12th Parliament · 1st Session
Mr. Speaker (Hon. NormanMakin) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and offered prayers.
page 613
– Is the Minister for Markets yet is a position to make the statement which he promised in response to representations by the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Guy), and the honorablemember for Darwin (Mr. Bell) regarding the imposition ofan embargo by the Government of Victoria on the importation of Tasmanian potatoes?
– The matter has been discussed with the Victorian Government, and also with the Crown law authorities. As a result of our inquiries, we have, learned that the Commonwealth Government has no power to interfere in the matter. We have endeavoured to come to an arrangement satisfactory to Tasmania, but the matter is one which’ comes exclusively within the province of the Victorian Government.
page 613
Workof Soldiers’ Organizations
– Will the Minister for Repatriation lay on the table of the Library the reports for the last six months issued by the organizations of returned soldiers relative to the manner in which the money granted to them for the relief of unemployment among their members has been spent?
– The honorablemember’s request will be complied with as soon as the reports can be obtained.
page 613
– Is the Minister for Markets in a position to add anything to the statement he has already made on the subject of freights charged upon Australian commodities shipped to the East?
– Thrpugh my own department, and in consultation with the Prime Minister’s Department, I have negotiated with the shipping companies on this subject. The Prime Minister has also taken the matter up with the companies, and we are awaiting their reply.I can assure the honorable member that everything possible is being done.
page 614
CommentsbyBishopofArmidale.
– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the report in this morning’s issue of the Sydney Morning Herald of an address delivered yesterday by Rev. J. S. Moyes, Bishop of Armidale, to a meeting of St. Peter’s Men’s Brotherhood at Hamilton? The report reads-
The building of industry on production, he continued, had brought the community face to face witha maladministration of finance. No reasonable objection could be mode to interest on capital where borrowing waa for production and to increase value. But banking was a technical function for the service of the community, and its policy in the end mustbe dictated by that purpose of service. The demand that banking must be free from outside dictation was only half a truth, and a dangerous half truth at that. The present system of credit and currency was an illogical compromise between old traditions and new needs.
Is it the intention of the Government to bring down legislation to prevent the control of banking remaining in the hands of non-legislative bodies?
– Is it in order for an honorable member to read an opinion of a private citizen or, indeed, of anybody, and then frame upon it a question having no reference to the statement made by that person, but merely dealing with the same subject?
– It is a common practice for honorable members to preface their questions by reading extracts from reports appearing in newspapers, but their questions must be directed to some phase of the subject covered by the newspaper extract, and have relation to the business of the House. It is not for the Chair to determine how an honorable member is to ask a question provided it conforms to the orders of the House.
– On a point of order,. I understand that when an honorable member asks a question based upon a newspaper report he is required to guarantee the accuracy of the report. Has the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Curtin) done this?
– I ask the honorable member for Fremantle whether he accepts responsibility for the accuracy of the report he has just read.
– I can do so with confidence, having learned from experience to rely upon the accuracy of the reports appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald.
– I have not read the report referred to by the honorable member, but, judging by the extract he quoted, the address seems to have been a very interesting one, and I shall make it my business to read it when I have an opportunity. Regarding the honorable member’s question, however, it is not the practice of the Government to announce in advance its policy in reply to questions.
page 614
– If the Minister for Markets has any difficulty at the forthcoming conference of wheat-growers in coming to a satisfactory arrangement for making direct payments to the farmers, will he, before making any definite agreement, bring the matter before the House so that honorable members may express their opinions?
– The conference is being called in response to representations from the States. Certain interests have expressed a wish that the Government should hear them upon the matter, and I am holding the conference in order to meet their wishes. I am keeping in mind the fact that one of the most important considerations is to make the payments direct to the growers. Before arrangements are completed, the proposal will have to come before the House in the form of a bill, and honorable members will have an opportunity of discussing it.
– Seeing that the act guaranteeing the farmers 3s. a bushel for their wheat was never put into operation because, although passed by both Houses of Parliament, it did not meet with the approval of the Commonwealth Bank, which was to provide the money, will the Minister, at the forthcoming conference in Melbourne, secure the presence of a responsible representative of the Commonwealth Bank, so that any decisions arrived at may be assured of its approval?
– The conference is being called to determine in what way the sum of £3,000,000 is to be disposed of, and we wish to hear the opinions of those concerned as to how it should be distributed. If it is necessary to confer with the banks, or any one else, that will be done.
– Can the Minister indicate when the necessary bill will be introduced to provide for the payment of the wheat bounty?
– When the conference has been held, and finality reached as to the method of payment, I shall take the earliest opportunity to introduce the bill.
– Is it not a fact that the £3,000,000 which the banks offered to provide for the assistance of our wheat-farmers, was to be used for the payment of a bounty on wheat exported, and not on general production?
– Everything that has been done in this matter up to the present has been more in the nature of suggestions than anything else. The matter is not yet finalized.
page 615
– I ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether it is a fact that the proposed redistribution of Commonwealth electoral boundaries has been abandoned, and, if so, will the Minister explain why he has rejected the Commissioners’ recommendation ?
– The answer is “ No.”
– Does the Minister for Home Affairs propose to make any statement with regard to the redistribution of electorates, and, if so, when?
– I hope to be able to make a statement next week.
page 615
– As the Minister for Customs has stated that he has no power to refund the duties paid by those who imported petrol in cases, will he take steps to have the Tariff Bill amended while it is before another place to enable refunds of duty to be made to those petrol importers who were almost ruined when the duties, since disallowed by the House, were put into operation?
– Full consideration will be given to any representations in regard to this or other matters, but the honorable member’s request will have to be taken in conjunction with similar requests regarding other items on which duties have been reduced. The question arises whether the Government should, out of Consolidated Revenue, make refunds to persons who have paid duties which have since been reduced. That practice has not been followed in the past.
page 615
– I ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether it is a fact that the foundation stone laid at Canberra by the Prince of Wales has been removed from its original position, and, if so, where it is hidden? Further, was permission refused from England for its removal, and, if so, who was the person who ordered its removal in spite of such refusal ?
– I shall obtain the information asked for bv the honorable member regarding the whereabouts of the foundation stone.
page 615
– Will the Minister for Home Affairs expedite consideration of the proposal which I placed before him some months ago for the introduction of an ordinance to facilitate the giving of stock mortgages in the Northern Territory?
– Yes.
page 615
– Will the Prime Minister give consideration to the provision of funds for the relief of the unemployed, as well as to the distribution of £3,000,000 to distressed farmers?
– The request submitted to the bank by the Premiers Conference included, not only £3,000,000 for the relief ofwheat-farmers, but also £5,000,000 for the relief of our unemployed. The Government felt that the claim on behalf of the unemployed was as strong as that for the relief of our wheat-farmers. Both sections of the community are very greatly in need of assistance.We are still pressing for financial aid for the relief of our unemployed in conjunction with our proposals for the relief of wheatfa rmers.
page 616
– It is stated in to-day’s newspapers that twelve of the thirteen delegations represented at the fourth PanAmerican Conference have approved resolutions calling for an international conference to study the possibility of the rehabilitation of silver. I should like to know-
– On a point of order, I ask if the honorable member can vouch for the correctness of the newspaper statement to which he is referring?
– Does the honorable member for Balaclava accept responsibility for the accuracy of the newspaper statement?
– I accept no responsibilitv at all in the matter.
– Then, the honorable member cannot base his question upon the report.
Later -
– I ask the Prime Minister if the Government will take any part in an international conference to consider the remonetization of silver?
– I shall look at the statement referred to, and give the matter consideration.
page 616
– Arising out of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, with regard to a question just asked by the honorable member for Balaclava, I ask the Prime Minister if he will give consideration to the advisableness of amending any standing order which requires that a member asking a question based on a news paper report, shall go through the formality of professing to vouch for its accuracy, or whether, if there is no such standing order, he will consider the introduction of some rule which will introduce ordinary common sense into our proceedings?
– It is the practice of all Ministers, in answering questions, to endeavour to display common sense. I may add that the apparent lack of common sense in one of our standing orders would not have been noticed but for the action of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in directing attention to it.
page 616
– Is the Prime Minister in a position to indicate what business the Government proposes to complete before the forthcoming adjournment, and also the probable duration of the recess?
– We propose next week to pass the Debt Conversion Agreement Bill and the Debt Conversion Bill, both of which relate to that portion of the Commonwealth public debt which was not converted recently. There is also a Wine Excise Bounty Bill which will be introduced this afternoon, and, J hope, passed through all stages. There are one or two other small measures including an amendment of the Financial Emergency Act. This will be distributed to-day and read a first time. Another is a bill dealing with the bounty on flax. When these are disposed of, the House will adjourn while another place is dealing with the tariff.
– What about the Wheat Bill?
– That will be formulated after the forthcoming conference. It will be put through in good time before the wheat season opens.
– Cannot the measure be passed by another place first?
– As it is a money bill, it must be initiated in this House. As to the length of the recess, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should be able to assist me in formulating an answer to his inquiry. We shall have to make some estimate of the time which the Senate will occupy in dealing with the tariff, and after consultation I may be ableto give the House some information on the point. I hope, however, that it will not bc many weeks before we are back again.
page 617
Attitude of Mr. Lyons
– I ask the Assistant Minister (Mr. Cunningham) representing the Treasurer, if it is not a fact that, in connexion with the export duty on sheepskins, which was introduced while the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Lyons) was Acting Treasurer–
– And which was opposed bitterly by me in the party room and Cabinet.
– This is the first time I have heard of that.
– Order ! The honorable member for Corangamite will proceed with his question.
– Then I ask the Assistant Minister representing the Treasurer if it is not a fact that, in connexion with the export duty on sheepskins, the schedule providing for which was presented when the honorable member for Wilmot was Acting Treasurer, the duty collected was subsequently refunded by the Government? If so, could not the same principle be applied in the case mentioned by the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) with regard to refunds of duty on petrol in containers?
– I have no knowledge of the matter, but I will make inquiries and see what can be done.
– Has the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Lyons) had any permission from the Leader of the Govern ment or the Governor-General to disclose his attitude in Cabinet in connexion with this matter?
– I do not know of any authority given by the Prime Minister, and I am pretty sure that authority has not been given by the Governor-General.
page 617
New Appointment to the Board - Price of Petrol.
– I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that Mr. McFarlane, an official of the Treasury, hns been appointed to the board of the
Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, and, if so, have instructions been given to him to report to the Government with regard to the relation of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited to the major oil companies operating in Australia? Also, is he satisfied with the inquiry now being made by two departmental officers, or does he consider it would be better to have a public inquiry so that a searching investigation may be made into the reasons for the present high price of petrol to consumers in Australia ?
– The Government has, for some time, been very much concerned about the price of petrol in Australia; but we are not in a position to say definitely whether it is or is not too high. To all appearances it seems to be very high, but we are not well informed upon the subject, nor have we been kept as fully informed as we believe we ought to have been. For this reason we have appointed to the directorate of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited one of the most reliable and trustworthy officials of the Treasury - and that is saying a great deal, since there are so many highlyqualified and trustworthy officers in that department - who will act as a liaison officer between the Treasury and the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. We are taking the same action in connexion with Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited, and in future will have a liaison officer between that organization and the Government department controlling it. In this way we hope to be kept well informed about the activities of both organizations. As to the second part of the honorable member’s question, we desire to get information, so as to determine whether a public investigation is necessary. If we find that it is, we will not hesitate to institute a public inquiry into the whole position.
– Is it a fact that a new chairman of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited has been appointed, and, if so, has the Government been consulted about the matter?
– The Government has not been consulted in any way. The first information I had of the appointment was obtained from newspaper reports.
page 618
– I direct the attention of the Postmaster-General to clause 14 of conditions governing tenders in his department, which states that it is necessary for a tenderer to indicate whether trade unionists are employed? I should like to know if a tenderer who is unable to give this information would be disqualified from tendering, even if his employees were covered by awards, and, if so, does the Government intend to supply telephones to non-unionists?
– If the honorable member will give me a specific instance, I will have inquiries made, and advise him with regard to the matter.
page 618
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -
– The. answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. The matters to which the honorable member refers lie within the province of the various State Governments, under whose notice his representations will he brought.
page 618
asked the Treasurer, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -
page 618
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -
page 619
Reduction of Salaries
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -
Will he lay upon the table of the House the correspondence between the Govennnent and Judges Lukin and Drake-Brockman regarding the proposed salary reduction of 22½ per cent.?
– I will communicate with the judges mentioned and ascertain whether they are agreeable to the publication of the correspondence.
page 619
The following paper was presented : -
Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1931, No. 96
page 619
(No. 2).
Motion (by Mr. Cunningham) agreed to -
That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend sections ten, nineteen, twenty- nine and forty-nine of the Financial Emergency Act 1931 .
Bill brought up, and read a first time.
page 619
Motion (by Mr. Forde) agreed to -
That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act relating to excise on wine.
Bill brought up, and read a first time.
– by leave - I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill which is of a purely machinery character relates to an excise duty on wine, and will apply to any excise on wine which may be imposed by Parliament. It. is the intention of the Government, at a later date, by an amendment of the excise tariff to provide for a specific duty on wine. It is not proposed, nor is it desirable, at this stage, to indicate what rate of duty will apply. In 1930 this Government appointed the Hon. John Gunn, Director of Development in the Prime Minister’s Department, and Mr. R. McK. Gollan, of the Department of Trade and Customs, to inquire into the wine industry in the Commonwealth, and to furnish a report.
– Has that report been made available?
– I think it has. The question was exhaustively dealt with, and one of the recommendations made in their report was in these terms -
That the present method of levying taxation on wine through an excise duty on fortifying spirit bc abandoned, and that in its stead an excise duty at the rate of 2s. peT gallon be imposed on fortified wine when the wine ia delivered for home consumption.
Previous to 1918 the rate of duty on fortifying spirits was a nominal one, and was imposed so that the amount collected would be sufficient to pay for the services of officers. It was necessary that the mixing of spirit with wine be closely supervised, and every operation was done in the presence of an excise officer. In 1918 the Government was in need of additional revenue, and a duty of 6s. per proof gallon was levied on spirits used in the fortification of wine. With the exception of dry sherry, fortifying spirit is only used in the manufacture of sweet wines of the port or muscat type. Fortifying spirit is not used in the production of dry wines of the claret or hock type. In 1925, in order to assist the growers of Doradillo grapes, the duty was reduced to 5s. so far as spirit made from this class of grapes was concerned. The duty on spirit made from all other classes of grape remained at 6s. per proof gallon. Since 1924 a bounty has been paid on fortified wine exported from the Commonwealth with a view to clearing some of the surplus production. Up to March, 1930, the payment of this bounty was made from the Consolidated Revenue. Owing to the fall in revenue and the heavy burden which the payment of this bounty placed upon the country, it was decided to ask the industry to pay the bounty.
– That bounty was paid in relation to the spirit contents, and not on wine as such.
– It was a bounty. on wine.
– It was not strictly on wine as such.
– The excise duty was on the fortifying spirit, and about 1 gallon goes to about 5 gallons of wine. The bounty was based on per gallon of wine exported, but a drawback of the duty was allowed on the fortifying spirit contained in the wine.
– The whole scheme was based on an excise duty on fortifying spirit.
– The excise duty was levied on fortified spirit. We are now providing the machinery to levy an excise duty per gallon of wine instead of on fortifying spirit as formerly.
– It will not cost the Commonwealth anything.
– No. The Commonwealth will be in a slightly better position than formerly.
– The system will need considerable policing.
– The other system was becoming almost unworkable because of the volume of work that had to be done in bond. Although this system will require policing, I do not think it will be more difficult than the other system. Last year this Government was of the opinion that the necessary funds for bounty payments should be provided by the wine industry. The duty on fortifying spirit was then raised by 5s. per proof gallon, and it was provided that the amount collected at this increased rate should be paid into a trust fund from which payments for bounty would be made. The present rates of duty on fortifying spirit are as follow : -
Item 2 (j) (1) Spirit for fortifying Australian wine distilled wholly from the fresh fruit of doradillo grapes, subject to regulations - 10s. per proof gallon.
Spirit for fortifying Australian wine, n.e.i., subject to regulations -11s. per proof gallon.
In 1918, when the duty was levied on fortifying spirit for revenue purposes for the first time it was considered that this form of collecting a tax on wine was as simple as it was efficient. At that time this was so. Later, however, there was a great change in the economic conditions of the wine industry. Returned soldiers were established in vineyards on the river Murray and on the Mumimbidgee irrigation area in New South Wales. When the vines in the river Murray districts in South Australia came into bearing the State Government assisted the settlers to process the grapes by financing the establishment of wineries on a co-operative basis. This led to a surplus production of wine, and caused many difficulties in the industry. Duty on fortifying spirit was at that time collected at the time of fortification. The co-operative companies found they were unable to finance the payment of duty on fortifying spirit at the time it was mixed with the wine. They approached the Government with a request to be allowed to fortify the wine in bond, the duty on the fortifying spirit to be collected when the wine was delivered for consumption. Their request was granted. Other wine-makers were soon attracted by this concession, and at the moment nearly all fortification throughout the Commonwealth is carried out in bond. Other concessions followed this arrangement, and ultimately such operations as racking, fining, blending, and other similar operations were allowed to be carried out in bond.
– Both for export and for home consumption ?
– Yes. As the export trade grew, wine-makers were allowed to export direct frombond. All these operations had to take place under the supervision of excise officers, and the conditions necessary to protect the revenue became so intricate and irksome that the wine-makers’ business was considerably handicapped.
It has always been the practice when an article is exported to return any duty which has been paid on the article. When fortified wine is exported, therefore, the duty paid on the spirit used for fortifying it is returned to the exporter. This transaction is termed a drawback of duty. It is not possible, however, to arrive at the precise amount of duty which was paid on any particular wine exported. It was necessary in the circumstances to provide for a flat rate of drawback which covered the average amount of duty cost of fortifying spirit in each gallon of wine. The flat rate provided as the duty cost of fortifying at the present rate of duty is 2s. 4d. per gallon of wine. In some cases this amount is more than the actual cost. In other cases the amount is less than the actual cost.
There are no less than seven different rates of drawback. They deal with the various rates of duty and with various classes of wine. Rebates on spirit extracted from lees of wine have to be provided for, and the department has always been on the lookout for possible revenue leakages.
Referring to this matter in their report, Messrs. Gunn and Gollan said -
These drawbacks, rebates, and remissions relating to wine exported are necessary in order that the wine-makers and distillers may receive equitable treatment in the matter of having the excise duty already paid returned to them when the wine is shipped overseas. It is very necessary that effective methods bo adopted to supervise the exact quantity of wine dealt with so thatthe correct amounts of drawbacks, rebates, and remissions may be given. All transactions have, therefore, to be carefully scrutinized by officers to make certain that the amount of drawbacks, refunds and remissions are properly due.
With the removal of the duty on fortifying spirit as proposed in this bill, there will be no need for drawbacks, rebates, or remissions. This will be a great relief to the department as well as to the winemaker who finds that the drawback rates do not compensate him.
This bill provides that all persons who produce grapes for use in the manufacture of wine must be registered. No fee is to be charged. This practice is followed in. connexion with the producers of tobacco leaf, who have to register with the Collector of Customs in the State in which they live.
– What is the object of registration ?
– So that there will be some control over those engaged in the industry.
– Is the Minister afraid that some of the small growers will make theirown wine?
– We do not intend to stop them. Any grower can become a wine-maker on obtaining a licence, the fee for which is to be £1. Every grower will be asked to register as a grower under the act, and as the growers are getting some benefit in the form of a bounty, surely they will not object to registering. The tobacco-growers, who are not receiving a bounty, are all registered. Gold producers, also, have to register.
– Will no excise be collected on wine exported, or will it be collected and refunded on wine actually sold for export?
– On all wine an excise duty will be collected.
– There will still be a drawback on export.
– No. It will be arranged so that there will be no drawback on export, because all wine for export will be delivered free of duty.
– The bounty will include the drawback?
– The drawback will be eliminated altogether. This registration is necessary so that a complete record may be kept of the material from which the wine, subject to an excise duty, is made.
The bill also provides that no person shall make wine unless he is licensed to do so. The fee for a licence to make wine has been fixed at a nominal rate. Small wine-makers who store less than 50,000 gallons of wine may obtain a licence on payment of a fee of £1 a year. The wine-maker who stores over 50,000 gallons of wine will pay a fee of £5 per year.
– What will be the position with respect to dry wine?
– That will be dealt with under the excise schedule. The representations made by the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Crouch) on behalf of the growers in the Great Western district will be considered. Provision is made for the licensing of persons who desire to receive and store wine for export. This will enable a merchant who is not a wine-maker, and who has built up an export trade, to prepare and bottle wine, which is subject to excise duty, and ship it overseas. This will be a considerable convenience to those who intend to bottle wine for shipment to Canada. Since the Canadian treaty, a trade in bottled wines with Canada has opened up, aud there is every indication that it will assume very large proportions.
– It is about time, too.
– As the honorable member knows, there has always been a dearth of Australian wines in Canada. The consumers there have been accustomed to drinking the best French wines, but soon they will be able to obtain Australian champagne.
In providing for the payment of duty on wine delivered for home consumption, it is intended that all duty shall accrue at the winery. Payments will be made weekly or monthly, as may be prescribed. The wine-maker will have to keep certain books, which will reveal details of all the wine sent out of the winery, and a penalty of £500 is provided for, should there be any irregularity in the removal of wine from the winery. At the moment there are large stocks of wine containing spirit on which excise duty has been paid. A quantity of this will be used for home consumption, and a quantity will be blended with newer wines. It is intended flint duty will not be again levied on these wines, and provision is made in the bill that if any of it is blended with wines subject to the wine excise duty, a refund will be made. Entries will be required when wine is removed, but an exception is made where a wine-maker wishes to transfer wine from one winery to another when they are both owned by him, also when a wine-maker wishes to transfer wine from his winery to his distillery or his vinegar factory. In order to simplify the procedure in these instances, provision is made so that these transactions may take place under permit.
This bill gives to officers certain powers which are necessary to carry out efficiently the provisions contained in the bill, and to protect properly the revenue. Officers will have access to the premises of persons licensed under the proposed act, and to the books kept by them. They will have power to enter and search premises where there is cause to suspect illicit practices are being carried on. On reasonable suspicion-, they may stop and search vehicles or boats suspected of carrying wine upon which duty has not been paid. They may also seize and secure any wine which they have reason to believe is forfeited.
In changing the incidence of taxation on wine, this bill has an important bearing on the wine industry. Previously wine-makers were much hampered in their operations on account of the restrictions necessary to protect the revenue when fortified wine was manufactured in bond. The part of the winery where this was done had to be kept under lock. Every vat containing this wine had to be securely locked, and nothing could be done excepting in the presence of an officer. An excise duty on wine will give the winemaker absolute freedom in making and preparing wine for home consumption There will be no bonds or locks, the obligation of the wine-maker being the payment of duty on all the wine which it delivered for home consumption, and also properly accounting for the wine which is delivered for any other purpose. There will be no necessity for the presence of an officer when wine is delivered, but the department will be safeguarded by the entries in the wine-makers’ books. The provision for duty to be paid weekly will suit the convenience of the wine-maker. Of course, the department will see tha: in this respect all transactions are sufficiently covered by a substantial security.
Before proceeding with preparation of the proposals contained in this bill, the views of representatives of the different interests of those engaged in the wine industry were obtained. In every instance the proposals have been approved, and wine-makers will find that the provision of this bill are of the simplest kind, there being no unnecessary interference with the main essentials of their industry
– Have the growers approved of the provisions requiring the registration of persons who produce grapes for wine-making?
– I have received no objection to the bill from grape-growers It is usual in Queensland for sugnrgrowers to register their names, and all tobacco-growers throughout the Commonwealth are required to do so. Similarly, gold-producers who benefit under the Gold Bounty Act are called upon to register, and every grape-grower who will benefit from a fixed price should have no objection to the practice; it will involve them in no expense. The wine industry is of great importance to Australia, and, with its far-reaching ramifications, the
Government would be loth to take any action that would prove injurious to the industry. I am taking this bill to the second-reading stage so that copies of it may be distributed among those concerned in the industry.
– Do they know anything about it?
– The wine-makers know that the bill is under consideration. Deputations representing them have waited on me. They are aware of the report presented by the Hon. John Gunn, and our chief excise officer, Mr. Gollan, to whom they made their representations. The honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Crouch) introduced a deputation a week ago from the wine-makers of the Western District of Victoria. The industry is familiar with the general principles of the bill, but not with the details, and I am submitting the second reading of the measure in order that the details may be placed before the wine congress, which assembles in Melbourne next Wednesday to consider the bill.
– Does the Minister expect to pass it through all stages next week?
– It is doubtful if that can be done. There is no extreme urgency in the matter. This measure will make very little difference to the revenue, although it will mean a slight increase.
– Some time will be required to enable those interested in the industry in parts of South Australia and Western Australia to consider the details of the measure. There would be hardly time for them to comment upon it if it were passed next week.
– My present intention is not to push on with the bill next week if there is any desire to delay its passage so that the industry may have more time to express its opinion on it. The Government does not wish to rush through Parliament a bill that may dislocate trade in some way; I do not think this bill will do so; the broad principles of the measure meet with the general approval of the trade. The only point on which there will be a difference of opinion is the rate of duty to be charged. That matter is not dealt with in the bill; it merely provides the machinery for the collection of excise duty on wine on a flat rate basis instead of an excise duty on fortifying spirit. Dry wines are not fortified, and no excise is now paid on them.
– Is there any intention to refuse registration to growers? I hope that the object is to prevent new growers from entering the industry.
– There is no such intention at the present time. That matter will be considered when the bill reaches the committee stage. One of the difficulties of the industry is that there is over-production. The State Governments have assisted thousands of persons to produce grapes for wine-making purposes, and the provision of an export bounty to enable the surplus to be marketed was necessitated. I do not consider it wise to put additional areas under vines for the production of wines that we have been unable to sell.
– I was wondering if the registration was intended to prevent further production.
– No. I am prepared to listen to any arguments that may be advanced in committee; this is not a party measure.
– Was it not provided in the Wine Export Bounty Act that the bounty was not to be paid on wine made from grapes grown in vineyards planted after a specified date?
– There was a provision to that effect, but in operation it was found almost impossible to police it. The effect of the hill will be to remove the necessity for drawback rebates or remissions, because all wine for export will be delivered free of duty.
– Then the Minister must have spoken under a misapprehension when he said a few moments ago, in answer to my interjection, that excise would be collected on all wine, regardless of whether it was exported or not.
– I must have misunderstood the honorable member. I can assure him that the standard of wine-making will be raised, because, in the past, the use of fortifying spirit has been restricted on account of the high duty. The use of spirit is necessary in the manufacture of high-class sweet wine of such types as port or muscat, and wine-makers, on account of the abolition of the duty on fortifying spirit, will be in a position to use the proper quantity of spirit required to make a first quality wine. In this way it is considered that the industry will receive substantial benefit. There is a tendency to-day to avoid using fortifying spirit, or to use as little of it as possible, and to employ substitutes such as concentrated must. This has led to a cheap class of wine, commonly known as “pinkie”, being put on the market in order to avoid paying revenue charges to the Commonwealth. When there is a flat rate of duty at so much per gallon, it will apply to all wines, and there will “be no inducement to put a cheap and inferior wine on the market in order to avoid the excise duty.
– Will this provision affect both dry and sweet wines?
– Those details can be considered in connexion with the tariff schedule. At the present time there is no excise duty on champagne, chablis, claret, sautcrne and porphrey, because there is no fortifying spirit in it.
– Light wines are free, too.
– Yes.
– If a duty is placed on them, it will inevitably increase the cost of light wines as compared with the heavier types.
– Yes. Chablis is a popular light wine in which no fortifying spirit is used. It is largely produced in the Hunter River districts of New South Wales, and in the Great Western district of Victoria, and the imposition of a heavy duty per gallon on chablis, which is sold at as low as1s. 6d., and up to 4s. 6d. a bottle, would increase the price substantially. It has been pointed out to me by the growers in the Hunter River district, and in the Great Western district of Victoria, that the light dry wines cannot carry the same excise duty as, for example, sweet port, muscat and champagne. It has been represented that that difficulty might be overcome by exempting all dry wines with alcoholic content of 22 degrees and under, or by placing a very low rate of excise duty upon them, and applying to dry wines of an alcoholic content of from 28 to 28 the same flat rate of duty as will be applied to sweet wines. Those are matters that will be taken into consideration before the excise schedule is brought down.
I hope that the wine industry will obtain copies of this measure and express opinions upon it. Sympathetic consideration will be given to any representations that may be made by the wine congress that is to sit in Melbourne next week, or by any individual wine-maker, because the desire of the Government is to improve the wine industry, not to dislocate the trade.
Debate (on motion by Mr. Paterson) adjourned.
page 624
Message recommending appropriation reported.
In committee (Consideration of Governor-General’s message) :
Motion (by Mr. Forde) agreed to -
That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend the Flax and Linseed Bounties Act 1930.
Resolution reported.
StandingOrders suspended, and resolution adopted.
Ordered -
That Mr. Forde and Mr. Scullin do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.
Bill brought up by Mr. Forde, and read a first time.
Second Heading.
– I move -
That thu bill be now read a second time.
The sole purpose of this measure is to alter one word in the definition of “ flax “ in the original act; that is, to substitute the word “ scutched “ for the word “combed.” The present definition reads - “ Flax “ means the cleaned combed fibre of the flax plant prepared by retting or by mechanical or other processes.
As proposed to be amended, it will read - “ Flax “ means the cleaned scutched fibre of the flax plant,&c.
It hus been found that, as the definition now stands, bounty cannot be paid on flax fibre as actually produced in the Australian flax mills. This fibre is merely scutched, and not combed, combing being a process that is carried out in all flaxproducing countries by spinning factories after these factories have purchased scutched fibre from the flax mills.
At the time that the Flax and Linseed Bounties Act was introduced, the department was under the impression that the Australian flax mills produced a combed fibre. This, however, has been found not to be the case. In the meantime, a considerable amount of fibre has been produced under the act, and the legal advice of the Attorney-General’s Department is to the effect that the act should be amended as proposed, so as to enable the bounty, earned properly and in good faith by the mills, to be paid to thorn.
To make the position quite clear, I may say that the fibre is produced by the flax mill from the stalk of the flax plant, which in appearance is much the same as wheat or oats. The mill produces a scutched fibre, on which it was the intention of the Government and Parliament to pay the bounty. As one of the conditions of the bounty, the act prescribes that the mill must pay to the growers of flax plants such prices as the Minister for Trade and Customs considers reasonable. I have just nominated reasonable prices for flax plants for the coming season, commencing in January, 1932.
Hope and twine makers, spinners, and factories who or which may manufacture other flax’ products, purchase scutched fibre, which is used by them either in scutched form or after combing, according to the purpose of the purchaser. “No good purpose would be served by compelling the mills themselves to perform the additional process of combing, so as to comply with the act. That would merely increase the market value of the product, as it would then be a more finished and valuable product. As the act provides that bounty shall be paid at ad valorem rates, calculated on the Australian market value of the fibre, the only result of compelling the mills to adopt the additional process of combing would be to increase the actual amounts of bounty payable by the Government. Moreover, this innovation in the established practice of the trade would take away the process of combing from the twine, rope and spinning factories, and doubtless cause justifiable resentment. The bill is noncontentious, and I hope that it will be passed without delay.
.- I find myself, in dealing with this measure, in a most unfortunate and regrettable position, and I can only request the sympathy of the House. I agree entirely with the bill, and must support the Minister. I do so.
.- It is necessary for this bill to be brought down in order that the wish of this House, which was registered when the act was passed nine or twelve months ago, should be given effect. That act provided for the payment of a diminishing bounty - a proposal that is quite unlike what we are accustomed to in connexion with customs duties, which rather have the habit of growing. The bounties were to bc paid on a 15 per cent, ad valorem basis for last year and this year, 10 per cent, for next year and the year after, and 1 per cent, for the year 1935, when they were to cease. But in view of the fact that this House, by other legislation, has reduced all bounties by 20 per cent, - the gold bounty to an even greater extent - actually the 15 per cent, is reduced to 12 per cent, on the market value of the. flax and linseed for last year and this year, the 10 per cent, to 8 per cent, on the market value for next year and the year after, and the 7-J per cent, to 6 per cent, on the market value for 1935. As the act stands at present, while the growers can- obtain the bounty on the linseed itself, they cannot do so on the flax, because they are excluded from it by the presence of the word “ combed “ in the definition of “flax,” which makes it impossible to pay the bounty on flax that is not combed. This measure will put matters right, and I support it.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 626
Wool: Overseas Shipping Freights: Export Duty on Sheepskins : Attitude of Mr. Lyons and Mr. Crouch: Vote on Motion to Report Progress - Questions Based on Newspaper Reports : Political Propaganda.
Motion (by Mr. Soullin) proposed -
That the House do now adjourn.
.- I wish to direct attention to a matter that vitally affects the wool-growing industry. Yesterday, I and some other honorable members, received a letter from a Mr. James Clark, of Brisbane, in which he brought under our notice the injustice that is being done to this industry, which is contributing, and has contributed in the past, a large share of the taxation that is being, and that has been raised by the different governments of this country. There has been a considerable outcry regarding the wages that are paid in the industry, and the press have continually urged that the shearing rates had to be reduced if costs were to be lowered ; but not a word has been said about the freights that are charged by the overseas shipping companies. The leading Nationalist newspaper in Brisbane, the Courier, was sent a letter by Mr. Clark, in which he pointedout the injustice under which the wool industry was suffering, but that journal did not publish the letter in full. [Quorum formed.] Mr. Clark has been nominated by the United Graziers Association to represent the wool-growers of Queensland on the Australian Overseas Transport Association. In his letter to me, referring to the communication that he forwarded to the Brisbane Courier, he says -
The letter in question was forwarded to the Brisbane Courier for publication and they, without consulting me, expunged the paragraphs in black type, as shown in the letter. Evidently, any reference to such a high personage as Lord Inchcape must not be made, although it is only since he appeared on the scene that our wool freights have increased from¾d. per lb. to 1 3-16d. plus6d. per bale for weighing.
He then goes on to say -
Wool freights at present rates amount to four million pounds sterling yearly and this is the largest sum paid for outward cargo. Apart from this, wool bears a higher rate of freight than any other primary product, namely, 1 3-16d. per lb. Compare this with ¾d. per lb. charged on frozen meat, which requires refrigerated space.
We certainly have an Overseas Transport Association, consisting of ship-owners and shippers, operating under the Federal Government’s sanction, but, in my opinion, this association is a farce. We meet, and are told by the ship-owners what the rates of freight and what other conditions are, and that ie the end of it, and we must submit, just as under an act of Parliament.
Although -wool is the principal item of freight only Mr. Tout and I attend these conferences to represent the wool-growers. Mr. Tout, being chairman, is practically muzzled, so I am the only person there to put up a fight, and, unless I get your Parliament’s help, it will be a losing fight, and Australia will continue to pay one and a half to two millions annually more than is a fair rate, which we have been paying since Lord Inchcape formed his organization. Only a Parliament can deal with it, as the South African Parliament had to do on two occasions.
In the Sydney Sun of 28th August, the following notice appears: - 8s. 4d. A BALE.
Australia-Europe. “ Overseas ship-owners have announced a reduction of freight on wool tops from1¾d. to 13/8d. perlb. between Australia, the United Kingdom and Europe. The decrease is about 8s. 4d. per bale.”
This reduction cuts no ice, as little or no wool tops go from Australia. It is only camouflage to hoodwink the Government and the people. In the same paper the following rates of freight are quoted by ship-owners: -
page 626
Overseas Shipments. “ A reduction of 5s. a ton in the freights on wheat shipped from Melbourne during September, October and November to the United Kingdom, the Continent and Colombo, was announced to-day by the Overseas Ship-owners Representatives Association. The new SeptemberOctober rate is 25s. a ton, and the new November rate 27s.6d. a ton. Flour freights to the same destination have been reduced by 5s. a ton to rates which are 2s. 6d. a ton above those fixed for wheat.”
Now, sir, I want you to think for yourself on this matter, and I ask you why shipowners voluntarily offer to carry flour to London during September-October for 25s. per ton while wool is 1 3-16d. per lb. or £11 per ton? Surely something is wrong, which I want you to right. Then again, why is wool carried by weight instead of by measurement. It is all placed in the same sized bales and dumped to the same measurements. Why are Sydney Harbour dues 9d. per ton on wheat, and on wool9d. per bale - seven times more? And again, why have our wool freights gone np so much since Lord Inchcape started out to eater for our welfare?
The matter in the letter which the editor of the Courier expunged without Mr. Clark’s permission, and which was published in another newspaper, contains the following: -
Howhas th is been brought about - simply by Lord Inchcape getting control by merging a number of companies and acquiring dumping plants and wharfages wherever possible and dictating terms to all and sundry to the detriment of all primary producers, not only in Australia, but probably all over the world. In Java the combine is working.I put £50,000 into a plantation, lost 75 per cent. of my capital in fifteen years, never had a dividend on account of high rates of freight (about £6 per ton on copra), whereas if 1 had. put my money into a shipping company there, the K.V.H., I would have received 10 per cent. annually on my capital, viz., £5,000 a year, and would not have lost 75 per cent. of my capital. Then turn to New Guinea and the Solomons. Your readers will remember that after the war many of our returned soldiers bought a lot of the confiscated German plantations, when copra was £24 per ton. Last Monday week the Courier reported copra at £1 1 2s.6d. per ton in London, and your readers will scarcely believe me when I say that out of this £11 2s.6d. the freight is £7 per ton; yet I am assured by Captain Wm. Collin thathe pays this rate of freight. Fifty years ago it was 35s. by sailer. The Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia is a very live body in Australia, and I invite their active co-operation in this scrap I am putting up trying to get their comrades a fair deal.
Itis my wish to draw the attention of honorable members to the excessive freights being charged. We are told that a higher freight is generally charged for wool, yet wool is carried from Australia to Japan for 55 per cent. less than is charged from Australia to Great Britain. We will be told that Japan is nearer to Australia than is Great Britain, but it is a fact that all the ships trading outside the ring are carrying goods cheaper than those inside the ring. Mr. Clark asks why wheat and flour are carried cheaper than wool.
– Last year the freight on wool to London was more than the wool was fetching per bale when it got there, and this year the position is very little better. In May, 1930, when an amendmenttothe Australian Industries
Preservation Bill was being discussed, the following statement was made: -
The Dairy Produce Board here is in a position to control the whole of its exports, but it is unable to arrange a contract with the ship-owners owing to the existence of section 7a ofthe industries Preservation Act. This agreement is not intended to cover Wheat, flour; or cargo of that kind.
The tramp steamers are allowed to carry wheat and flour, and produce other than wool and dairy produce, and are doing so at rates varying from 25s. to 27s. a ton. Wool is carried by weight, and a charge of6d. a bale is made for weighting. At seven bales to the ton, this amounts to 3s. 6d. per ton for weighing. Most goods are carried by measurement. It may be objected that a ton of wool would take up a great deal more room than a ton of wheat. That is so, but, even allowing for four times the space, it should not be charged more than £5 or £5 10s. per ton, if the charges were computed on the same basisas are freight charges on flour. The excessive freight charges on wool are costing the woolgrowers of Australia £2,000,000 a year more than they should have to pay. It costs the Australian growers £4,000,000 a year to send their wool overseas. The growers have been told that their great difficulty is wages; that if arbitration court awards were abolished, everything would be all right. Shearing rates have already been cut by 22½ per cent., the station hands award has been suspended, and we will have more applications for reductions. The pastoral associations will tell the wool-grower that this is the way out. The Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) stated that there had been a 22½ per cent. reduction all round to meet the depression. Why, then, are not the shipping companies, at this time of national crisis, required to accept their share of the reduction ? Wool is, one of our chief primary products. It has provided a great deal of the national income for the last ten or fifteen years, and is entitled to some consideration. This is not the last word which I shall have to say on this matter. Next year there will be further applications to cut wages in the pastoral industry. Even under existing conditions, the wages of station hands are back to preharvester award days. The majority of small woolgrowers do not wish to impose unfair conditions upon their employees. No one regrets more than they do that the stress of economic circumstances have forced a reduction of Avages to employees in the industry. One or two small growers in my electorate who did not reduce the wages of their employees down to the award rate found when their wage sheets went to the banks, that the banker made a readjustment in accordance with the agreed pastoral companies’ rate. In one case, the rate was reduced from 30s. to 20s. a week. It is strange that while conditions are so bad in the pastoral industry, this shipping ring should be allowed to exploit the people in this way. The fact that wool generally realizes more than wheat is no justification for a freight charge of £11 per ton as against 25s. per ton for wheat.
– I associate myself with the remarks of the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) with regard to overseas freight on wool. This is a matter to which I have directed attention on more than one occasion in this House, but I regret to say that, up to the present, I have not been able to secure redress for our woolgrowers. Without traversing the statements of the honorable member for Kennedy, I wish to emphasize the urgent need for government action in the interests of our woolgrowers. The present freight charge was fixed at a time when wool prices were infinitely greater than they are to-day. The industry was than on a profitable basis. Latterly it has been passing through a period of depression, and there has been no corresponding downward trend in freights. It has been urged on several occasions that it is not possible for the Government to tafes action, until there is a united demand from the woolgrowers themselves.
– Why were theCommonwealth ships sold?
– That transaction may be advanced in extenuation of the Government’s inactivity, but it cannot be offered as an excuse. There must be some way in which government intervention is possible. Some time ago, a similar situation developed in South Africa, and as a result of government action shipping charges were substantially reduced. Action on similar lines by the Commonwealth Government should result in much needed concessions being secured for our woolgrowers.
– I think our difficulty is due to the fact that freight charges are fixed in the agreement, so that action by this Parliament would be necessary to rectify the position.
– I recognize the difficulties arising out of the agreement with the Overseas Transport Association, but I take the view that difficulties exist only to be overcome, and I am convinced that this Government can surmount them if it has the mind and will to do so. This matter is of such serious import to the wool industry that the Government cannot any longer ignore it. I sincerely hope that some action will bc taken immediately to afford relief to our woolgrowers.
.- I wish to refer to a matter raised this afternoon, but more particularly to an interjection made by the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Lyons) when I was speaking on the tariff the other day. On that occasion the honorable member for Wilmot said, in an interjection -
The honorable member for Corangamite is supporting a Government which somersaulted inconnexion with an export duty on sheepskins. That decision was reached by the party of which the honorable member is a member.
In reply, I said that I was always against such a duty, and helped to secure its repeal. The only purpose of such an interjection by the Leader of the Opposition was to create an impression that I supported theexport duty on sheepskins.
– The honorable member ought to have supported it.
– But I did not. On the contrary, I opposed it strongly, and I have the permission of the Prime Minister to say that, in caucus, I did all I could to defeat the proposal. The right honorable gentleman was present at the meeting of the party, before he went to England, and expressed his opposition to the proposed export duty. On the 17th December, 1930, when the honorable member for Wilmot was Acting Treasurer, the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton), who was Acting Prime Minister and Minister for
Trade and Customs, introduced a tariff schedule providing for an export duty of1s. 2d. per lb. ou sheepskins in wool. That was done by the Government of which the honorable member for Wilmot ( Mr. Lyons) was a member. As soon as the right honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) returned from abroad, and after the honorable member for Wilmot had ceased to-be Acting Treasurer, and ho and the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) had left the Labour party, the right honorable the Prime Minister appointed the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) as Minister for Trade and Customs. On the 5th March, 1931 - after he had been deserted by those two members ofhis party - he announced the cancellation of the export duty on sheepskins, and intimated that the moneys that had already been collected would be refunded. I cannot remember the actual attitude of the honorable member for Wilmot on the occasion to which I have referred ; I cannot remember him supporting or opposing that duty.
– He opposed i t.
– I know that the Acting Prime Minister stated at the time that the Government, of which the honorable member for Wilmot was a member, had considered the proposal, and intended to give effect to it. I did not know that such an export duty was to be collected. The point 1 wish to make is that the honorable member for Wilmot has no right to infer that I was a party to the imposition of an export duty on sheepskins.
– The honorable member was silent in the matter.
– What does the honorable member infer?
– I shall tell the honorable member if he likes, and also the country.
– If the honorable member says that I at any time supported an export duty on sheepskins, and that I did not take every opportunity to oppose such a duty, he is making an incorrect statement.
The honorable member for Wilmot has now adopted a different attitude with respect to another matter. I do not know why I should be the victim of his mis statements. Last Friday night he attended a community singing entertainment at Colac, in my constituency. I was not invited to attend the gathering, probably because I am not a humourist. The honorable member for Wilmot, however, took part in community singing, and later was given an opportunity to speak to those present. The speech which he is said to have made was not actually that delivered, as I find that the report which appeared in the press was handed in in typewritten form by some one else on his behalf.
– This is a very serious thing !
– It is. I remember an occasion on which the report of a speech delivered in this House by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Latham), at 4.30 p.m., was published in the Melbourne Herald at 3 o’clock that afternoon.
– That is merely untrue.
– The members of the Opposition have got the ears of the press, and consequently they can have whatever they like published.
– That is untrue.
M r. SPEAKER (Hon. Norman Makin) . -Order !
– It is untrue, and the honorable member knows it.
– Order!
– The honorable member is inventing; it is a deliberate invention.
– Order! I shall name the honorable member if he further disregards the call of the Chair.
– My statement is correct, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-
– Order ! I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Latham) to withdraw the remark that the statement of the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Crouch) is untrue.
– No objection has been taken to my statement; but I withdraw it.
– According to the Colac press, the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Lyons) said -
About twelve months ago when ] was Acting Treasurer and during the absence of the Prime Minister abroad, Mr. Latham, as
Leader of the Opposition, urged in Parliament that party arguments should he allowed to disappear in the light of the crisis which confronted us. These suggestions were rejected by a majority of the members of the federal Labour party, who chose to place their own sectional interests above that of the nation. Because I supported the suggestion made by Mr. Latham, I was subjected to every kind of misrepresentation by my own colleagues.
What is the history of this mutter? I find that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposed in this House that what he termed a non-party ministry should be formed. He suggested the co-operation of the Opposition in order to assist the Ministry. The honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Penton), who was then Acting Prime Minister, said that the matter would be considered. At that time, the honorable member for Wilmot was in the House. The following day the honorable member for Maribyrnong, as Acting Prime Minister, and when the honorable member for Wilmot was in the House, said, in reading from a prepared statement, that the Government could not accept the suggestion. The honorable member for Wilmot was in the House, and did not contradict the statement.
– The honorable member knows that I made a statement in the House in reply to the misrepresentation.
– There are further points in connexion with this matter which rather surprise me. The Leader of the Opposition submitted his proposition on the 9th December, a prepared statement was read by the Acting Prime Minister on the 10th December, and on the 11th December the honorable member for Wilmot made a personal explanation. In doing so. he denied a statement in the Canberra Times and the Labor Daily, to the effect that he bad supported a national government, and that he had no knowledge of Mr. Latham’s proposal. He said-
The statements from beginning to end can only be described as a downright lie - absolutely and emphatically a lie. All I ask is that the press will accept this absolute denial of the truth of the report.
He deniod absolutely that he had anything to do with the proposal for a national government. He was working against the Acting Prime Minister, as he now is against the present Prime Minister. At Colac, when he endeavoured to prejudice me in the eyes of my constituents, he is reported to have said -
Because I supported the suggestions made by Mr. Latham, I was subjected to every kind of misrepresentation by my own colleagues.
In the first place, he did not support Mr. Latham or the Acting Prime Minister who expressed the decision of the Government. In a personal explanation, he said that the statement published was grossly inaccurate.
– Horrible!
-It is. I can appreciate the nauseating feelings of the honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Morgan) who is being led by a man who would say what he did at Colac. The honorable member for Wilmot should take the first opportunity to correct statements which have been shown to be absolutely untrue.
– The honorable member must withdraw the word “untrue”.
– Iwithdraw it. Prior to that meeting the big drum was beaten throughout Colac to announce the advent of the new political saviour. A prepared statement was repeated in all the newspapers in the Western District. It was announced: “Mr. J. A. Lyons will visit Colac to-day, and speak in the Victoria Hall to-night”. Then we read “ sob-stuff “ of this description concerning the honorable member -
The economic conditions of Tasmania during his boyhood were such that at the age of nine and a half years he was compelled to leave school and seek to earn something towards his sustenance. His thirst for knowledge was so evident, however, that two elderly aunts contrived to enable him to return to school and complete his studies. From very early years he showed an aptitude for imparting knowledge to others, and he was made a State school monitor. At seventeen years of age he had qualified as a teacher in the Education Department of Tasmania . . . His true interests, however, are his home and family . . . They have nine sturdy children . . . In his early days, however,he was a keen cricketer, footballer, tennis player and cyclist: indeed, a good all-round athlete.
This statement was sent in type to all the newspapers published in the towns he was to visit. Is that not like a circus going toa town, beating the big drum, advertising, “ Here comes the man who has nine children; here is the man who used to be a great athlete; here is the lad of uiue and a half years who became a school monitor “ ? Is that fair politics ? Is itnot an attempt to obtain a personal sympathy that the honorable member’s politics alone could never win for him ? Is it not an attempt to assuage the public feeling due to his complete somersault from his previous political attitude?
.- The honorable memer for Corangamite (Mr. Crouch) has raised the standard of debate in this House to a very high level byhis last contribution ! I have visited the districts of other honorable members opposite in speaking for my own party, and I have always either avoided mentioning the name of the member for the district, or I have done it solely for the purpose of making it perfectly clear that I have the greatest respect for him. In no case have I departed from either the one course or the other. No honorable member has evinced so much annoyance over my visits as has the honorable member for Corangamite.
– It is getting near election time.
– I am not worrying about that. I wish to deal briefly with the matter that the honorable member has raised in his wonderful contribution. He said that, when I interjected some days ago about somersaulting, I was endeavouring to show that he had supported the export duty on sheepskins. I deny that absolutely. I interjected because he first had made a statement charging me with somersaulting, and I throw the remark back at him, not suggesting that he has somersaulted, but that he is associated with a party that somersaulted in regard to thatduty.
– So has the honorable member.
– I have not. I suppose that. I cannot obtain the permission of the Prime Minister to disclose what happened in caucus; the honorable member can do that. No honorable member can give a single instance in which I supported such a proposition as the duty on sheepskins.
– But the honorable member was a member of the Government which submitted that proposal.
– If any honorable member can show that I have ever supported such a proposal, I am prepared to resign my seat, provided that if such a member fails to disprove my statement, he also is prepared to resign. I did not charge the honorable member for Corangamite with somersaulting, and in spite of all his heat and bitterness, I do not lay that charge against him now. I simply claim the same right as honorable members opposite have to change my mind as they changed theirs on the subject of the duty on sheepskins. I was very glad, indeed, to know that the Government and the party supporting it had reversed its decision in the matter. The duty was imposed during my absence from Canberra. I was here when the party and the Government were opposed to it, but I was absent when the proposal was brought forward in this chamber, and I had no opportunity of protesting against it. as did the honorable member for Corangamite, who was present when the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) introduced the duty in this chamber.
– I was not present.
– I have the division list, and the honorable member’s name is included.
– I would like to see it; I do not believe it.
– Hansard shows that on the 17th December, 1930, the honorable member for Maribyrnong, who was then Minister for Trade and Customs,brought down tariff schedule No. 6, 1930, which providedforan export duty on sheepskins.
– The honorable member for Corangamite may not have been in the chamber at that time. Was there any discussion when the schedule was laid on the table?
– Hansard records the following : -
Mr.R. Green. - This isbare-faced bribery.
– I ask the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green ) to assist me to preserve order and to remain silent while the Acting Prime Minister makes his statement.
– I do not care a continental whether the Acting Prime Minister makes his statement or not. This is absolute robbery.
– Order ! I ask the honorable member for Richmond to withdraw that statement.
– I withdraw it.
The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Parkhill) referred to the duty in practically similar terms, and both statements were withdrawn.
– I remember hearing of it, but I was not in the House.
– The schedule was introduced by the honorable member for Maribyrnong, as recorded on page 1642 of Hansard, and the report on page 1643 shows that the question “ That progress be reported “ was put. I shall quote the words used by the honorable member for Maribyrnong -
– The export duty is 1101 intended as a means of raising revenue, and the Government undertakes that the proceeds of the duty will be spent in assisting the sheep industry. Investigation is now proceeding as to how the proceeds of this duty can best- be spent in the interest of the sheep industry, and the Government will welcome any helpful suggestions from the industry in regard to the matter. I move -
That progress be reported.
The division list shows that there were 23 “ Ayes “ and 15 “ Noes “, a majority of 8 for the “ Ayes “, and among the “ Ayes “ were the following : - Messrs. Anstey, Beasley, Blakeley, Chifley,
Crouch-
– All that I am saying is that I was absent when this was done, while the honorable member for Corangamite was present and voted on the question. I do not say that he voted in favour of the duty. The vote was taken on the question, “ That progress be reported which was not the question actually at issue.
– The division did not relate to the question whether there should or should not be imposed a duty on sheepskins.
– I have not suggested that it did. The honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Crouch) also raised another point. He referred to my statement that an offer of co-operation had been made by the then Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Latham) and that I had supported the proposition. I gave away no caucus secrets in making that statement? Unfortunately I was misrepresented at that time. From that misrepresentation I entirely exonerate my ex-colleagues in the Cabinet. If I have been understood as having said that they were responsible for it, I am sorry. No words of mine were ever intended to convey that impression. I was misrepresented by the press, and said so in this House. Honorable members may recall that when I made my personal explanation I asked was there any honorable member on the Government side who had heard me advocate a coalition government? I invited any honorable member opposite, who claimed to have done so, to rise and say that he had ; but none did.
– I do not believe that the honorable gentleman ever advocated a coalition.
– It is true that I did not. The misrepresentation was published in the press, to whom information was supplied ; they did not do it off their own bat. 1 stood up in. my place in this House and explained my position so as to justify myself. I then said that I had recommended the acceptance of the offer of co-operation that had been made by the honorable member for Kooyong, but that I had never advocated a coalition.
I regret that the honorable member for Corangamite has gone to such lengths in what appears to me to be an effort to misrepresent my attitude.
– I merely defended myself against your attacks.
– I made no attack on the honorable member; I did not even mention him when I spoke publicly on the matter. The interjection that I made was in response to his, charge that I had somersaulted. Admittedly, I changed my attitude on a particular question, but in doing so I merely claimed the right which other honorable members have exercised to change their attitude on another question.
– By way of personal explanation, as I have been misrepresented, I wish to say that I am absolutely certain that I was not in the chamber when the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Fenton) introduced the resolution proposing the imposition of a duty on the export of sheepskins. When I heard that such action had been taken I was astounded, because it was contrary to what I had expected. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lyons) is acting unfairly towards me when he endeavours to make it appear that I was present on that occasion, because later I took part in a division on the question that progress be reported.
– I am somewhat surprised at the tone of this debate, and cannot understand why ‘ any apology should be offered for what happened on the occasion under review. As I believe in the principle of an export duty on sheepskins, it is not my intention to apologize for that action. Had that duty been continued, thousands of men would have been employed in this country in the treatment of the skins. What has been the result of its discontinuance? Sheepskins have to be given away, because a price cannot be obtained for them on account of the absence of competition. Only the shipping companies who are carrying some of the skins overseas are deriving any advantage.
– The only time when they were given away was while the duty was- in operation, because they were then unsaleable.
– They have to be burned to-day because there are no buyers for them.
– They were being burned then.
– The honorable member will be burned politically before very long. We produce the raw material, but have to send it to France and other countries to be made into bags and gloves. It is a reflection on the people of Australia that it cannot be manufactured in this country. Why should honorable members apologize for what would provide employment for our people?
– That is not the question.
– I say, shame on those who would deny the right of our people to be given employment!
.- Notwithstanding the statement that has been made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lyons), the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Crouch) is not prepared to accept responsibility for the vote which he gave. That vote was so recently taken, and had such serious import, that every honorable member is familiar with the conditions that surrounded it. Honorable members of the Opposition were considerably surprised to find that the then Acting Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Forde), who up to that time had conducted all the business connected with the Department of Trade and Customs, did not table the resolution dealing with the export duty on sheepskins.
– There is a story behind that, too.
– The then Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Fenton) tabled it, but did so in his capacity of Acting Prime Minister. Although nothing was said, it was plain to honorable members on this side that, even within the Cabinet itself, there was not unity in regard to the matter. The Acting Minister for Trade and Customs may not have actually refused to table the resolution, but he certainly declined to do so as he himself was not in agreement with it.
There -i3 only one point that I wish to make. You, Mr. Speaker, know that when the question, “ That progress be reported,” Ls put from the Chair, ninetynine times out of one hundred it is agreed to on the voices, being regarded as a purely formal motion. Why did the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett), who was Acting Leader of the Opposition at the time, and those who were associated with him, call for a division? It was because that was the only way in which we could object to the tabling of the resolution, and demonstrate that as a party we were opposed to it. The honorable member for Corangamite has said that, despite his participation in the division, he was not present when the resolution was tabled. Was he one of the sheep from whom these skins were taken? Did he march into the chamber and record his vote without knowing what the division was about? He cannot run away from his responsibilities in that manner. The position is clear - the division was in the nature of a protest by honorable members of the Opposition against the tabling of the resolution, and the division list proves conclusively that the honorable member for Corangamite was not prepared to vote witu us, and thus insist upon the matter being then and there discussed, so that members of the committee would have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. There can be no discussion. Once the Minister in charge moves that progress be reported, the question has to be put without discussion or dissent. The honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Crouch) voted for it, which was tantamount to saying that he was satisfied with what the Ministry had done. Had he not been satisfied, he would have voted against progress being reported, and insisted that an opportunity be given to discuss the matter about which he is now so righteously indignant.
.- I rise, not for the purpose of adding anything to the discussion, which I hope is now concluded, but to call attention to a matter arising out of two questions which were asked during question time i.his afternoon. “With ali respect to the”5 members concerned, and to you, Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the practice of introducing propaganda into questions asked in the House. Every member of the House is a propagandist at some time . or other, but not, I hope, in an undesirable sense. Honorable members opposite” may disclaim that assertion if they think iii, but the propaganda indulged in on this side of the House is, I can assure honorable members, entirely desirable. 1 do not wish to embark upon a party discussion - all honorable members are interested in this - but merely to point out that this afternoon the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Curtin) read a statement, by a clergyman dealing with the subject of banking. He then asked whether the Government proposed to introduce legislation to amend our present banking system in a certain direction. He could have asked that question without quoting the clergyman’s statement, which had nothing to do with the question. The honorable member simply seized an opportunity for propaganda, for which there is a proper place’ and time, but it is not question time. If this practice grows, it will become very difficult to conduct the business of the House. The honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Crouch) this afternoon asked about the possibility of re funding certain money paid in duties on petrol, and he indicated that, in regard to the duty on sheepskins, such a refund was made. He went on to inquire whether that procedure, or something approaching it, could not be followed in regard te> petrol. That was the substance of his question, but into it he introduced a statement that the duty on sheepskins was imposed at a time when the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Lyons) was a member of the Government. We all know that that was so-
– That was brought out by way of interjection.
– No, it was incorporated in the question. That sort of thing should be discouraged in the interests of all of us. Whether the honorable member for Wilmot was, or was not, in the Cabinet when the duty on sheepskins was introduced, is not relevant to the desirability or otherwise of refunding the duty paid on sheepskins or on petrol. The statement was introduced simply to score a point on a propagandist matter. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider - I do not ask that you make a statement to-day - whether it is not possible, in the interests of all honorable members of this House, to exclude obvious propaganda from questions, and to require honorable members to address themselves to Ministers only for the purpose of obtaining bona fide information.
.- There seems to be some misapprehension as to whether or not the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham) ever made a suggestion that a coalition government should be formed. As a matter of fact, he did not. His suggestion was that if he and his party could in any way co-operate with the Government, of which I was at the time acting head, he would be prepared to do it. He made it clear that he had no desire to take office, but merely to co-operate with the Government. Naturally, I was called upon to reply to his suggestion, and I did so in very brief terms. I made my decision without, any consultation with Cabinet, knowing, as I did, the feeling of the party. I mentioned it the next day at the party meeting, and the matter was smiled out - I shall not say laughed out. On my own initiative I made a fuller statement next day.
In regard to the statement that the honorable member forWilmot was a member ofthe Government when the duty on sheepskins was imposed, I may inform honorable members that, when that action was taken, the honorable member for Wilmot was in Tasmania. He was called to Tasmania a week before the House adjourned, and it was during that week that the party decided finally, after considerable argument for and against, that an export duty on sheepskins should bo imposed.
– Is the statement of your leader- incorrect- that Mr. Latham suggested the formation of a national government?
– I never made any such statement.
– It is reported in the press.
– This sort of bickering gets us nowhere. Let us wait until the elections are being fought, and then, when we are before the people, we can tell them the truth. I took it on myself, as Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Customs, to lay on the table the motion imposing a duty on sheepskins, and I did it when the then Acting Treasurer (Mr. Lyons) was absent in Tasmania. He was not at the Cabinet meeting at which the matter was decided ; he was not at the party meeting ; he was not even in the House. I wish to make that point clear. Those who look up the records will find that they bear me out. I have no desire to wash dirty linen, and I hope that we shall always fight cleanly, both inside the House and out. I do not want to accuse the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Crouch) of being unduly nervous or excitable, but on several occasions lately he has seemed to be very anxious for a fight, and those who go around looking for fight, are bound to get something in return.
– The subject raised by the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan-) is a very important one. I think all honorable members in this House have receivpd copies of the letter from Mr. James Clark. In that letter Mr. Clark refers to the increase in freights on wool since Lord Inchcape came into shipping. That is going back a good many years. I do not know of any increase in freight during recent years. As a matter of fact, shortly after this Government came into office, a proposal was made to increase outward freights by 10 per cent. We have no power, as a Parliament, to control freights - although Mr. Clark says that only Parliament can deal with the matter - but, nevertheless, the Government did take a stand and made representations to see what could be done to prevent a rise in freights. Prior to the accession to office of this Government, delegations representing overseas shipping companies met representatives of shippers in Australia and discussed with them the proposed increase in freights, which, they contended, was inevitable unless something could be done to regulate shipping in Australia to prevent the overlapping that was taking place, and to regulate space by means of an organization of shippers and ship-owners. Whena decision was reached that there should be no increase in freights, if that could be done. an unexpected difficulty arose in connexion with certain legislation tha: had been passed for the control of monopolies. Accordingly, they approached the Government with a requestto amend the legislation in question before they formed an association for the regulation of shipping. That amending legislation was passed, and that is the only power which we have in connexion with this matter.
– Have the shipping companies violated that agreement?
– So far as I know there has been no increase of freights since then. The writer of this letter refers to the Overseas Transport Association, of which he is a member, representing the wool-growers. Mr: Tout is chairman of this organization, which is representative of overseas ship-owners, Australian wool-growers, the butter and fruit industries, and other sections ofexporters. The writer states that the association is operating under the Federal Government. That is not correct. It is an organization entirely of shippers and ship-owners. The only action which the Federal Parliament took was to amend its legislation so as to enable the organization to operate, and I believe that it is doing good work. As we all know, wool freights have always been abnormally high as compared with freights on other exportable primary products from Australia. They have been higher because, in the overseas market, wool has always commanded a higher price than other primary products. Now that wool prices are down, these high shipping charges are a real hardship upon the industry. I have taken up this matter with the Transport Association, which is keeping me informed of every move or proposed move. At one of the conferences which I have had with Mr. Tout, it was pointed out that there was no guarantee in the agreement for the regulation of freights, and, on behalf of the Government, I refused to introduce the amending legislation unless that was provided for. After a good deal of negotiation it was included. I said that, as we had taken the responsibility of amending the legislation, if it would not prevent a rise in freights, we should have to consider what action could be taken. This question has been raised on more than one occasion by several honorable members, including, I think, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Latham), and the Minister for Markets (Mr. Parker Moloney) is giving it his attention. I now have an acknowledgment of my letter to the association, informing me that it is considering the position with a view to avoiding an increase in freights. I think that this is rather an important accomplishment, because we have to realize that a decline in the volume of shipping means an increase in the handling charges, so that freight increases are difficult to avoid. I agree that probably some re-adjustment of freights should be made by ship-owners in view of the low prices now prevailing for wool. It is obvious that if wool prices are low, the industry cannot carry the burden of high freight charges. I think the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) has done good service in raising the matter this afternoon.
– Can the Prime Minister explain why the Union Government in South Africa has been able to deal with this question?
– The honorable member must know that the Union Government is not subject to the constitutional limitations that are imposed upon the Commonwealth Government.
– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Latham) has referred to the practice which has grown up of basing questions upon newspaper paragraphs and which he suggests may be equivalent to political propaganda. He said that he did not desire from me a statement on the matter to-day, but I feel that I should at once offer a few observations in regard to it. For some time questions based upon newspaper reports have occupied a good deal of the time during which questions to Ministers are asked, and it has been quite apparent that the majority of those questions were asked, not with the object of eliciting information as required by the Standing Order, but with the deliberate purpose of giving it. The Chair has sought to check this practice. If honorable members were deterred altogether from basing questions upon newspaper reports it might be regarded as an undue curtailment of their privileges and rights. However desirable it might be to restrict the practice, I am reluctant to give a decision that might be so construed. I am desirous of giving to honorable members the widest possible freedom, but I do feel at times that many of the newspaper statements quoted when asking questions should not be used. In some cases the press paragraphs, upon which questions are based, are inordinately long. The reading of them occupies considerable time, and they certainly are more in the nature of statements or speeches than of questions. I promise the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Latham) that I shall go carefully into the matter, and if I decide that there should be any curtailment honorable members will be given the reasons for that decision.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
House adjourned at 4.53 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 October 1931, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1931/19311009_reps_12_132/>.