Dr. Earle Page) was so tragic that at the last election the Commonwealth had to turn over a new leaf and seek relief from a new Treasurer.
– Order ! The honorable member’s remarks are not strictly within the confines of the motion before the House.
– With all deference to you, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the right honorable member for Cowper had his full say of jeering criticism about a plan of which he knows nothing?
-Order ! The honorable member knows that I called the right honorable member for Cowper to order when he departed from the motion before the House.
– I am not reflecting on that aspect of the matter, sir. I feel that I am entitled to some indulgence on the part of the House. I should be given an opportunity to respond to the remarks of the right honorable member for Cowper about the Lang plan.
– 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.
– I submit that the chief concern of the Government of New South Wales is that there shall be no default against the people of that State. I trust that I may be allowed to offer some explanation of the nature of the Lang plan, and thus show how utterly unwarranted were the remarks of the right honorable member for Cowper.
A good deal has been said about repudiationists. I, and the group with which I am proud to be identified in this House, have been libelled over and over again by being termed “ repudiationists “. I wish to take advantage of this unanticipated opportunity to say something on that point, and I shall connect my remarks with the motion now before the House. My colleagues and I take the view that the people of Australia are to-day faced with the option of deciding upon only one of two alternatives. They must either deal with the finances of this country in a way that will challenge and end existing methods, including those relating to the payment of our overseas indebtedness, or allow the present financial system to continue its existing callous, inhuman sway until we reach a point when business stagnation, unemployment, and human impoverishment attain such a pitch that flesh and blood will no longer be able to stand it-
– I rise to a point of order. I submit that the remarks that the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Eldridge) is making deal with what he considers the merits of the Lang case. This was the very matter raised by the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Crouch) on his point of order. Perhaps there was on the part of the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) an attempt to discuss the demerits of the Lang plan, and he was very properly, if I may respectfully say so, ruled out of order. I submit that it would be equally out of order for the honorable member for Martin to discuss the socalled merits of the Lang plan.
– I must sustain the point raised by the honorable member forFawkner (Mr. Maxwell). As I was not prepared to allow the right honorable member for Cowper to make any observations in regard to certain proceedings now pending in the Law Courts of Australia, which involve the matters now being referred to by the honorable member for Martin, I cannot now allow the latter to make any observations in regard to them.
– Perhaps I may be permitted to make one observation, sir, in reference to the point of order raised by the honorable member for Corangamite. He drew attention to the impropriety of the right honorable member for Cowper introducing into this discussion a subject in regard to which legal action was pending. My remarks have no relation whatever to that subject.
– That is for the Chair to determine. I have ruled against the honorable member.
– Then I dissent from your ruling, sir.
– The honorable member must make bis dissent in writing.
– I shall do so.
-Why delay the business of the country?
– I am not delaying the business of the country. This House is wasting time. You are a lot of lazy, loafing parasites !
– Order ! The honorable member must withdraw that remark, and apologize to the Chair for having made it.
– I feel that what I have said is true.
– The honorable member is only aggravating the offence. He must apologize immediately. If he does not, I shall name him.
– I regret that I cannot apologize.
– I name the honorable member for Martin., and call upon the Prime Minister to take the necessary action.
– I feel sure that upon reflection the honorable member for Martin will realize that it would not be possible to carry on the business of Parliament unless the ruling of the Chair is obeyed. If the honorable member disagrees with a ruling of the Chair, there is a proper procedure for him to take. In the circumstances, I appeal to the honorable member to withdraw his remarks, and apologize for his disobedience. I hope that he will not force me to take action that it would be most, unpleasant to take.
– I feel that I am subject to the rules of the House. There was no disrespect intended to you personally, Mr. Speaker, and my refusal to apologize would imply that there was. Consequently, ‘in deference to your wishes, I withdraw and apologize.
.- The Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) has said that he can scarcely understand the attitude of the right honorable member for Cowper in moving the motion, and that of the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) in seconding it. But I can scarcely understand the attitude of the Prime Minister. A request has been made for the co-operation of honorable members on this side of the chamber. There are some matters upon which we can offer our co-operation and help. We know very well that the Prime Minister is correct in saying that the Commonwealth has taken action to recover the amount in respect of which the Government of New South Wales has made default. He has now given us an assurance that no time will be lost in pressing to a conclusion the claim that has been made for the recovery of the full amount due by the Government of New South Wales, in order that he may put the country in a better position financially than it is in to-day. We simply desire to make it clear to the right honorable gentleman that we are with him absolutely. There are some things in which we can co-operate with the Government. We can co-operate with it heart and soul in its effort to meet the position created by the action of the Government of New South Wales. So far as the Lang plan is concerned-
– The Leader of the Opposition will not be in order in making any observations on that subject.
– I do not propose to discuss the subject, for I do not believe that there is any plan in existence.
– I ask the Leader of the Opposition not to aggravate the position by making any personal observation as to whether there is or is not a plan.
– 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.
.- 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 . . .
Crown matters in Australia, speaking generally - I cannot speak with authority about the New South Wales procedure - are covered by almost those exact words. I should judge from certain passages read by the right honorable member for Cowper that this is also true of New South Wales; that is, if this is not a High Court action. It would be most inadvisable for us to discuss in this House any matter in regard to which the Crown is trusting to counsel or other legal advisers. I am surprised that such advice should be submitted by the Leader of the Country party (Dr. Earle Page) who, however well he may be professionally qualified in some respects, is not a lawyer, and consequently his advice should be disregarded by the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Brennan) and those advising him.
– It appears to me that the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) is culpable for the manner in which he framed the motion now before the House. It is most desirable that Parliament should at the earliest possible moment discuss the merits of a scheme which, according to the ruling of the Chair, cannot be debated under this motion. If the right honorable member for Cowper only realized that the people of Australia are deeply interested in this scheme under which–
– Order ! The honorable member must not disobey the ruling of the Chair.
– I merely wish to say that the right honorable member for Cowper should have framed the motion in such a way as to enable the proposal of the New South Wales Government to be debated in a proper manner. I understand that on the motion for the adjournment either to-night or to-morrow night, the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Eldridge) intends to raise the subject which we are debarred from discussing at this juncture, and about which I have a notice of motion on the business-paper. I should like to have something to say concerning the plan of the New ‘ South Wales Premier which enables a Treasurer to finance a nation’s activities, it is claimed, by living on the interest of what we owe. Mr. Lang may have a scheme which, if only understood and adopted, would revolutionize and stagger humanity.
– Order ! The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Cusack) must recognize that his observations have no relation to the question before the Chair.
– In those circumstances I shall conclude by saying that [ shall take the earliest opportunity, either on the motion for the adjournment to-night or to-morrow night, to bring the matter before the House.
.- I did not intend to waste the time of the House in discussing this motion, but when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lyons) referred to tragedies, I was reminded of the tragedy which occurred in this House recently when those who to-day speak so glibly about others repudiating their promises, repudiated the promises they made to the electors who sent them to this House. We saw them enter this chamber as Labour men, and then cross to the other side of the chamber. I have heard them referred to by many terms; that which most aptly describes them is “ rats “, and - : -
– I rise to a point of order. I submit, sir, that the discussion as it is being carried on by the honorable member for East Sydney is entirely out of order.
– The right honorable member brought it on himself.
– The honorable member for East Sydney will recognize that the opinions which he is expressing are irrelevant to the question before the Chair.
– I was merely replying to the statement that those who are supporting the policy of the Premier of New South Wales (Mr. Lang) are repudiationists, and was showing-
– I have not heard the word “ repudiationist “ used by any honorable member of the Opposition this afternoon.
– With due respect, sir, I differ from you.
-I have been following the debate quite as closely as the honorable member.
– Reference has been made to the action which the Commonwealth should take with respect to the position in New South Wales. The people of this country had to decide whether they would accept the policy of the Premier of New South Wales or that of Sir Otto Niemeyer, who recently visited the C°m* mon wealth.
– I should like to know, sir, if the remarks of the honorable member for East Sydney are in order.
– I ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the motion which I have already read.
– The Leader, of the Opposition (Mr. Lyons) did not proceed very far before he was called to order.
– The honorable member for Corio (Mr. Lewis) is out of order. v
– It appears to me that the scope of those opposed to the motion now before the House is limited.
– 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.
– 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
Raising of Embargo
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?
– 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
asked the Minister for Markets and Transport, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -
page 2033
asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -
page 2033
asked the Treasurer, upon notice -
– The following information has been supplied by the Acting Commonwealth Statistician : -
page 2033
asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– Information is being obtained.
page 2033
asked the Minister for Markets, upon notice - la he yet able to reply to the question asked by the honorable member for Melbourne on the 17th March last, regarding the cost of gristing wheat?
– Special inquiries were made by officers of the Department of Markets of the flour millers’ associations in Sydney and Melbourne, and the reply furnished by each of those associations was to the effect that owing to the varying conditions under which flour mills are operated, it would not be possible to obtain the information desired by the honorable member.
page 2034
asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -
In view of the fact that the aerial service between Adelaide and Western Australia and the North Queensland aerial service are subsidized for carrying mails, why was the Brisbane to Adelaide service not treated in the same way?
– There is no aerial service between Brisbane and Adelaide. Some nine years ago, contracts were granted by the Defence Department to the Larkin Aircraft Supply Company Limited, for the establishment of subsidized services over the routes BrisbaneSydney and Sydney-Adelaide. The company was unable to establish the BrisbaneSydney service in accordance with the contract conditions, and the contract period expired. The Sydney-Adelaide service was established in 1924 (via Cootamundra, Hay, and Mildura), and was maintained for thirteen months when the contract was amended to provide for services Cootamundra- Adelaide ; Broken Hill-Mildura ; and MelbourneHay. This contract was extended from time to time, but was not renewed after the 9th June, 1930 (the expiry date of the last renewal period), the volume of passenger and mail traffic not being considered sufficient to justify the continued payment of the considerable sums involved in the subsidizing of these services. Although it was considered that there was no justification for re-inviting tenders for the Brisbane-Sydney service,which action might have involved the Commonwealth in substantial payments by way of subsidy, Australian National Airways Limited on the 1st January. 1930, inaugurated a service between these two capitals and later extended this service to Melbourne and Tasmania; The company contracted with the PostmasterGeneral’s Department to convey surcharged air mails between these centres on payment of a specific rate for each pound weight of air mail matter so conveyed.
page 2034
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -
Now that primage duty will no longer be levied upon cornsacks and superphosphates, will he grant further relief to the primary producer by abolishing primage upon those pasture seeds that for climatic and other reasons must be imported?
– The suggestion will receive consideration.
page 2034
– On the 29th April, the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) asked me the following questions, upon notice -
I am now in a position to furnish the following reply : -
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
– 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 -
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
– 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
– 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: -
I am now in a position to furnish the following replies: -
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
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
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.”
.- 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.
– The Government has imposed an embargo on the importation of soap.
– 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.
– It might save a lot of time if the Minister were to give his explanation now.
– I should be glad if he would do so.
– 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.
– Will the Minister now read the Tariff Board’s recommendation?
– The board does not recommend any alteration of the duties imposed in the 1921-28 tariff; but the Tariff Board is an advisory body whose duty it is to make inquiries, and submit reports for the information of the Minister. It is not usual for the board to report in regard to revenue items.
.- The explanation which we have just heard from the Minister is one of the most extraordinary that has ever been offered in this chamber. He forbore to mention that these duties were imposed in November, 1929, before the proclamation was issued prohibiting importation, and he concluded his remarks by saying that, since they were imposed for revenue purposes, it was not usual to submit such items to the Tariff Board for report. We may, therefore, be entitled to assume that for the last eighteen mouths these revenue duties have masqueraded under the guise of protection, and have done great disservice to the protectionist cause.
– Who says they were imposed under the guise of protection?
– I do. In October, 1929, the Minister and all the members of the present Government, in their election speeches, declared that a Labour Government would never impose duties merely for the purpose of raising revenue - that the only justification for duties was the protection of Australian industries. We have had to wait until this afternoon, the 19 th day of May, 1931, to learn that these soap duties are npt protective in their incidence, but were levied for revenue purposes. The Minister also gave his case away by declaring that, although these are supposed to be revenue duties, the Government imposed an embargo on the importation of soap, so that actually the duties cannot return ‘ any revenue to the Government.
– I said that they would be revenue-producing when the embargo was lifted.
– There is really no justification for an increase in these duties, because, as has been stated already, local manufacturers, operating under the old tariff, supplied 99 per cent, of the total requirements of Australia, and in the three years, 1926-26, 1926-27, and 1927- 28, exported soap to the value of approximately £3,00,000. ‘ It is evident that imported soaps were not being marketed ip Australia on a competitive basis. On this point the board states -
Imported soaps such as Bogor and Gallet’s and Morny’s, are not competitive on a price basis with any soap made in Australia. The f.o.b. price of Roger and Gallet special lines is 5a. 9d. per dozen cakes, the retail price in Australia being, under the 1921-28 tariff, 4g. (id. per box of three oakes. The price of Australian toilet soaps, packed similarly, range from lod. to ls. 9d. per box.
It is significant also that the duties were imposed on the 21st November, 1.929, and on the following day the matter was submitted to the Tariff Board for report. The Minister’s explanation this afternoon was the first intimation we have had that these duties were imposed for revenue purposes, which is contrary to the policy of the Labour party. Last week he emphasized that it was not necessary to submit to the Tariff Board for report items under which duties are imposed for revenue purposes, but, as I have shown, these revenue duties were imposed on the 21st November, 1929, and on the following day the Minister asked the Tariff Board to report on the matter.
– I did nothing of the kind. The item was referred to the Tariff Board by my predecessor.
– 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.
– Does the right honorable member object to the matter having gone to the Tariff Board?
– 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.
– Does the honorable member contend that the purchaser qf these soaps is a consumer?
– 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?
.- 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.
– The point is under consideration.
– 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.’]
– 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.
– Would the honorable member rather put the money into the hands of a few manufacturers than into the hands of the Government?
– 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.
– Under the embargo people cannot get those lines of soap at the present time.
– 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.
.- 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.”.
.- Some of the remarks made in this debate have sorely taxed my faith as a protectionist. In dealing with the particular item under the notice of the committee, I find it difficult to understand the explanation given by the Minister. The Australian soap industry is, undoubtedly, a most flourishing one, and one of which we may well be proud. I understand that the commodity produced here bears favorable comparison with that of any other country. It seems extraordinary to me that, since the Australian manufacturers have been able to capture 99 per cent, of the Australian market, leaving only 1 per cent, to the foreign trader, the Government should impose an embargo on the importation of soap.
That embargo deprives us of such revenue as was derived from the duties charged on the 1 per cent, of imported soap, and it adds only infinitesimally to the trade of the Australian manufacturers. The embargo cannot be said to be of any appreciable advantage to them. It seems to me that anything done in the direction of increasing the price of this commodity tends to diminish its use. I had a story told me by a friend in Melbourne the other day. He is a clergyman, whose congregation inaugurated a self-denial week. The members of his family gathered round the breakfast table one morning, and each in turn said what he would deny himself for the week, so that he might contribute to the fund in which they were all interested. One said that he would do without sugar, another offered to deprive herself of lollies, and so on. To the Benjamin of the family the father said, “Well, lad, what do you propose to do without?”, and the boy replied, “ If you don’t mind, I will do without .soap.” It seems to me that the Government does not wish to. discourage such self-denial. There is a principle in the explanation given by the Minister which appears to me to be most vicious, and one which, according to my understanding of the doctrine of protection, ought not to operate. We find t1 at 1 per cent, of the soap used in Australia is of a particularly fine quality. It is a kind of soap that hitherto has not been manufactured in this country, and there is evidently no desire on the part of the local manufacturers to make it. If a certain number of persons in Australia prefer this particular kind of soap, because of its peculiar excellence, and are willing to pay a substantially increased price for it, why should the Government penalize them, through the customs tariff, because they indulge in this particular form of luxury?
– The same vicious principle applies to all duties.
– I do not think so. The local manufacturer of soap has all the protection he desires, and asks for no more, and on the 1 per cent, of imported soap, for which, because of the fineness of its quality or the delicacy of its perfume, persons are willing to pay an enhanced price, the Government has no right to impose duties which merely penalize the users, and have no protective purpose or value. The Minister’s ‘ explanation involves a denial of the right of the Australian citizen to choose what soap he will use; the honorable gentleman says, in effect, that a person has no right to choose soap not manufactured in Australia. The principle underlying that declaration is vicious. From the point of view of the protectionist, if such duties are imposed as are necessary to equalize the conditions of competition between Australian and foreign manufacturers, the consumer should have the right to decide whether he will use the local or the imported article. Having regard to the facts that the local manufacturers have not asked for this increased duty, that the Tariff Board reported against it, and that it will tend to decrease revenue by increasing the price, consequently restricting the consumption, I shall support the amendment.
– I support the remarks of the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell). Throughout this discussion on these items there has been a tendency on the part of honorable members to vote on party lines, or for protectionists to support any increase, or for low-tariffists to beat down every duty. That attitude is wrong. Every item should be dealt with on its merits. I had no’t an opportunity to speak about the duties on matches, and some honorable members may have been surprised that I voted for the increased duties. I did so because Russian matches were being imported.
– Order ! The honorable member has missed his opportunity to speak on matches ; he cannot do so now.
– I was merely explaining that I had a good reason for supporting the increased duties. An economic attack was being made on an Australian industry, and importation was continuing at dumping rates, despite the fact that local factories produce matches under ideal conditions. The position of the soap-making industry is very different; 99 per cent, of the soap used in Australia is made locally. Yet the Government has taken a course which is tantamount to shutting out the 1 per cent, which previously was imported. During the general debate on the tariff I pointed out that many of the alterations made to the tariff by the Government were crude and clumsy efforts on the part of men unacquainted with business, who failed to distinguish between protective duties, revenue duties, and trade adjustment duties. With France, Australia has a favorable trade balance, and it is an insult to that country to double the duty on this 1 per cent, of soaps, iu spite of the fact that the French are very good customers. France has already retaliated by duties on Australian wheat and butter. Not long ago, the Minister placed a prohibitive duty on Vichy water, because some local manufacturer said that he could produce it in Australia. The French agent pointed out that it was a mineral product of a town of France, and could not be imitated; he threatened retaliation, whereupon the Minister for Trade and Customs withdrew the prohibition. A few French firms make high-grade soaps which are specially perfumed. Whilst I agree with the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton), to whom protection is an obsession, that we should make in Australia as much of our requirements as we economically can, 1 suggest that it is fanatical to go >to extremes.
– I would shut out soap, whisky, or anything else that can be made in Australia.
– The high protectionist cannot see the folly of refusing legitimate revenue when Australian finances are going backward at the rate of £1,500,000 a month. What is the advantage of rectifying the trade balance if we throw our people out of employment? The Government is restricting trade and throwing commercial houses into chaos by imposing ill-considered and ill-advised duties such as the honorable member for Maribyrnong said he will support in any circumstances. That attitude indicates the extremes to which persons who are not associated with commerce will go. Soap is only one of hundreds of items in the tariff; but when the fact is established that 99 per cent, of Australia’s requirements are locally made and only 1 per cent, is imported, and from the imports the country derives revenue-
– Not at the present time.
– The Minister reminds me that a prohibition operates at the moment in respect of imported soap, notwithstanding scores of customs clerks are twiddling their fingers because they have little to do.
– That is not true.
– It is perfectly true. I speak with knowledge of the facts. They have not enough to do, but their salaries continue. In those circumstances, how foolish it is to shut out a commodity for no other reason than that it is made abroad. I am a protectionist, and believe in encouraging Australian industry; but the best protection is that which permits of a little healthy competition from overseas and at the same time produces revenue. I ask the Minister to realize that it would be better to derive some revenue from duties on soaps, rather than shut off a small volume of trade that cannot do any harm to the Australian industry. I support the amendment.
.- 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).
– The right honorable member for Cowper said that I was responsible for the reference to the Tariff Board.
– 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)
.- 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.
– 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)
– 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.
.- 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-
.- The duty on tea under the former tariff was, in packets not exceeding 20 lb.,1d. per lb., and in packets above 20 lb., free. Under this revised tariiff small packets are being taxed at the rate of 6d. per lb., and in bulk for wholesale purposes, at 4d. per lb. This increased duty represents a most serious impost on the cost of living of the people. I recognize, of course, that the Government is short of revenue, and that money must be obtained somewhere. But I protest against the inequality of the sacrifices of the community generally under this tariff policy. We have heard a great deal from the Government about the inequality of sacrifice with respect to wages, salaries, pensions, and interest payments, but I can conceive of nothing more inconsistent than its policy of tariff taxation. A tax on tea is a surprising tax to he levied by a Labour government. The duty is entirely unscientific, in that it has been imposed without any regard to the ability of the people to pay it. Indeed, it falls with the greatest severity on the poorest persons of the community, for tea is drunk as much by people with small incomes as by those with large incomes.
– A tax on tea is one way of reducing the old-age pension.
– If a duty is imposed ou tea at all, it should be on an ad valorem basis. 1 admit that the administration of an ad valorem duty on tea would be difficult; but it would not be impossible. Why should the cheap brands of tea used by the poorer persons in the community pay as heavy a duty as the high grade teas used by the rich?
– What does the honorable gentleman suggest?
– The duty should be on an ad valorem basis. The customs officers know the value of the tea that is imported, and it should not be beyond their ability to deal with an ad valorem duty. I propose to test the committee on this item. The inconsistency of the Government is revealed in the way in which tea has been treated in this tariff, when compared with Australian-made cigars. The excise on cigars is a straight-out case of pandering to the Cigar-makers Unions. As I have said, I shall test the committee on this item if the Minister remains adamant, because I believe that the heavy duty on tea imposes on the workers a hardship which is not justified.
.- Like the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) I am surprised that a government which professes to represent the workers should impose so high a duty on the beverage of the majority of the people. The duty on tea is the more surprising when we remember the pre election promise of the Labour party that in no circumstances would a Labour government impose duties for revenue purposes. Labour candidates declared that the party to which they belonged believed in protecting Australian indus* tries, not in imposing duties merely to obtain revenue. So many pre-election promises of the present Government have been denied that it is surprising that the crowing of the cocks does not make it impossible for us to hear ourselves speak in this chamber. Sir George Reid, when Premier of New South Wales, wiped out all protective duties, except one - that on tea - which he said was a freetrade duty. The present Government prohibits the importation of luxuries which, if allowed to enter this country, would produce revenue; and, in order to make up the lost revenue, imposes heavy duties on tea, thereby reducing the wages of the workers as certainly as if they had been reduced by an arbitration tribunal. Tea is the principal beverage of Australians. Indeed, tea is essential to the health of many Australian women. In most homes the consumption of tea reaches at least 1 lb. a week, so that a heavy duty on that commodity places a burden on all the people.
Another feature of this duty is the abolition of British preference. The duty on tea is 4d. British, 4d. intermediate, and 4d. general, excepting when imported in packets not exceeding 20 lb., when it is 6d. British, 6d. intermediate, and 6d. general. This duty strikes a blow at inter-Empire trade. Before the present Government came into power, the fiscal policy of the country tended to develop reciprocal trade between members of the British Commonwealth of Nations; but even in respect of what are admittedly revenue duties, this Government pays no regard to the claims of empire. Australia’s trade with Ceylon, particularly in biscuits and flour, is capable of development, but the imposition ©f a heavy duty on tea will not encourage the people of Ceylon to increase their purchases from Australia.
It is wrong that the cheaper grades of tea should bear the same duty that is imposed on high-grade tea. Secure in the knowledge that the supporters of the Government are caucus ruled, the Minister may remain adamant to all appeals to reduce the duty on this item. Nevertheless, I urge him to recognize the reasonableness of so altering the duty on tea that the poorer persons in the community will not be so heavily penalized as they are at present.
.- I hope that the Minister will give favorable consideration to the representations that have been made for a review of the duty on this item. As beer is the national beverage of Great Britain, and whisky of Scotland and other countries, so tea is the national beverage of Australia. Speaking at Balmain in October, 1929, the present Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) told his hearers that in no circumstances would a Labour government tax the beer or the tobacco of the working man. But not only have both those commodities been very heavily taxed; now he is also taxing the teaof the working men and women of this country.
– The honorable member’s leader introduced that system of taxation.
– I know that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lyons), when under the control of the Labour caucus, had to do many things which he would otherwise not have done, but to-day he rejoices in a newfound liberty, and in future he will be able to follow the dictates of his conscience.
– Has he left tea to turn to sugar?
– Every person who has regard to his health will use a reasonable quantity of pure Queensland sugar. The Government admits that this is a revenue duty. There would have been no need to resort to such means of raising revenue had the Government carried out the terms of the Melbourne agreement, to which, the No. 1 Labour Cabinet subscribed. The Government, however, failed to carry out the economies adopted by that agreement, and now it is forced to raise the duty on the workers’ tea.
– How otherwise could we raise the £800,000 that is required ?
– I submit that had the Government honored the Melbourne agreement there would have been no need to increase the duty on tea. Even at this late hour, I urge the Government to get back to the. Melbourne agreement, and to withdraw this heavy impost on the beverage of the great majority of the people of this country. If the Government will not do this I urge it to impose the duty on an ad valorem rate so that the working men and women who buy the cheaper grades of tea will pay a lower duty. The present flat rate requires the same rate of duty to be paid irrespective of the value of the tea.
.- The proposed duty on tea is imposed for revenue purposes only. I regret that it is necessary to tax tea at all; but in these abnormal times the Government is forced to adopt unwelcome measures for raising revenue. It may interest honorable members to know that I have received many hundreds of letters, as has also the Treasurer, suggesting various ways by which the revenue of the country may be increased. A large number of those letters suggested that the Commonwealth revenue should be increased by imposing an additional tax on tea. The Government, unfortunately, in order to continue its necessary services, had to comply with that request, and anticipates that £825,000 per annum will be raised from this source.
– Were those suggestions received from beer drinkers?
– 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.
Mr.beasley. - Why not derive it out of interest?
– Provision has already been made to tax interest to the extent of 3s. 6d. in £1. This Government began by reducing the excise duty on beer by 2d. a gallon, but owing to unforeseen circumstances it found it necessary to increase the rate. I am confident that no matter what government was in power at the present time, it would avail itself of this £825,000 revenue from a duty on tea.
– Not on this basis.
– When the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lyons) was Acting Treasurer, he reluctantly decided that it was necessary to impose a duty of 4d. per lb. on tea. That was done, not as a protective measure to assist Australian industry, but to produce more revenue. I feel sure that the honorable gentleman will endorse the present duty, which is imposed for a similar purpose.
– No doubt the honorable gentleman will vote for the additional duty, but honorable members on this side of the chamber are allowed to decide for themselves. The whip is not cracked over them.
– It is very evident that honorable members opposite are endeavouring to make party capital out of this item. Owing to the rather substantial duty on tea imported in bulk, it was considered that the margin of Id. per lb. between bulk and packaged tea was insufficient to ensure the packing of tea being carried out in the Commonwealth, consequently the margin was increased to 2d. per lb. Our importations of tea are very considerable. For the financial year 1929-30, they were as follows : -
The value was £3,274,428. The right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) said that we should provide a British preferential rate. It is the custom of this Government to do so. The suggestion is that an ad valorem, instead of a fixed rate, should be applied. I point out that that would adversely affect British countries, and particularly Ceylon, as the tea received from that country is of a better quality than that imported from Java, for instance, and therefore would bear a higher rate of duty per lb. I am confident that honorable members opposite do not press that claim, which would do an injustice to a British country, if given effect.
– Actually this tariff schedule has reduced British preferences by about 70 per cent.
– This Government has increased by 120 the number of items under which preference is given to Great Britain. It stands for reciprocal trade between Australia and the other parts of the British Empire, but it asks for a quid, pro quo. Honorable members opposite have not said anything about Great Britain giving big meat contracts to the Argentine, in which country millions of pounds of British capital is invested, nor have they referred to the Mother Country buying wheat from Russia. Another objection to an ad valorem rate being applied to tea is that it is extremely difficult to check values in foreign countries.
– Not at all.
– The honorable gentle-, mau knows quite well that when he was Minister for Trade and Customs he experienced considerable difficulty in determining . the value of silk importations from Japan.
– That was easily overcome.
– Only by sending an officer of the department to Japan, at great cost to the Commonwealth. 1 believe that an ad valorem rate of duty would defeat the object for which it was introduced, by failing to realize anything like the amount anticipated from the present duty, which is imposed primarily to pay for the social services to which the Government is committed, and which honorable members opposite are so anxious to cut down. It may interest the committee to know that some of the other dominions impose a duty on tea. Even Great Britain did so for 25 years, as a means of producing revenue.
– What was the amount of the duty?
– I think 4d. per lb.
– Has not that been abolished ?
– It was taken off by the present British Labour Government, but only after it had been in existence for 25 years. I hope that this Government will be able to abolish the duty on tea long before that number of years expires. The following statement shows the rates of duty imposed on tea in different countries, and may interest honorable members : -
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.
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.
.- 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.
– The Minister has imposed that embargo with the result-
– Order! I remind the honorable member that the item under discussion is tea.
– I should have no objection to this duty if the Minister were consistent, and did not exploit the general public in connexion with other items. The only result of an increase in this duty has been an increase in the cost of tea to the public.
In the Canadian tariff a preference is given to tea grown within the Empire. Seeing that Great Britain is by far our beet customer, we should do our best to grant preferences of this kind, so long as in doing so we do not take the risk of injuring our relations with other countries. When this additional duty was first imposed, I asked for consideration to be given to the granting of a concession in favour of Empire tea. The Prime Minister visited Great Britain recently with the object of trying to encourage Empire trade. I suggest that it could be encouraged by granting a concession in this case, and that the Minister should reconsider this duty with that end in view.
The duty on tea in packets has been increased by 100 per cent.; from1d. per lb. in 1920 to 2d. per lb. to-day.
Mr.Forde. - The increase has been made to encourage the packing of tea in Australia.
– In my opinion an increase of 100 per cent, is not justified.
Mr.Forde. - The matter has been inquired into.
– I do not think that the inquiry was sufficiently exhaustive. I know that our tea dealers have built up a fine trade in packet tea; but that is no reason why an unjustifiable increase of 100 per cent, should be made in the duty on tea imported in packets. Increases of this kind are an invitation to traders to increase prices. I know that the Minister has frequently said that manufacturers have reduced their prices for locally manufactured goods below the prices that would have to be paid for imported articles plus the tariff; but the reports of the Tariff Board show clearly that manufacturers, generally speaking, take the fullest possible advantage of the tariff.
.- It is difficult to understand why the Government should insist on increasing the duty on tea. I recognize, of course, that the Government needs additional revenue, and that the taxation on tea is a simple way to obtain it. But why should the burden be allowed to fall so heavily upon the working classes, who are the people who use tea more extensively than any other class? Under the existing conditions the workers have to pay as much duty on the cheaper grades of tea which they buy as a tea connoisseur has to pay on the expensive brands which he uses. At present there is a duty of 4d. per lb. on tea imported in bulk, and 6d. per lb. on tea imported in packets. The extra 2d. on packet tea is too much. The Minister has told us that this additional impost has been made with the object of providing work for packers, printers, lithographers, and others; but there is no need for such a heavy increase.
– The people can avoid the increase by buying tea packed in Australia in preference to tea packed in black-labour countries.
– 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.
.- I must voice my protest against this item. Tea is the universal beverage of the poorer people of Australia. Recently, when a proposal was submitted to the Government for a tax upon flour, it was said that it was not the policy of the Government to allow taxation to fall inequitably upon the shoulders of the working people. But the Government is certainly adopting that policy in this case. The Ministerhas frankly admitted that the object of thistaxation is to raise revenue. But the Government is not consistent. Some time ago, it deliberately sacrificed customs revenue to the extent of about £8,000,000, on a matter of policy, on the ground that to do so would enable a reduction to be effected in the number of people unemployed in this country. But unemployment has increased, although the Government has lost this revenue. By interjection during this debate, I referred to the effect of imposing a flat rate of duty on tea. Such a policy obliges the poorer people in the community to pay at a higher ratio than the wealthier people. If the Government is sincerely solicitous for the welfare of the workers, it will give earnest consideration to the proposal which the honorable member for Henty intends to submit to it.
This duty is, of course, entirely for the purpose of raising revenue. I have not the same objection to revenue duties as I have to some other duties; but the Government cannot expect us to remain silent when, in one case, it deliberately sacrifices revenue to the extent of £8,000,000, not for the benefit of the consumers, but largely for the benefit of the manufacturers, and, in another case, imposes taxation upon the poorer people to Hie .extent of £825,000.
– A number of honorable members seem to have lost sight of the fact that the country is facing a deficit approaching £20,000,000. It is for that reason that I shall support this item. I intend to support the imposition of revenueproducing duties on all items which are mot necessaries of life, in order that we may, to our full taxable capacity, meet the deficit which is facing us. I do not exonerate the Government for its failure to take steps to reduce expenditure and effect economies; but at the same time I shall support it in taking this unpopular step of imposing a duty on tea. In the caucus, I supported the imposition of this duty, and now, although I am free to do so, I do not intend to go back upon what I did there. It has been said that tea is a necessary of life ; but it is not an absolute necessary.
– Is not tea a necessary ?
– No ; because water can be used as a drink. Every human being requires water. Tea is not essential, though many other commodities which we shall be considering later, and upon which heavy duties are feeing imposed, are essential.
– What of wine?
– Wine is not a necessary. It appears to me that too much of the party spirit has been displayed in this debate. Honorable members on this side of the chamber are repeatedly urging the Government to take, action which is unpopular, and when, in this instance, the Government is compelled to take an unpopular course, some .on this side of the chamber are finding fault. The Government should consider the imposition of an ad valorem duty, which I shall support if it does not reduce the amount of revenue now received from this source. Under an ad valorem duty the cheaper grades of tea, which are now used by the poorer section of the community, will not bear the same burden as the higher grades.
– An ad valorem duty would affect Ceylon, which is a British country, and from which the best qualities of tea ,are exported. Moreover, it would be difficult to determine the true value of the imports.
– I am not going to argue with the Minister on that point; but if by the imposition .of such a duty we can overcome the difficulties raised by some honorable members on this side of the chamber the Government should consider the suggestion. It is my desire to assist the Government to retain the £825,000 now received in revenue from the tea duties, because the country needs the money. The trouble to-day is that each section appears to be anxious to throw the responsibility and sacrifice on to some other section, instead of facing the whole financial position in order to get the country out of the present trouble.
.- I regret that the Government has found it necessary to impose a duty on tea, hut unlike the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) I submit that to many people tea is a necessary. There are many other commodities that could be dispensed with before tea, which is a universal drink. As one who has spent many years in the bush, I know that tea is the bushman’s principal beverage, and apart from water.,, is in many instances the only one- which he is able to obtain. There have been many suggestions as to the source from which additional revenue should be obtained, but these duties. have been imposed solely with the object of raising revenue.
– 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.
.- 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.
– Is the honorable member sure that the present revenue will not be affected if an average duty of 25 per cent, is-dopted?
– It will- not be affected on an average duty of 25 per cent
Mr.Forde. - Such a duty would, not return the same amount, of revenue.
– Preference could also be given to British countries;
– If would mean reducing therate.
– Not at. all. I am puttingforward a plea on behalf of those in receipt of comparatively small incomes: It” is a plea to relieve from taxation purposes hundreds of thousands of persons who are without work and poverty stricken; but who are still consumers of tea; the Minister is- strangely unsympathetic towards them.
– I am not unsympathetic.
– I should be satisfied’ if” the. Minister would agree to post pone the “.consideration of this item, and, in the meantime, . make an -investigation in order’to” find -out . whether it -would not be practicable to devise a method of imposing ‘ an’ ad valorem duty which would return the same amount of revenue.
– I’ have already gone into that.
– We have’ in Australia thehighestflatrateof duty “ on tea’ of’ any portion” of the’ British Empire. The Minister quoted some figures, but the fact remains that in* Canada’ tea imported in’ bulk’ is free when it comes’ from British countries; in South’ Africa a duty of: 2d.1 per lb. is imposed on tea from’ British countries, while New Zealand allows tea ‘ in packets of:5 lb. and over “to be admitted free from’ British countries. This Australian1 Labour Government - a government’ which is supposed’ to be particularly careful of the interests of the workers - is the only one in the Empire which has imposed such a crushing burden of taxation upon them as is now proposed. It will not consent to a democratic proposal to impose the tax on a basis of value, so that the poor man may at least have some relief. I again ask the Minister whether he will consider my proposal ?
– The present proposals were outlined in the budget, and. Parliament agreed to them.
– This proposal has not previously been before the House. I have no objection to the Government’s raising £S00,000, but it must be obvious to the Treasurer that if so much tea of a given value comes into Australia, an ad valorem rate of duty could be imposed.
– It is impossible to check theseitems.
– Oh, that is all moonshine. If the Government will not accept my proposal, I move -
That the itembe amended by adding the following : - “And on and after the 20th May, 1931-
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.
.- 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.
.- 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.
.- 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.
– 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.
– He did say that.
Mr.Forde. - I said that when the honorable gentleman was Acting Treasurer the proposal to secure increased revenue by means of this tax on tea was agreed upon.
– I gather from what I have been told by honorable members, that the Minister clearly gave them the impression that I was the originator of the scheme. I am quite prepared to take my share of responsibility for anything that I have done, or may do, but I object to misrepresentation.
– It should not have been said.
– I know it is not like the Minister to do that, but if he did convey that impression to honorable members, it is just as well that I should clear up the position. The first suggestion to impose this duty on tea came from the present Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) when he was previously in office, and was preparing his budget. The Government accepted it, and it became part of the budget proposals. At a later stage, and after the Treasurer had retired from the Ministry, the budget proposals were revised by the Prime Minister, who was acting as Treasurer. The proposal for this tax was then dropped by the Cabinet. I may add that when it was first considered, the financial position of the Commonwealth was not so desperate as it became later, when the Government had to take it up again. When first the proposal was mentioned we were hoping, as the figures seemed to indicate, that we should be able to balance the budget during the year without the additional tax on tea. Later when the financial position became ‘much worse, we had to cast around for fresh avenues of taxation, and I referred a number of suggestions to the Customs Department through the Minister for advice as to the means by which increased revenue could be obtained. The increased tax on tea was among; the. proposals mentioned. I accepted it. because of the serious financial position,, and for the same reason I intend to- support, it tonight. I ann quite prepared, to takemy responsibility’ in. this matter;, but I remind the committee that there were 50 others, involved, so. why attempt to put all” the responsibility on to one individual?
– I. did not attempt to place the responsibility solely upon the honorable member. What I said was that he. was a party to it.
– The Minister gave us to understand that the honorable member for Wilmot had initiated the proposal.
– As I have shown, it was initiated’ at an earlier stage in the Government’s programme, and was part of the present Treasurer’s budget proposals for submission to- Parliament. Later, when the budget was revised, this additional tax on tea was dropped by Cabinet at my suggestion..
– But, as Acting-Treasurer, subsequently the honorable member adopted it.
– That is so. I do not think that the Minister would purposely misrepresent me in the matter;, and I am sorry that he gave honorable members the impression that I was the originator of the proposal.
– All I am saying is- that the honorable gentleman, supported it as Acting-Treasurer.
– Yes, and I am now supporting it as Leader of the Opposition ; but if the amendment is practicable, I hope that it will be adopted. I know the Treasurer wants to get additional revenue, and I shall help him to get it. It would be hypocritical on my part to take any other stand. If we can make the incidence of the tax more equitable - I think this is possible under the ad valorem duties - the amendment, if practicable, should be adopted.- The fullest investigation and. inquiry should be made before it is rejected.
.- Prior to’ the dinner adjournment I pointed out that an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent, on the tea imports for 1928- 29, amounting to £3,482,000, would produce £870,000 - a larger- sum than the Minister anticipates obtaining under a flat rate of 4Jd.. per lb. When I made that statement X was under the impression that’ these, values for imports, were’ on the.- c.i.f: basis. I ami now informed that the figures represent the f.o.b. value, *nd, if that is so, I remind the Minister that an. ad valorem duty of 22^ per cent, would provide practically the same revenue as would an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent, on the c.i.f. basis. An ad valorem duty of 25 per cent, on imports valued at £3,831,000- £3,482,971 f.o.b. value with 10 per cent, added - would return over £957,000, and a duty of 22$ per cent, would give £862,000, which is little more than the Minister expects to get from a flat rate of 4d. per lb.
– The honorable member must- take the latest figures available.
– Even if the latest figures- are- a little lower, a tax of 22$ percent., after 10 -per cent, has been added by the Customs Department to arrive at the c.i.f. value; would return over £800,000; or approximately the- same amount as that which the Minister expects to get under his proposal.
– Has the honorable member later figures than for the year 1928- 29?’
– 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.
.- 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.
– 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.”
– 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.
– 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 -
A proclamation shall not be issued under the last preceding sub-section until -
That cannot be done. It would cause considerable delay, and it is necessary that this item be approved. If the amendment would result in an increase of taxation, it would be out of order, and, if it would mean a reduction of revenue, the Government could not accept it, because all the revenue now being received is urgently required.
– But the Minister could move such an amendment.
– The amendment suggested by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) for a duty of 15 per cent, on tea from Ceylon-
– He did not suggest that Ceylon tea should come in under the British preferential rate.
– A great deal of the argument this afternoon has been in favour of the British preference being extended to. Ceylon tea, which is absolutely impracticable. A 15 per cent, duty on Oeylon tea would amount to 2.55d. per lb. and a 25 per cent, duty would mean 4¼d. per lb. A duty of 25 per cent on Java tea would be 3d. per lb., or less than the duty on Ceylon tea.
– Is the Minister quoting from an official document?
– No; but I am giving official figures. If, on all bulk tea, the rate of duty paid were 25 per cent. - that is, if tea the produce of certain British dominions, did not qualify for the British preferential tariff - the revenue would amount to £818,606 as against £830,974 at 4d. per lb. That would cause a reduction of our aggregate revenue of approximately £12,000. If, however, the wording of the item were amended in order to allow tea produced in the British Empire to carry a duty of 15 per cent., the loss to the revenue would be £190,000. I maintain that honorable members should allow this item to pass. No commodity so lends itself to manipulation as does tea. Even if an ad valorem rate were imposed, what guarantee would there be that the masses of the people would get any benefit, since tea comes from Java, Ceylon and other countries, and is blended in Australia? The people could not be guaranteed a reduction of the price of tea. The business would be manipulated, and the cost would be spread over the whole community. I am assured that a portion of the present duty has been passed on, and that some of it has been carried by the merchants. An honorable member has suggested that we should vary the incidence of this duty, but it would be inadvisable to do that. “With tea coming from various countries it is very difficult to arrive at its true value for duty purposes. If we abolished the fixed rate of 4d. per lb., and adopted the ad valorem basis, the merchants could reduce the declared value, and escape the payment of considerable sums in duty. Of course, some persons would say, “Departmental officers can check that,” but we should require an officer in Java, another in Ceylon, and other officers in other islands, in order to see that the department was not deceived.
– That would eat up the revenue.
– Yes. We found that, owing to the declared value of silk coming from Japan, the department was losing revenue, and it had to send an officer to Japan. The honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) was a Minister of the day who approved of the despatch of a departmental officer to that country. The work of checking the tea coming from the various islands would be a much more complicated undertaking, and- it would certainly result in a loss of revenue, which the Government cannot afford. Honorable members opposite have been talking about the need for facing up to the task of balancing the budget, and they have spoken of the necessity for a general cut in old-age and war pensions.
– More sacrifices!
– Yes. Their display of party political leanings comes with bad grace, and it is not surprising that the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) told them what he thought of it.
.- In view of the figures quoted ‘by the Minister, will he accept an amendment for an ad valorem duty that would enable the Government to secure the same revenue of £800,000 that he estimates to collect under, the flat rate of 4d. .per lb.
– I have pointed out that an ad valorem duty will not bring in so much revenue as a fixed duty.
– The Minister ha3 tried to prove that it is not possible to make an agreement to give tariff preference to a certain part of the British Empire.
– It would involve the delay of obtaining a report by the Tariff Board.
– In every case the Minister is supposed to get a report by the Tariff Board, but in nearly every instance he seems to have ignored that. body. The Minister for Markets (Mr. Parker Moloney) recently made a tour of the world, and, so far as one can judge, with precious little result. Let him go into the matter of arranging trade agreements with Ceylon and India. Considering that we import cornsacks from, and export to, India, it should be easy to obtain a suitable trade agreement with that country to enable Indian tea to be admitted into Australia at a preferential rate. The Minister has said that a negligible quantity of foreign tea is imported, and that, if the duty were altered in the manner suggested, the pub lic would not benefit. I have already pointed out that nearly 20,000,000 lb. of tea is imported from the Dutch East Indies, and almost a similar quantity from British Dominions. The Minister could act in this matter in accordance with the provisions of the Custom’s Act; but, quite apart from that, he could accept an amendment framed in his own department to make the duties 15 per cent., 20 per cent., and 25 per cent., or they could Se amended to read 10 per cent., 15 per cent., or 20 per cent., or any other suitable figures. That would ensure that the cheaper tea would not be taxed to the same extent as tea of a high grade. In these difficult times, the majority of the people have to consider the cost of their tea, and the cheaper teas should not bear so much tax as those which fall within the category of luxuries. I hope that an amendment will be accepted, based on the lines indicated, which could be proved to return the same amount of revenue as the present duties.
– I rise to make a personal explanation. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) remarked that I had said that water was good enough for the workers. I made no such statement and I do not intend to allow any words to be put into my mouth by the political Ned Kellys opposite. What I did say was that tea was not a necessity in the sense that water is. I repeat that statement.
– I am afraid that, in the consideration of personal amenities, and the different methods of taxing tea, we have lost sight of the question whether we are justified in imposing a tax on tea at all. A good deal of credit has been given to the Government for doing something that is unpopular, and, for my part, I hope that when the Government does something which is in the public interest, although it may be unpopular, members on this side of the chamber will never try to take political advantage of such action. To that extent, I think that the Government is entitled to some credit for doing what may not put it in the most favorable light with the people. I am not sure, however, whether the Government took the most courageous attitude that might have been adopted in this matter. When it comes to balancing the budget, there are two alternatives, and I think that the Government has, in this instance, followed the line of least resistance. One method is by the imposition of increased taxation, and the other is by reducing governmental expenditure.
– Do not talk in generalities. What does the honorable member suggest ?
– That platitude has been thrown across the chamber night after night in the last fortnight. I have no authority to make a statement of policy, and I am not attempting to do that, but I point out that the Government has the alternative of avoiding the taxation of commodities by reducing public expenditure in certain directions. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lyons) made his position fairly clear. As a member of the Government which drew up this tariff, he feels bound to support his previous actions with regard to the various items in the schedules. Of course, he is voicing his personal views.
– Members on this side all do that on the tariff.
– Quite so. I regard the tariff as one of the most important matters which members are called upon to consider. In its fiscal policy Australia has egregiously blundered. The tariff has entirely failed in its object. It has’ divorced the sympathy of other countries, and has cost Australia millions of pounds in loss of trade. I am entirely opposed to the excessive charges which the tariff imposes on the commodities which the people use from day to day. In the absence of any better suggestion, I support the amendment now before the committee. It seems to provide for a rather mere equitable distribution of the burden of the tax on tea. Personally I should prefer to see a reduction of this tax. I consider it an excessive charge, when it is remembered that money could be saved by various reductions of public expenditure.
.- Honorable members opposite Have taken up a surprising attitude. First they accuse the Government of not spreading the burden, of taxation evenly, and then we are told that the tax on tea should be wiped out, and that expenditure should be reduced in other directions, although no indication is given as to how such a reduction could be accomplished. Social services are responsible for a considerable portion of the total cost of government, but no honorable member on this side agrees to a reduction of that expenditure. None of the opponents of the duty on tea have suggested any alternative method of obtaining the £800,000 involved.
– The amendment would produce only £12,000 less than the Government’s proposal.
– That is mere assumption. A duty on tea is objectionable to most honorable members, and it probably will press most heavily on the people in my electorate, who have not easy access to hotels, tea shops and restaurants, and whose only beverage is tea. The honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) says that tea is not a necessity, but I would like to test his opinion by making him live in the Gulf country, or the Northern Territory, for twelve months with nothing to drink but water. The honorable member’s habits are known not to be extravagant, but he certainly likes a cup of tea. If there were any other means of obtaining the necessary revenue, tea would be the last commodity that the Government would tax.
– What about cigars, on which the excise duty is only 3d. per lb ?
– If the excise duty on cigars is too low, and £800,000 can be got from that source, by all means get it, but we are convinced that it cannot be got-
– Get a little of it.
– A little extra revenue from cigai’3 would be very handy, but instead of surrendering any income we should retain all we have got for the relief of distress and the restoration of the purchasing power of the people who to-day are unemployed. Honorable members twit me with having voted for the duty on cigars. This schedule was introduced as part of the Government’s policy, and as a good party man I support the Government and its measures. We hear a lot said” about the tariff being a nonparty measure, but if members of the Opposition were in office and an item involving £800,000 of revenue were attacked, we should hear the whip cracking to rally members to the support of their Ministers. On past tariff schedules, when the whip cracked in relation to big revenue items, even the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) fell into line. Included amongst those who now sit in opposition are members who, when supporting the Government, approved of a tax on tea as a means of obtaining revenue in preference to adopting Sir Otto Niemeyer’s scheme for an all-round slashing of wages and social services. Honorable members opposite talk of their sympathy for the worker in regard to taxation, but whilst they are prepared to remit the £ S00,000 of customs duty on tea they also want to reduce the income exemption to £200. This duty affects the people at bridge parties as much as the worker; as a matter of fact, most of the £800,000 will be paid by the proprietors of city tea shops. Much as I dislike the taxation of tea or any other commodity that is not produced in Australia, I realize the need in these times for revenue. The amendment is merely an appeal to the selfishness of the public for party propaganda purposes. Honorable members opposite talk of the need for political co-operation, conferences, and non-party deliberations; they say also that all the new organizations that are formed in support of them are nonpolitical. They may be, but all have the one objective, the removal of the Labour party from the treasury bench. To-day, a grazier who might be expected to be a Nationalist supporter, said to me, “ One thing to be said for the present Government is that it has a policy. The only way out of our difficulties is that proposed by the Government. For goodness sake, save us from the Lyonses, Bruces, and Pages “ I said to him, “ Some people consider Dr. Earle Page a financier.” He replied, “Financier! If he were running a duck farm, he would drown all the ducklings.”
– I rise to a personal explanation. The honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) said that in the past, when the whip cracked, members supporting the previous Government, including myself, voted for increased duties. That statement has no vestige of foundation so far as I am concerned.
– Looking through Ilansard I found that the honorable member voted fairly consistently with the Government.
– The honorable member makes so many windy statements that he does not know what he says.
.- The honorable member for Kennedy said that the present Government has a policy. The policy now before the committee is a proposal by a Labour Government to tax the working man’s tea to the extent of 4d, per lb. The relatively cheap beverage of the workers is to be taxed at the same rate as the high-priced tea that is used only in the homes of the rich. The honorable member challenged me to name an alternative scheme for raising the £S00,000 that the Government expects to collect from this duty. My amendment would not involve any loss of revenue. As the Government will not adopt economies, and revenue must be obtained from somewhere, most of us are agreeable, for the time being, to £800,000 being obtained by a tax on tea. But I object to the incidence of the tax. Tea of all values is imported. That used by the relatively poor, including the station hands and boundary riders in the Kennedy electorate, costs as little as ls. per lb. But the prices of other brands range up to 7s. 6d. and even 12s. per lb. for high-class China teas and [special blends. I have proposed taxation on an ad valorem basis so that the tax will fall on the taxpayer according to his capacity to pay. If it be carried, the workers’ tea might be cheapened by Id. and possibly 1 Jd. per lb., and the price of the tea used by the rich might be increased 3d., 8d., or even ls. per lb. That is a proposal which should appeal to members who claim to represent the workers. I assure them that the amendment is not proposed with any desire to embarrass them. The golden rule of taxation is that the burden should be distributed according to the relative capacity to bear it. I am opposed to the taxation of a sustenance wage, but taxation should increase as the scale of income ascends.
– What does the honorable member call a sustenance wage?
– It is very severe on people who are on the dole or are working half time that they should have to pay an extra tax on their tea. As the cost of living is raised in this way, governments must increase the dole. There is neither science nor reason in such a tax. A dead level tax which bears on all alike allows the rich to escape the burden they are capable of bearing, and excessively punishes the poor. This flat rate of 4d. per lb. on tea is one of the most evil taxes over proposed.
– The Leader of the Opposition embodied it in his budget proposal.
– That may be so, but in regard to the tariff, “ Go as you please” is the rule of the Opposition. We do not whip in respect of tariff items, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lyons) will vote according to his personal convictions.
– He said that he would support this amendment if it could be shown to be practicable.
– Ministerial members have said that whilst we of the Opposition desire to remove the tax from tea, we want to reduce salaries, pensions, and wages. How inconsistent those honorable members are in absolutely resisting all direct, honest, and candid reductions of income whilst at the same time defending a tax of 4d. per lb. on the tea of the workers. I invite the Minister to show me a working man in this country on whom this heavy tax will not fall. I invite him to show me an old-age pensioner or a soldier pensioner whose pension this tax will not actually reduce. Yet this Government says that it stands 100 per cent, strong against reductions in pensions. The Minister said that the proposed amendment is impracticable and cannot be imposed. Again I strongly contest that statement. We know the value of this tea. It is exported to Australia, not by the thousands of coolies who pick it, but by a relatively small number of great firms, British, Dutch and other firms, whose invoices are just as honest as are those of the American motor car manufacturers.
– The honorable member advocates preference to Ceylon.
– I have included preference in the rate that I have proposed, but I am not suggesting that preference be given to Ceylon. That would need to be the subject of a special trade treaty with that country. Surely the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) is impressed with the fairness of and the democratic principle underlying this amendment. As the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr.Riordan) has said, the supporters of the Government are swallowing the schedule whole. They are taking it on strict party lines. This is the first time in this Parliament that a tariff schedule has been taken in that way. Hitherto, the vote has been open. But we know that bargaining is now proceeding. We know why certain primage duties were lifted the other day. Revenue duties and excise should be consistent. Imagine a working man’s party which puts only 3d. a lb. excise on the flash cigar of the gentleman - if there is one thing more than another that deserves the name “flash” it is a cigar - and 4d. a lb. on the working man’s tea, the pensioner’s tea and the cottager’s tea. The Government’s action in imposing this tax is most contemptible.
.- A great deal of the attention of the committee has been devoted to the proposed . duty on tea. The heart of the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) simply bled because no provision had been made under this item for Empire preference! The Minister went to a lot of trouble to explain the reason for not having made such preference provision in this tariff duty. He made a quotation almost as long as a chapter from Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. He said that before this suggested preference could be provided reference would have to be made to the Tariff Board, and quite a number of other things would have to be done. He did not make it clear why he was opposed to the idea of preference as suggested by thehon or able member for Cowper.
– We already buy from Ceylon twice as much as that country buys from us.
– That is so, but why did not the Minister draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the right honorable member for Cowper, when Treasurer, did not provide for Empire preference or insist on the removal of the duty on tea. Apparently, his heart at that time did not bleed for the people.
– At that time there was no duty on tea in bulk, although there was a duty on packages.
– The tariff of 1921-28 levied a duty of Id. without preference, and in a manner which most affected the poorest of our people.
– That was on tea in small packages. The previous Government allowed that duty to remain and did not give preference to Ceylon as is now advocated by the Country party.
– The whole debate has been an endeavour to mislead the committee. The right honorable member for Cowper is sometimes described as -artless, but I am inclined to think that he is artful, particularly in his reference to the duty on tea. The heart of the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) also bled, but in another direction. It bled at the mere prospect of a duty on tea affecting the working men and women of this country. In one breath he said that this duty was most immoral, and, in the next breath, that it should not be abandoned. According to him, all that is wrong with the Government’s proposals is that they will not operate in the way in which he wishes them to operate. So much for his heart bleeding for the unfortunate workers who are to be denied their customary cup of tea ! As a matter of fact, the suggestion of the honorable member for Henty would, if given effect, be worse than the Government’s proposals, for it would compel the workers, if they obtained any tea at all, to purchase the poorest grades, and they would never be able to obtain a decent grade of tea. I endorse the opinion of my colleague, the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward). I shall vote against this item and also the amendment. It is regrettable in the extreme that this Government has found it necessary to place such a proposal as this before honorable members. It is simply submitting to the dictates of the financiers of the day. It contends that revenue must be obtained by means of the tariff in order to carry on government activities.
– And to pay the honorable member.
– That is a worthy object. When a financial problem confronts a government the accepted prac tice is to go to the financiers for advice as to how that problem may be solved. The financiers’ advice is that all financial problems must be settled in accordance with the prevailing principles of “sound finance “. Those principles, we are told, are so simple that they might be set to music. They are, in effect, that we must heed the chant of the financiers and capitalists, who, first of all, must be paid for their services. Whether it be at the expense of the farmers when seasons fail and crops are insufficient to enable them to pay their way, or whether it be by the sweat of the workers’ brow, the financiers must have first claim on public money, on the bounty of nature, on the resources of the country, and the energies of its population. It is because this Government is accepting the advice of the capitalists that this country has been driven to its present position. We have been told to balance the budget, and we are still hearing this wonderful gospel being preached. The other day I had to bring before honorable members an infamous example of how the budget has to be balanced at any cost to human beings. I brought to the notice of honorable members the dismissal of returned soldiers from government departments. The Commonwealth Government professed to be so bankrupt of resources that it was compelled to dismiss even unfortunate limbless soldiers frOm the most minor positions in order that the budget might to some extent be balanced. Now it is attempting to balance the budget by an assault on tea-cups through taxing the tea-drinkers of this country. My colleagues and myself believe that this tax will not meet with the approval of the people. Despite the fact that honorable members generally may think that we are making an appeal to our constituents, we still say that we are opposed to this tax because it detrimentally affects the workers.
– It was a party decision.
– The honorable member saw to it that we left the party.
– The honorable member was present when caucus made its decision.
– I was, from the beginning, opposed to the duty on tea, I am opposed to it now, and I shall vote against it. This tax affects the poorest people of the community at a time when things are sufficiently bad for them. It will affect even the swagmen on the road. It is strange that in the year 1931 we should return to a tariff principle which was introduced about 300 years ago. Mr. Churchill, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, abolished the tea duty, and in support of his action he spoke in the British. House of Commons as follows : -
There has been a tax on tea ever since the reign of Queen Elizabeth.
To-day we are returning to the conditions that were operating during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Instead of going forward, we are going backwards.
– Is the honorable member referring to his own party ?
– 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.
That statement incidentally is a fitting reply to the honorable member who has moved the amendment before the committee. For the reasons that I have given, my colleagues and myself intend to vote against both the item and the amendment.
.- I do not like this tax on tea at all, and in ordinary circumstances I should vote against it. At a time when we should be doing our utmost to reduce ,the cost of living this duty increases it. I regard tea, not as a luxury, but as a necessity. Australians are heavy tea-drinkers, so that any tax on tea places a burden on the majority of the people of this country. Nevertheless, I realize that a tax on tea is one of the few means of raising revenue left to the Government. If budgets are to be balanced, there is no escape from this tax, and consequently, whether we like it or not, we are forced to support it. I cannot see my way to vote for the amendment. Even if it were workable, it would tend to encourage fraud, in addition to causing a loss of revenue to the country. As tea could be invoiced at practically any price, an ad valorem duty would certainly mean a considerable loss of revenue.
– The prices shown on the invoices could not be checked.
– The amendment is not practicable. This is the first time that I have ever felt that I could vote for a duty on tea, but as it is necessary for the Government to get additional revenue, and this is one of the few means left of obtaining.it, I intend to support the item.
– I support the amendment. I disagree with the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) who said that honorable members on this side had approached the consideration of this and other items in a party spirit. That is not the case, so far as members on this side are concerned; although having listened to the honorable member for Kennedy we may be pardoned for concluding that honorable members opposite regard this tariff schedule in that way.
– Being a good party man, I have decided to support the Government.
– Evidently, the supporters of the Government are prepared to accept the schedule without any change. All honorable members realize that irrespective of the alternatives that might exist the Government finds it necessary to increase many revenue duties and also to introduce further revenue duties. This amendment is not intended to embarrass the Government in the raising of additional revenue.
– But that would be its effect.
– The Minister said that if the amendment were agreed to, the revenue would drop by £12,000 per annum.
– It wouldbe all right if we could rely on the valuations set out in the invoices ; but, unfortunately, without an army of officers it would be impossible to check them.
– Some method could be found of checking the valuations. Even if the amendment in its present form would mean a loss of £12,000 it should not be beyond the capabilities of the officers of the department to frame an amendment to meet the position.
-We must obtain revenue somehow.
– The Minister said that both he and the Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) had received many requests for the imposition of a duty on tea; but he will agree that many of them were made as an alternative to the proposal to impose a sales tax. I know that one request for a tax on tea, which was sent from my electorate, was in the nature of an alternative to a sales tax.
– The proprietors of “ Robur Tea “ advertise that each pound of tea will make 200 cups of tea. That means that most families do not use more than half a pound of tea a week.
– It is obvious that a higher duty on tea must increase the cost of that everyday commodity, which is the national beverage of Australia. My reason for supporting the amendment is that the item does not dis- . tinguish between the cheaper grades of tea used by the majority of the people and the more expensive grades purchased generally by persons with larger incomes. The Government should have no objec tion to the amendment if it could be proved that its acceptance would not reduce the revenue, for it would certainly benefit the consumers. I hope that the Minister will at least agree to the postponement of the item with a view to consulting the officers of the department to ascertain whether it is possible to prepare an amendment providing for an ad valorem duty.
– I have made inquiries and find that it would be inadvisable to do so.
Question - That the amendment (Mr. Gullett’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. McGrath.)
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.).
.- 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?
– 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.
.- 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.
– What are the total importations of cotton goods?
– The following table gives the full figures : -
.- 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.
– And the best use will be made of them.
– 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.
.- 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
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.
.- 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
At the second day’s sittings of the Catholic Education Association yesterday, in St. Patrick’s Hall, Harrington-street, Rev. Bro. M. B. Hanrahan, provincial of the Christian Brothers in Australasia, moved that a - telegram be sent to the Prime Minister with reference to the possibility of the Federal Government’s abolishing the control of physical training in the schools. “ It was a good many years,” said Brother Hanrahan, “ since the Commonwealth authorities took over physical instruction in schools, and it looks likely that for the sake of economy it will be done away with. I think such a course would be a great blow to the schools.”
Before such a drastic step is taken as to discontinue control of physical training in the schools of the Commonwealth, I trust that the Government will take into consideration the signficance of its national value to the Commonwealth.
.- I support the protest of the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Jones) with respect to the discontinuance of physical training in our schools. Unfortunately, the . honorable member rather attempted to depreciate other aspects of training when he spoke of bayonet practice by certain sections of the Defence Department inculcating a spirit of war. The whole of the training undertaken by the defence forces is useful in preparing men for service not only overseas but within Australia. It provides them with good physical and moral training. Unfortunately, compulsory military training has ceased although, as the police have said, it was a means of breaking up street gangs which consisted largely of irresponsible youths who, when in training, were profitably engaged. This Government, which has dispensed with compulsory military training, is also responsible for other extraordinary acts. It has laid up the survey ship, although even the Government of Siam has two such ships in service, and Portugal and China each have one. By declining to keep one survey ship in commission, the Government is allowing the vessels of the mercantile marine to traverse waters which, in many instances, have not been charted since the days of Flinders and Cook. Although the honorable member for Indi said that compulsory military training and, inferentially, physical training in schools, was introduced by a Labour government, I may say that, while the Labour party brought the system into operation, it was a Liberal government which made the preliminary preparations for the introduction of the system. Physical training is of immense value, not only to the pupils, but also to the teachers, many of whom require such training to complete their education. In the -past teachers have received instruction in physical training from permanent sergeants-major of the Military Forces, and this is of incalculable ‘benefit. As the amount involved is very small, I trust that the Government will give the matter further consideration. The Government is also laying up the Albatross, the only seaplane carrier which we possess, and in doing so, will probably dismiss TOO of the personnel, as well as other members in our naval service. The submarines Oxley and Otway have also been sent back to England.
– They have been given away.
– Yes. Generally, the efficiency of our Naval and Military Forces has been seriously impaired by this Government. It is now adding to its folly of the past in laying up the survey ship, dispensing with compulsory military training, and various other acts of infamy-
– Order !
– -That word, no doubt, is too strong. Perhaps I should say acts of folly.
– Weak argument re quires strong language.
– Then, perhaps, the Prime Minister will give some strong reasons why the Government is dispensing with the physical training in our schools, which at present is costing only £4,000 a year.
.- On the subject raised by the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Jones), I can speak with some experience. For over 30 years I was a member of the Deutscher Turn Verein, in Latrobe-street, Melbourne, where I undertook physical training, and later acted as a turner. It was in institutions such as that that the great German race received their training which enabled them to break the power of the mighty Napoleon. The Turn Verein gymnasium was carried on in Australia until, to my regret, and the regret of every one, it was stopped by Senator Pearce, when Minister for Defence. I attribute my long life and good health to the physical training that I received in that German gymnasium. At the time I was a student I had the greatest chest expansion of any one connected with that institution. I thank the honorable member for Indi for bringing this matter before the Government. The previous Government spent £30 a week to train boys from 13 to 15 years of age as naval cadets, who are now, I believe, being trained at Westernport at a cost of only £6 weekly. When we consider the awful extravagances associated with the training of naval and military cadets, it is evident that we would not be justified in disbanding the Commonwealth physical training staff in order to effect an economy of £4,000 a year. In the naval training establishment there were on an average two and a half masters and teachers for each naval cadet, and the extravagance in the military schools was as great. I hate everything that pertains to war, but I am a firm believer in the benefits of physicial training, which has come down to us from the old Greeks, and later from the Romans who copied them. Any movement to sweep away military training altogether will have ,my support, but I ask the Government not to rob our boys and girls of the chance of growing up into strong healthy men and women merely for the sake of saving a few thousand pounds.
– 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.
.- 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.
– Are, not the men paid every week?
– No. The Commonwealth pays its employees monthly, and the States make their payments fortnightly. Under the Queensland State law, one of the first claims against any employer is for wages, but in the case of the Camooweal workmen the contractor, unfortunately, cannot be found. I hope that before long the day-labour system will take the place of the contract system, but until that happens the Government should take action to make it impossible for the employees of contractors to be done out of their money in the manner I have described.
.- I understand that the assumption by the Commonwealth of the work of physical training in the State schools followed upon the adoption of compulsory military training. The Commonwealth took over the physical training section as part of the military system. Whatever is to be said for or against the cessation of compulsory military training, I am sure that the Government will agree that it would be a very great pity, in a national sense, to abandon the physical training of our youth, especially in the great cities. To-day we have probably a larger proportion of our children growing up in the cities than has any other country. I hope that before the Government finally abandons the work of physical training, it will take steps to ensure that the task is taken up by the States. I understand that it is far easier for the Commonwealth to carry on the work than it would be for the States. The Commonwealth Staff is already in existence, and is thoroughly organized. Perhaps the Government could arrange with the States to share the cost of physical training instruction. The sum of £4,000 a year, spread over the State and Commonwealth Governments, would be merely nominal. I appeal to the Government to defer action until we can be given an assurance that the compulsory physical training of our children will not be entirely abandoned.
– To-day I asked a question of the Minister for Defence regarding the use of drill halls for the shelter of distressed and homeless persons. The Minister has shown himself to be very sympathetic towards the unemployed, and has already been most generous towards them in making available for their use stocks of military clothing, &c, but he is, it seems to me, a little too ready to accept the statements of officials of his department regarding this matter. The position of homeless men is a very serious one this winter. If possible, sleeping accommodation should be provided for them. The answer furnished to the Minister stated that the department had no drill halls that were not in use, but that a number of buildings had been handed over to the Works Department. That cannot be said of the Camperdown drill hall. At present it is not in use, it has not been let, and it is not under the control of the Works Department. Furthermore, it does not contain departmental stores. The answer supplied to the Minister was unsatisfactory. I am sure that if the honorable gentleman will give this matter his personal and usual sympathetic consideration all these unused drill halls will be made available for the accommodation of the unemployed. I may add that, out of 42 unemployed persons in Camperdown who are to use the local hall, many of them are returned soldiers. One reason given for the refusal of the request is that the hall lacks sanitary conveniences and provision for washing, also that the yard is not large enough to permit of arrangements being made to cook meals. These arguments were not advanced when the call was made to men in the early years of the war. No objection was then raised that drill halls, which they had to occupy, lacked sanitary or washing conveniences. The least that we can do now is to make these available .for them in their time of need. It is impossible to find jobs for all of the men who went to the front, but in this fearful winterweather we should allow them to use drill halls and other public places for which they fought. It has also been suggested that the men in the Camperdown district could be accommodated at the Broadmeadows camp near Melbourne. Does the Minister think that a satisfactory answer to. a request from country unemployed ? Does he wish the men who would use the Camperdown drill hall to lose the chance of local employment which will come to them eventually if they remain in the Camperdown district?
– Have these men been resident in the district for some time?
– A number have been ; others are surplus labour from the surrounding farms and others, again, are the casual unemployed who pass through the town. Right from Winchelsea through Birregurra, Colac, and on to Port Fairy there is a movement of workless men, for whom the various municipalities must make some provision. The Winchelsea Returned. Soldiers League is doing a very fine work in this respect. It has at its disposal adequate funds generously supplied to it not only by the returned soldiers themselves, but by local residents, to help the returned men who pass through the town. It does all that is possible for unemployed returned soldiers in that portion of the Western District.
– Has the municipality taken some action in the matter?
– Yes. The Hampden Shire Council is behind this request for the use of the Camperdown drill hall. It has appointed three of its members to act on the citizens unemployment committee. The committee has also given a guarantee that, if the drill hall is made available, the necessary sanitary and other conveniences will be provided, and the building returned to the department in good order and condition. This request for the use of drill halls should really take the form of a demand upon any department which has public buildings that are not in use. It is unthinkable that requests for the use of such buildings should be withheld merely because of some trivial excuse advanced by persons who, perhaps, have never been obliged to sleep in the open and who, possibly, do not wish to be put .to any trouble. But, knowing the Minister as I do, I feel sure that if he will give this matter his personal attention, he will insist upon these unused drill halls being placed at the disposal of the homeless. I believe that I am not appealing to him in vain. If he allows the Camperdown drill hall to be used in this way - it is only the first -of other requests which I shall make for these men - he need have no fear that the guarantee of the richest municipality in Victoria will not be strictly honoured.
– With reference to the matter mentioned by the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Crouch) I may say that the Defence Department has handed over to the Works Department for disposal or lease a number of drill halls for which it has no further use. The halls which are still under the control of the Defence Department are used for the storage of equipment, and, in a number of cases, are required for the use of trainees. If they were used for the accommodation of the unemployed we should have to discontinue training and remove the stores. The honorable member has just assured the House that the Camperdown drill hall is not required for military purposes and contains no stores. That being so, I am prepared to give the matter consideration. But there is another difficulty. From time to time requests are made to the Defence Department from various committees for the use of drill halls, but nobody is prepared to accept responsibility for their proper care, or for the security of the stores. If we allowed drill halls to be taken over by committees, the personnel of which might change from month to month, without provision for proper control of the properties, it would not be long before the buildings fell to pieces. That has already been the experience of the department in one or two instances. We have intimated to State Governments that, if they will accept responsibility for the care of these buildings we will try to grant requests for their use for the unemployed. State Ministers responsible for the control of the unemployed have set their faces against the establishment of unemployed camps in the cities. Accordingly, the Government made the Liverpool camp available to the Government of New South Wales. It is possible to provide accommodation there for more than could be housed in all the halls of the capital city. At Broadmeadows, in Victoria, and at Blackboy, in Western Australia, we have made similar provision. I shall go into the matter raised by the honorable member for Corangamite and see what is the position with regard to the Camperdown hall. If it is not being used for departmental purposes, and if the municipal council will accept the responsibility for its care, no doubt it can be made available. Obviously, somebody must accept responsibility. Not long ago a building at the Richmond aerodrome, in New South Wales, was used by travellers, and as no one was responsible for its care, the building, which had been erected for the use of pilots, was badly damaged, the flooring boards, doors and windows being torn out. From personal experience, I know that that is likely to happen when there is no proper control of a building.
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/>.