House of Representatives
21 March 1933

13^th Parliament · 1^st Session

AUSTRALIAN WAR DEBT TO UNITEDKINGDOM
QUESTION
- WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION IN FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH SAVINGS BANK
TARIFF BOARD REPORTS
PETROL INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH NEW ZEALAND
QUESTION
- WIRELESS LICENCES
QUESTION
- RIFLE CLUBS
DICTAPHONES
IRI
QUESTION
- COASTAL DEFENCES
QUESTION
- INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS
QUESTION
- TARIFF DEBATE. -
NORTHERN TERRITORY
- Report of Mb. Archdale Parkhill
QUESTION
- RECIPROCAL TRADE
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIA’S ECONOMIC POSITION
QUESTION
- TASMANIA
QUESTION
- SEARCH FOR OIL
QUESTION
- EXPORT OF GOLD
QUESTION
- PAPER PULP
QUESTION
- WHEAT INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- GOVERNMENT POLICY
QUESTION
- LIGHTHOUSES
QUESTION
- PETROL PRICES
QUESTION
- AUTOMATIC TELEPHONES
PAPERS
QUESTION
- TARIFF PROPOSALS (1932-1933)
PRICES OF AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS
- Division 7. - Oils, Paints and Varnishes
- Division 8. - Earthenware, Cement, China, Glass, and Stone
ADJOURNMENT
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- The following answers to questions were circulated: -
- Protection of North Australia Waters

Mr. Speaker (Hon. G. H. Mackay) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 390

AUSTRALIAN WAR DEBT TO UNITEDKINGDOM

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– by leave - Advice has been received from the Resident Minister in London (Mr. Bruce) that pending settlement of the general subject of international war debts in their wider aspects, the Government of the United Kingdom has agreed to the postponement of the payment of interest due from the Commonwealth on the 31st March, 1933, under the War Debt Funding Agreement. The interest due is £1,960,000 sterling or in Australian currency, including exchange, £2,450,000. Under a previous agreement with the British Government, sinking fund payments under the Funding Agreement were suspended for the two financial years 1931-32 and 1932-33, the saving in this respect amounting to £1,628,000 sterling per annum. It was anticipated when the budget was framed that the Commonwealth would not have to meet these interest and sinking fund payments during the current financial year, and the latest intimation from the British Government will not affect in any way the anticipated result of the year’s transactions.

page 391

QUESTION

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION IN FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for the Interior yet able to announce his intention regarding the promulgation of an ordinance to introduce workmen’s compensation in the Federal Capital Territory?

Mr PERKINS:
Minister for the Interior · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– No; but I hope to be able to do so within a few days.

page 391

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SAVINGS BANK

Sub-BranchesinWesternAustralia.

Mr PROWSE:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I have received from Mr. Gladstone, Mayor of Wagin, Western Australia, the following telegram: -

Understand it is intention of Commonwealth Savings Bank to convert various sub-branches to agencies. These comprise Wagin, York, Beverley, and other offices which were formerly full branches of the old State Savings Bank and are still conducted by State officials. This council strongly protests.

Another telegram from Western Australia makes a similar protest. Will the Prime Minister exert his powerful influence to prevent the removal of an important convenience from these growing towns?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I shall endeavour to obtain information in regard to the matter from the Commonwealth Bank. I remind the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse), however, that one of the principal complaints of the Western Australian people against the Commonwealth is the constant increase in the cost of federal government. I have no doubt that the step proposed by the Commonwealth Bank is an economy measure.

page 391

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS

Mr. WHITE laid on the table reports and recommendations of the Tariff Board on the following subjects: -

Brake drums for motor vehicles.

Cotton packings, asbestos cord, asbestos pipe and boiler covering and greasy packings of jute and hemp.

Packings ( but not including asbestos packings).

Ordered to be printed.

page 391

PETROL INDUSTRY

Mr LATHAM:
Attorney-General · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · UAP

– I rise to make a personal explanation. On Thursday last a discussion took place in this House . on the subject of oil, and the attitude of the large importing companies towards the inquiry that has been conducted by Mr. John Gunn. In the Labor Daily of the 20th March, I am reported as having said during the discussion, in reference to the Federal Royal Commissions Act -

If any member knows of any weakness in the act, either real or imaginary, we shall be glad to hear of it.

Upon that passage the newspaper commented -

That was a definite enough statement, and expressed a definite purpose. Yet for some unexplained reason the last sentence of Mr. Latham’s statement was omitted from the proof copy of Hansard circulated yesterday.

I did not use those words or anything like them. The report published in Hansard is complete; it was not altered by me. The words that are alleged to have been omitted from the report were invented by somebody else.

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the AttorneyGeneral state what steps the Government proposes to take to strengthen its powers under the Royal Commissions Act, in view of the impudent statement by the major oil companies that the Government’s proposed commission on the petrol industry is merely a try-on?

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– by leave - Some years ago an inquiry into the sugar industry was conducted by a royal commission appointed under an act of this Parliament. Witnesses refused to reply to some of the questions asked in the course of its inquiry, and the Colonial Sugar Refining Company applied for an injunction to restrain the commission from seeking certain information. The matter went to the High Court, which held that it was within the power of the Commonwealth Parliament to pass an act authorizing inquiries into any subject on which the Commonwealth had legislated, and any other subject on which it had power to legislate. Those subjects are set forth in section 51 and other sections of the Constitution. But by a majority, the court held that such inquiries could not extend to matters relevant only to a possible amendment of the Constitution.

The ease then went to the Privy Council. It was considered to raise a question affecting the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and the States. Such a question can reach the Privy Council only if the High Court gives a certificate that it is one which ought to be determined .by the Privy Council. Many honorable members must bo aware of the constitutional controversies upon that subject that arose at the outset of federation. The question submitted to the Privy Council was a limited one. Had I had warning that this matter would be raised, I should have been able to state precisely the question submitted to the Privy Council. That body examined exhaustively the validity of our act, and decided that it was ultra vires the Commonwealth Constitution.

For many years, however, there has been a difference of opinion among lawyers, yet unsolved, as to the true effect of this decision of the Privy Council. Ordinarily, the High Court is bound by a decision of the superior tribunal, but in this instance there is a. good deal to be said for the proposition that the decision of the Privy Council is binding upon the High Court only in relation to the matter which it had jurisdiction to determine by virtue of the certificate, and ‘that, even though the Privy Council held in express terms that the act is ultra vires, it is still open to the High Court to hold that it is udt ultra vires. The position is, therefore, remarkable from the legal and constitutional point of view, and, as Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, I should -be glad if it were authoritatively determined. It certainly is the opinion of many lawyers of standing that the decision of the Privy Council has not, in this matter, the authority that it ordinarily would have.

Any defect that may exist, in the act is a constitutional one. I do not say that in all other respects the act is perfect ; but it is important to understand that, if there is a defect in the act of the nature indicated by the decision of the Privy Council, then this Parliament cannot remedy it. A constitutional defect is beyond the power of this Parliament to remedy, and accordingly an amendment of the act would not meet the position. The Commonwealth Government has to bear this position in mind when authorizing inquiries under a royal commission. If in the present instance the procedure of a royal commission is adopted - and it will be adopted unless those concerned are prepared to make the fullest information freely available - every effort will be made to associate the inquiry with the undoubted legislative powers possessed by the Commonwealth in respect of taxation, including income tax, customs and excise, and irs trade and commerce powers. In that way every effort will be made to avoid any weakness that is avoidable. If objection should be taken by those concerned, and it should appear that, long and expensive litigation is ic prospect, an application will he made to an appropriate State government to confer powers, under State laws, upon the royal commissioners, in order that there shall be the fullest inquiry. If that is done, all legal difficulties should be avoided. It is along such lines that the matter is being handled.

Mr PATERSON:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

– ls it necessary for only one State to confer powers?

Mr LATHAM:

– From a practical point of view, that would meet the case. The Government hopes that any State Government would he willing to assist. I might add that the Government is informed that the companies are reconsidering whether they will give an undertaking upon the only basis on which the Commonwealth Government is prepared to proceed with a more or less informal inquiry. The Government has informed the companies that it expects an immediate reply from them, and does not propose to hold the matter over indefinitely.

page 392

QUESTION

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH NEW ZEALAND

Mr BLACKLOW:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that, in his negotiations with the Government of New Zealand, which are designed to solve the trade difficulties of the two sister dominions, the Assistant Minister (Sena- - tor Massy Greene) will not barter to the disadvantage cf our potato and hops industries ?

Mr. ARCHDALE PARKHILL.This subject was considered by the previous Government, and also by my immediate predecessor in office. The use of dictaphones is being permitted until the 30th June next. The honorable member’s question raises a number of considerations ; but I must correct a misapprehension which apparently exists in the mind of the person who has inspired his inquiry, and also in the minds of other newspaper proprietors, namely, that there is a proposal to limit the use of the telephone. There is no such proposal. The only proposal is that there shall be a limitation of the use of machines for the reception of news- at the end of the telephone. The actual position is that, by the use of these machines, newspaper proprietors are able to obtain their news for approximately 30 per cent, less than the concession telephone charges prescribed by legislation for press purposes.’ This is on account of the high speed of the machines.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– The honorable member may put it that way if he likes. The use of these machines is not permitted in any other country in the world. The nearest approach to than is the teleprinter, which operates much more slowly than a dictaphone, and for the use of which a charge of £65 per annum is made. The real point at issue is whether the Government can concede a privilege to a section of the community which, if permitted, will involve the department in a- loss of revenue of about “£100,000 per annum at a time when every effort is being made to manage the Postal Department in such a way that a reduction of charges may be made not to one section, but to every section of the people. If the department had this additional income of £100,000 per annum available it could make a reduction of. roughly £1 a year to each telephone subscriber. A deputation is being arranged for the middle of April in regard to the matter, when the whole subject will bc reviewed. In the meantime every effort is being made -by the department to ascertain if there is a way to meet the users of these machines. There is no desire on the part of the Government, to restrict the use of efficient machines or new inventions, but I think honorable members generally will admit that in these times consideration must also be given to the revenue aspect of the subject.

page 394

QUESTION

COASTAL DEFENCES

Mr HUTCHINSON:
INDI, VICTORIA

– In view of the fact that various reports have appeared iu the’ press to the effect that the Defence Department intends to install 16-in. guns at various coastal centres, and also that the Government intends to give a contract to the lessees of the Cockatoo Island Dockyard for the construction of a new cruiser, will the Assistant Minister for Defence make a definite statement on these matters to clarify the position ?

Mr FRANCIS:
UAP

– The press reports of my visit to Sydney arc entirely incorrect. The desirability of reorganizing the coastal defences of Australia has been under review for some considerable time, but the financial position has made action in regard to it impossible. This subject, together with other aspects of the defence of Australia, will receive the earnest consideration of the Government when the defence estimates are before it.

page 394

QUESTION

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware that claims are being made on the relatives of pensioners who died between the 12th October and the 31st December for the refund of pensions paid to them during that period? In some cases claims have been made for the refund of only a fortnight’s pension. Seeing that the Government allowed the pensioners until the 31st December to determine the course they would take in regard to their pension without involving themselves in the necessity to make refunds, I ask whether similar consideration will he given to the relatives of deceased pensioners to whom I have referred ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I shall give consideration to the honorable member’s request.

Mr McGRATH:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– In view of the fact that the Government has promised that the miners’ phthisis allowance and sustenance received by the relatives of pensioners will not be treated as income1 for the purpose of assessing pensions, will the Prime Minister anticipate the passage of the necessary legislation, and give instructions to that effect?

Mr LYONS:

– I have already said thai we will anticipate legislation in regard to the sustenance allowance, and I shall see whether the same action can be taken in regard to the other matter mentioned by the honorable member.

page 394

QUESTION

TARIFF DEBATE. -

Mr RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– With a view to expediting the business of Parliament, and particularly the consideration of the tariff schedule, will the Prime Minister ask Parliament to grant leave of absence to the honorable, member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) and the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse), so that they may proceed to Western Australia and take part in the secession referendum campaign, seeing that they are such f erven i advocates of secession?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s question is not in order.

page 394

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Report of Mb. Archdale Parkhill

Mr.- ABBOTT.- Will the Prime Minister inform me whether the report of the present Postmaster-General (Mr. Parkhill) on the visit he made to tho Northern Territory, while he was Minister for the Interior, will he made available to honorable members?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I shall consider the request. I am not sure that a report, prepared for the information of Cabinet only, should be given full publicity, buI shall sec whether the information contained in it can he conveyed to honorable members in some other form.

page 394

QUESTION

RECIPROCAL TRADE

Mr McBRIDE:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In view of the necessity of expanding the markets overseas for our products and also the need foi raising price levels, has the Government made any attempt to negotiate reciprocal trade agreements with other countries along the lines suggested in the Ottawa agreement?

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · UAP

– Various nations have invited the Commonwealth to make reciprocal trade agreements with them, but the first necessity is that the tariff now before Parliament shall be made law. I hope, therefore, that honorable members will facilitate this business.

page 395

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA’S ECONOMIC POSITION

Mr BEASLEY:

– The Sydney Morning Herald of to-day’s date reports the Postmaster-General as having stated, in a speech which he made before members of the Quota Club in Sydney, that Australia was one of the first countries that had set about putting its house in order, and that, having done this fairly successfully, it was now ready for prosperity when it came along. I ask the honorable gentleman to carry his statement a little further, and inform the House where this prosperity may be found, and what steps he has taken to prepare the people for it?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– On the occasion referred to by the honorable member I was invited to express opinions which, possibly, involved some original thought. The quotation made by the honorable gentleman was one of the observations made, and I suggest that, in view of what this Government has done, and the excellent work which it proposes to do, the statement in question fairly correctly summed up the position.

page 395

QUESTION

TASMANIA

Telephonic Communication With the Mainland.

Mr BLACKLOW:

– Will the PostmasterGeneral inform the House of the Government’s intentions with regard to the establishment of telephonic communication between the mainland and Tasmania? What is the estimated cost of, and the revenue from such a service?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– This matter was the subject of an inquiry by the Public Works Committee, which reported, a year or two ago, that to establish telephonic communication between Tasmania and the mainland would cost £180,000, and that, while the revenue at the outset would be insufficient, it was anticipated that, after the system had been in operation for some time, it would increase by. approximately £8,000. Financial difficulties preclude the Government from undertaking this expenditure this year; but it will be considered in connexion with the Estimates for the next financial year.

page 395

QUESTION

SEARCH FOR OIL

Mr BLAKELEY:

page 396

QUESTION

QUESTION

AUTOMATIC TELEPHONES

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the PostmasterGeneral state when his department will install automatic telephones in the large centres outside the capital cities?

Mr. ARCHDALE PARKHILLThat matter has been under consideration by the Government, but nothing can be done until the Estimates are prepared for next financial year.

page 396

PAPERS

The following papers were presented.

Excise Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1933. No. 37.

High Court Procedure Act, Judiciary Act and Matrimonial Causes Ordinance of the Territory for the Seat of Government - Ri,les of Court - Statutory Rules 1933, No. 23.

Patents, Trade Marks andDesigns Act - Regulations (Temporary) - Statutory Rules 1933. No. 31.

Public Service Act- Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1933, No. 30.

page 397

QUESTION

TARIFF PROPOSALS (1932-1933)

Customs Tariff (1932) : Special Duties (No. 4) : Primage Duties (No. 2) : Customs Duties (Canadian Preference, No. 2) : Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 1): Special Customs Duty (No. 5) : Excise Tariff

Amendment (No. 3)

In Committee of Ways and Means: Consideration resumed from the 17th March (vide page 390), on motion by Sir Henry Gullett (vide page 1167) (Volume 135) -

That on and after the fourteenth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Territory for the Seat of Government, Duties of Customs at the rates respectively specified in the column of the schedule hereto headed “ British Preferential Tariff “ be imposed on goods the produce or manufacture of ‘the United Kingdom. . .

And on motion by Mr. White (vide page 29) -

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the thirteenth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, be amended as hereunder set out.

Group 1. - Items under which the rates are the same as those operating under the 1921-30 Tariff.

Item 157 (Barbed wire).

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- I move -

That the item be postponed.

My reason for this motion is to enable the item to be submitted to the Tariff Board for investigation and report as to whether the duties are necessary during such time as the exchange rate remains at 20 per cent., or over. The duty on barbed wire of 68s. a ton British, and 180s. a ton general, has been in operation for a number of years. It was in 1920, when the Massy Greene tariff was adopted, that the duty was increased from 10 per cent. British to a fixed rate of 68s. a ton. I have always considered this duty on barbed wire to be an anomaly, in view of the fact that British wire netting was admitted free, and that, until the imposition of the Scullin duties, plain fencing wire was also admitted free from Britain. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) argued the other day that, because I had moved an amendment to reduce duties on certain British goods to the level at which they stood in the Pratten tariff, when increases had been made without reference to the Tariff Board, I had committed myself to support every duty which had been in existence during the Pratten regime. I submit that a very little reflection by the Minister will enable him to realize that that is an unreasonable assumption. Even though one accepted that as a general principle, one might deviate from it in regard to specific items.

Farms are falling into disrepair all over the country to-day because their owners are unable to keep their fences in order, and this is largely due to the high price of fencing material. Barbed wire is essential to the pastoralists. If a man kept only sheep, he might be able to gut along with plain wire and wire netting; but practically every one who runs sheep has to keep a certain number of cattle to eat down the coarse feed, and horses are usually run as well. Where large stock are run, it is necessary to have barbed wire on the top of the fences. If plain wire alone were used, the fences would soon be leaning over at an angle of 45 degrees. Just as wire netting is free now, and as plain wire was free until the duties were imposed by the last Government, so barbed wire should be free, British, anil 112s. a ton, general. That would still preserve the existing difference between British and foreign rates.

We were told by the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) the other da.v that the position had changed during the last few years, the implication being that it had changed in such a way that it was necessary not only to retain duties, but also, in some cases, to increase them. I admit that the situation has changed, but it has changed to the detriment of the primary producers, and to the advantage of the manufacturers. When this duty on barbed wire was imposed, the primary producers were receiving much higher prices for their produce than they are to-day, while the manufacturers were obtaining no benefit from the rate of exchange. To-day the primary producers are much poorer than they were, while the manufacturers are enjoying the benefit of 25½ per cent. additional protection due to the exchange rate. These are excellent reasons why the duty on barbed wire should be reviewed.

In the circumstances I might well have moved that these rates be struck out, and that there be substituted for them “ free, British; 112s., foreign.” But I do not ask the Government to take that stride all at once; I merely urge it to submit this item to the Tariff Board, and ask it to inquire whether these duties are necessary while the exchange rate remains at 20 per cent. or over.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– The duty of 68s. per ton on importations of barbed wire from Great Britain has remained unchanged since 1920. On an ad valorem basis, it represents from 17 per cent. to 19 per cent., and nobody, I think, would describe that as a particularly high rate in these days. The lowness of the prices of primary products, and the fact that the fall in the prices of secondary products has not corresponded with the fall in the prices of primary products might furnish an argument to be addressed to the committee if there had been a recent change in the tariff; but since this particular duty has not been altered since 1920, an unfortunate example has been selected as a case for an alteration. A careful comparison has been made of the costs of English and Australian barbed wire, and the figures have been worked out in relation to various gauges. The cost of Australian barbed wire landed into store - it is landed at the same price in all the capital cities, the price being the same in Perth as in Sydney - is lessthan the cost at which English barbed wire can be landed into store, irrespective of duty.

Mr Paterson:

– Then the duty is unnecessary.

Mr LATHAM:

– That is precisely the interjection that I anticipated. As it is said that the duty is unnecessary, the

Argument must be this: where there is a duty, and an Australian article is pro duced and sold more cheaply than a similar article from abroad, the duty is unnecessary, and should not be retained. If, on the other hand, the Australian article is produced and sold at a higher price than that at which the British article can be imported, that should not be permitted, and in that case, also, there should be no duty. This would lead us directly to freetrade in all cases. I suggest that one of the objects of a protective tariff is to provide on fair terms - terms fair to the community as a whole - a market for our own manufacturers. In this case, at a given moment, it may be that the duty is commercially unnecessary. The honorable member for Gippsland has referred to the subject of exchange.From one point of view, exchange is the measure of the depreciation of currency. The world’s commerce is unstable at the present time. Reference has been made to the surplus of products to be found in many countries, and these countries are ready to jump in if our door is left open for a moment - when there might be sales at knockout prices for a limited period. That the Australian product is selling at a price below that of the foreign product does not show that it would be safe in the interests of either the industry or the community as a whole to take off the duty. I regard the facts of this case as a tribute to Australian industry. It is the sort of thing that 1 like to see, and since nobody is able to suggest that the community is being exploited at all-

Mr Hughes:

– Or the primary industry.

Mr LATHAM:

– Neither the primary industry that uses this commodity, nor any other section of the community. When nobody can suggest that there is any exploitation of the community at all, and when we can buy a good article made in Australia at a lower price than that of the imported product, even if no duty is paid, there is every justification for maintaining a degree of protection which has helped to bring about that result. We know where we are under this duty. The primary industry and the other industries know where they are, and everybody can see the advantage to the community. It does not by any means follow that if there had never been a duty, this industrywould havebeen so successfully operated as it has been. That being so, a proposal to remove the duty, or to make its retention conditional upon exchange, ought not to receive the favorable consideration of the committee. I submit that on the facts this duty is entirely justifiable, and I could wish that all the duties in the tariff had been so successful in their operation.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

– The amendment cannot be proposed in the form in which the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) said he would move it. He embodied in it words which amounted to a direction to the Government. These I cannot accept, although the honorable member is entitled to use them in his argument. The question before the Chair is “ that the consideration of the item be postponed “.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- I support the amendment. The AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham) tried to create the impression that the cost of barbed wire is not greater in Australia than in England. I have not the figures with me, but I am confident that the price of barbed wire in England is 30 per cent’, less than the Australian price. The Acting Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson) referred to the declining income of the users of barbed wire in this country. Their plight is so serious that this committee should devote its energies to reducing their costs in every direction possible.

Mr Latham:

– Did the honorable gentleman say that I stated that barbed wire could be bought as cheaply in Australia as in England?

Mr PROWSE:

– That is the impression the right honorable gentleman’s remarks conveyed to the committee.

Mr Latham:

– I must have been misunderstood, although I can scarcely conceive that to be possible.

Mr PROWSE:

– The materials necessary for the manufacture of barbed wire should be obtainable cheaply in Australia, and if the manufactured article were as cheap as it is in other parts of the world, the industry which manufactures it would render a great service to this country. Australian users of barbed wire should be able to obtain their requirementsmore cheaply than they do now. The removal of the high duty would induce Australian manufacturers to improve their methods, or, perhaps, to be content with lower profits from the sale of barbed wire to those in industries which are showing losses. There should be greater competition in those industries which arc not essential to the progress of this country.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- The duties on barbed wire imported from foreign countries were not imposed iu 1920, as has been stated, but in 1927. At that time, we were getting very little barbed wire from England; most of our requirements came from the United States of America and Canada. When these duties were imposed, barbed wire sold for about £12 a ton in New York. A duty of £9 a ton, together with freight and other charges amounting to about £3 a ton, brought the price of imported barbed wire to £24 a ton. The Australian article was selling for £23 10s. a ton at the time. Yet the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) says that there has been no exploitation of the users of this commodity. I remind the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) of a letter forwarded to a previous Minister by a manufacturer of wire nails and barbed wire in Melbourne. There being an embargo on the importation of wire, this manufacturer had to obtain his supplies of raw materials from the drawers of wire in Australia who were also manufacturers of barbed wire and nails. He complained that these manufacturers from whom he was forced to obtain his supplies were selling barbed wire at the price which he had to pay for his raw materials, and that they would not reduce their price to him unless he undertook not to sell in New South Wales or Queensland the commodity he manufactured, and agreed to raise by £6 a ton the price at which he sold barbed wire in Victoria. Does the AttorneyGeneral think that there was no exploitation there? The then Minister promised that he would refer the matter to the Tariff Board in order to ascertain whether or not the action of the manufacturers of wire amounted to a restraint of trade. He did so; but later the matter was withdrawn from that body, and no inquiry has been made. Were it not for these high duties, Australian users of barbed wire would-be able to obtain it for £6 a ton less than they are now called upon to pay. Is not that exploitation ? Is it right that those who supply the raw material for the manufacture of barbed wire should be able to dictate the price at which the article made therefrom shall be sold? Surely it is the duty of this Parliament to protect those who are endeavouring to open up new country. They are already seriously handicapped by the exchange rate. I hope that the amendment will be agreed to.

Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle

.- One gets tired of listening to the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) on the subject of the duty on barbed wire. The honorable gentleman should know that so far as the exchange rate is concerned, this item is not different from other items. His amendment that duties should be fixed according to the exchange rate having been defeated, the Acting Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson) now endeavours to achieve the same result in respect of this item.

Mr Paterson:

– I moved no such amendment.

Mr WATKINS:

– If there is one commodity included with those which may be classed as light iron products in connexion with which there is no monopoly, it surely is barbed wire. To my own knowledge, wire is drawn in two places in New South Wales, and also in Victoria.

Mr Gregory:

– Not in Victoria.

Mr WATKINS:

– Wire is made in Victoria. Australian manufacturers did not take advantage of the embargo on the importation of wire to raise prices. On the contrary, they have reduced prices since 1931. Only a little while ago, the manufacturers in New South Wales made further reductions of prices in respect of large orders in order to assist the primary producers. I cannot understand the attitude of the members of the country party who wish to whittle away the protection given to this industry in order to permit the entry into Australia of the manufactures of the United States of America, a country which buys nothing from ns. In the last two or three years, the price of barbed wire has been frequently reduced. Yet the representatives of the Country party contend that the manufacturers have a monopoly, and are taking advantage of the primary producers. They should be ashamed to advocate the sale in this country of foreign cheap labour products in preference to Australian products.

Mr BLACKLOW:
Franklin

.- I support the amendment of the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson). During the last federal election, the party to which I belong promised that if put into office, it would bring about an early revision of the tariff, and refer all items to the Tariff Board for investigation and report. I therefore see nothing wrong with the amendment, and I commend it to honorable members’ generally. This duty has not been altered since 1920, although, at the same time, conditions in Australia have changed considerably. During the last few years, this duty has conferred a considerable advantage on the manufacturers. They should now be well established, and able to meet overseas competition, and to give a more equitable deal to the primary producers. The duty under item 159b - wire, iron and steel for use in the manufacture of barbed wire and wire netting as prescribed by departmental by-law - is 52s. a ton, British preferential. It seems to me that the imposition . of this duty is likely to bring about monopolies in Australia. Any company which manufactures barbed wire from imported raw material, would be heavily penalized by this duty. By imposing a duty which will enable the local manufacturers, to charge whatever price they like, we are simply playing into the hands of combines. Excessive duties discourage competition, and are entirely unfair to the primary producers.

Mr NOCK:
Riverina

– I support the amendment of the honorable member for Gippsland. This duty was levied in 1920, when the price of wheat was 7s. 6d. a bushel. To-day, the price is 2s. Id. a bushel.

Mr White:

– What was the price in 1926?

Mr NOCK:

– About 6s. a bushel.

Mr White:

– This duty was recommended by the Tariff Board in 1926.

Mr NOCK:

– The Minister’s admission that, the Tariff Board recommended this duty at a time when the price of wheat was 6s., entirely justifies the request of the Country party. The supporters of thu Government have compared the prices of imported -hues delivered in this country, with local prices. I contend that the comparison should be between the price at the English factory and that at the Australian factory, due allowance being made for the additional cost, of producing the article .in this country. If ti) lit were done we should lino that the prices here and in England were far apart. We must also take into account the fact that, under the protectionist policy, we have- practically established a monopoly in the trade, and that, therefore, the manufacturers are under an obligation to treat the people of Australia fairly. To-day the price of barbed wire is practically the same as it was at the beginning of 1932.

Mr Paterson:

– What is the price to-day ?

Mr NOCK:

– About £25 us. a lon. During the last two years wages and interest rates have boon reduced. Therefore those persons who have invested capital in this industry must recognize that they cannot expect, the same return to-day a« they received a few years ago. In view of the monopoly that has been conferred upon the manufacturers, and in view of the fact that they are not standing up to their obligations, I sup-port the amendment for the postponement of the item pending the report of the Tariff Board.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Indi

.- The honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Blacklow) expressed the whole matter in a nutshell when he stated that the policy of the United Australian Party, us clearly announced at the elections, was the revision of the tariff* and the reference of all items to the Turill Board for investigation and report. . During the recent discussion of the position of the wool industry, I suggested that items such as barbed wire should have been among the first to be referred to the Tariff Board for report. The .tariff policy of the Government, arising out of the … - .- Ottawa trade agreement, is based on competitive rates of duty;. The. last report of the Turill Board on. barbed wire was framed, under a policy utterly different from that’ operating to-day. The Attorney-General (Mr. Latham),, speak ing ‘on the tariff, stressed the difference between the conditions existing to-day, and those which existed previously. The Minister just now admitted that, in 1926, when the Tariff Board made its report, the price of wheat wai 6$. a bushel, whereas to-day it is 2s. Id. Notwithstanding that fact, the price of barbed wire is much about the same as it was in 1926. During the last -two or three years the conditions of every primary and secondary industry in Australia have entirely altered. Wages and other costs have been -reduced. In some instances the earning power of efficient secondary industries is now based on the writing down of capital. The time is therefore ripe for a review of the duty on barbed wire. This item is of considerable importance to the primary producers, particularly those in the west of New South Wales and towards the centre of Western Australia. Those settlers have to copp with many pests, particularly the dingo in Western Australia, and barbed wire plays an important part in the erection of vermin-proof fences. Therefore any unwarranted excess cost in respect of that commodity mitigates largely against the successful settlement of the interior of Australia. I . urge the Minister to give the amendment serious consideration. As its acceptance would not mean a departure from the policy of the Government as announced at the last election,. the honorable gentleman should be able to agree to it.

Mr HUTCHIN:
Denison

.- The test which several honorable members have urged should bc applied in the determination of the duty that should be imposed on this commodity, ‘is the prices that are being received for primary products. Lo-day compared with those that were received up to 1930,’ To my mind,that is not the vital factor. By treaty arrangement with Great Britain, the whole of this tariff schedule - is subordinate to the articles’ contained in the Ottawa agreement ; consequently, the test that should be applied is, what is required by article 10 of that agreement; in otherwords, whether the duty does, in fact, give . effect to- ‘ the provisions of that article. Article 10 lays it down that the Australian tariff shall be so framed as to allow British manufacturers full opportunities of reasonable competition in Australia, on the basis of costs of production and efficiency in industry. The AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham), in justification of the continuance of the duties that have been in existence for some years, urged that the Australian industry had reduced prices, and that it was not exploiting the primary producer. Although that may be so, it is beside the point, just as is the price of wheat and of wool. I am not convinced that article 10 is being implemented hi this particular item; therefore, I consider that the matter should be referred to the Tariff Board. As it has been agreed that no duty shall be fixed without referring the matter to that tribunal, there should bo no objection to that course being followed.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I alI opposed to the amendment. This item involves one of the greatest industries in Australia, an industry which provides employment for a considerable number nf persons not only directly at the Newcastle Steel Works, but also in the obtaining of the iron ore and other things necessary for the manufacture of wire and other steel products. The Ottawa agreement is not involved, because Great. Britain is not a competitor of Australia in barbed wire, the imports of which would come principally from the United States of America. Figures that have been supplied by Lysaght Bros., in a communication dated the 20th March, 1933, show that the price current at the 1st January, 1930, was £22 10s. a ton, plus a bounty of £2 12a. a ton, and that the present price is £22 a ton, a reduction of £3 2s. a ton.

Mr McBride:

– That is the wholesale price.

Mr JAMES:

– I contend that the Country party hoa been treated fairly, not only by this, but also by previous Governments. The attitude of that party towards the duties on galvanized iron, wire netting, fencing wire, and barbed wive, would lead one to suppose ‘ that the primary producers are the sole users of those commodities, and that they are obliged to purchase fresh supplies of them every year. I would remind honorable members, however, that thousands of tons of iron and fencing wire are used in the con struction of homes, and for other purposes in cities and towns ‘ throughout Australia.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member may not discuss galvanized iron on this item.

Mr JAMES:

– I. am merely pointing out that this taxation is borne by those who live in metropolitan areas. Many tons of wire have been purchased for fencing purposes around the Lakeside reserve and along the shores of Lake Macquarie. The persons who make those purchases do not squeal about these duties, as the farmers continually do. Iu my opinion, therefore the argument is onesided, and should not be heeded.

Mr MCBRIDE:
Grey

.- I support the amendment. Barbed wire is peculiar, in that it is used practically exclusively by the agricultural and pastoral industries; consequently, the genera] community does not pay this tax. The wire generally used is 14 x 3 gauge, and according to a price list that I have from Lysaght Limited the present price to the consumer, in Sydney is £25 5s. u ton. On the 15th July, 1914, the price of that gauge was £17 10s. a ton. Thus there has been on increase of 44 per cent. The Attorney-Genera) has rightly said that even if no duty were imposed, we would not be importing this commodity from the United Kingdom at the present, time. But there are other countries from which, in pre-war times, Australia obtained supplies of barbed wire. Whilst I would do nothing contrary to the spirit of the Ottawa agreement, I suggest that that arrangement does not contemplate a virtual prohibition by Australia of importation from countries other than the United Kingdom. We export our own products to all parts of the world, and in order that we may negotiate trade agreements with other countries, it is essential that we allow them an opportunity to compete in the Australian market. At any rate, Uie margin of preference which Great Britain is entitled to receive isspecified in the Ottawa agreement, and in the light of that, the position pi barbed wire should be investigated by the Tariff Board whose report would be a valuable guide to this Parliament.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- The Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) said feat the present adverse exchange was not necessarily permanent, and, therefore, a reduction of the duty on barbed wire would be a mistake. I specifically mentioned that I desired that the item be referred to the Tariff Board for investigation as to whether , the present duties are necessary while the exchange rate is at 20 per cent, or over. The right honorable gentleman also treated the amendment as if I had proposed an actual reduction of duty. I have proposed merely a reference to the Tariff Board, and in view of the fact that the duty has been in operation for many ‘ years during which no inquiry has been held, there is sound reason for an expert investigation of it now. The AttorneyGeneral, in defence of the Government’s attitude, stated that the manufacturers of barbed wire in Australia were selling at a price which showed that they were able to compete with the British product without making use of this duty. If that is so, the retention of the duty of 6Ss. on British barbed wire is a breach of article 10 of the Ottawa agreement. That article provides that the protective duty shall not exceed such a level as will give the manufacturers of the United Kingdom full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of the relative cost of economical and efficient production. It is clear from what the AttorneyGeneral has said that without this duty the Australian manufacturers would be on a reasonably competitive basis. Therefore, the right honorable gentleman has, unwittingly, declared that his government, by retaining the duty of 68s. on barbed wire, from the United Kingdom, is guilty of a breach of article 10.

Mr GIBSON:
Corangamite

.- Some time ago the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) referred to an industry in which wool entered a machine at one end and came out woven and labelled goods at the other end. The manufacture of barbed wire is in the same category. I have seen a barbed wire factory in operation, and the machinery continuing to produce coils of wire in the absence of any attendant. This industry employs no labour; therefore, the protection of it cannot be justified as being in the interests of the workers. On the other hand, it is a direct burden on those who. are developing new country.

Mr THORBY:
Calare

– I support the amendment. The rate of duty is not the only matter to be considered by the Government. The principal manufacturers of barbed wire in New South Wales belong to one of the tightest combines in the Commonwealth, and to prevent competition are adopting tactics as unscrupulous as are adopted by any combine in other parts of the world. I challenge Lysaghts, Bylands, and other manufacturers to deny that statement. I could supply to the committee information regarding the manufacture of ‘barbed wire which would show that, under the cloak of protection, a watertight combine has been formed which is penalizing the consumers. I hope that the committee will agree to the amendment, if for no other purpose than to afford the other parties interested an opportunity to place their facts before the Tariff Board. An endeavour is being made to bolster up the price of barbed wire by charging to the manufacturers an unnecessarily high price for plain wire.

Mr MAXWELL:
Fawkner

.- I am at a loss to understand the reluctance of the Government to accept the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson). The mere fact that there is a pronounced difference of opinion in the committee regarding this duty is, to my thinking, sufficient reason why the matter should be made the subject of an expert investiga-tion. Having listened to the arguments pro and con, I am unable to express an opinion on the merits of this duty. There is no question that since it was imposed, conditions have materially changed, and in respect to it, we should avail ourselves of the valuable- assistance of the Tariff Board. I am heartily in sympathy with the amendment.

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

– During this discussion, a great deal of stress has been laid on article 10 of the Ottawa agreement. That article reads -

His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia undertake that during tha currency of this agreement, the .tariff shall be based on the principle that protective duties shall not exceed such a level as will give United Kingdom producers full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of the relative cost of economical and efficient production, provided that in the application of such principle, special consideration may be given to the case of industries not fully established.

Exchange is not mentioned in the article, but the amendment moved by the Acting Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson) proposes that the item shall be referred to the Tariff Board inthe light of the existing rate of exchange. The Government of the United Kingdom has been negotiating with the Commonwealth Government regarding the reconsideration of all duties on iron and steel. No protest against the existing duties has been made by British manufacturers, and, if honorablemembers are taking up the cudgels on behalf of Great Britain, their championship is unnecessary.

Mr Maxwell:

– Inview of the dissatisfaction of the primary producers with this duty, what is the Minister’s objection to referring it to experts for a report and recommendation?

Mr WHITE:

– It will be referred to the Tariff Board indue course. But the board is at present working at high pressure, and the Government does not desire, to impose a further burden upon it. When the British representative arrives in Australia to confer with representatives of the Commonwealth Government, the Government will decide what items in the iron and steel industry shall be referred to the board. The present duty of 68s. on barbed wire from Great Britain was imposed in 1920, and all Governments since that time have permitted it to remain, and have subscribed to the principle that the cost of protection should be borne by the user, instead of being spread over the whole community. I ask the Leader of the Country party, if he thinks that this is an anomaly, why he did not rectify it when he was a Minister of the Bruce-Page Government?

Mr Paterson:

– As I stated this afternoon I raised the subject.

Mr Scullin:

– Where did the honorable member raise it ?

Mr Paterson:

– I cannot disclose Cabinet secrets.

Mr WHITE:

– As I was not in Parliament at that time I am not aware what the honorable gentleman thought and did. Boiled down this is a matter of price. On recent English quotations a duty of 68s. a ton is equivalent to 17 per cent. on 14 gauge, and19 per cent. on 12½ gauge barbed wire. The c.i.f.e. prices of English barbed wire at Australian ports are £26 5s.1d. for 14 gauge, and £23 15s.1d. for 12½ gauge, landing charges amounting to an additional 10s. 6d. a ton. Therefore, the landedinstore costs, exclusive of duty, are £26 15s. 7d. for 14 gauge and £24 5s. 7d. for 12½ gauge barbed wire, as against landed-in-store costs of Australian barbed wire at all ports of £23 18s. 6d. and £22 8s. 6d. respectively. If the duty were added to the English cost, the disparity between the English and f.o.b. prices would be considerably greater.

Mr Prowse:

– Take the duty off.

Mr WHITE:

– I have already said something about aggressive selfishness. The honorable member seeks duties favorable only to one section, not to the whole community. The selling prices that I have quoted clearly indicate that Australian manufacturers are not taking advantage of the present exchange situation or the duty. It may be. argued that, this constitutes grounds for the removal of the duty.

Mr Paterson:

– It does, if the terms of article 10 are adhered to.

Mr WHITE:

– I have already dealt with that aspect of the matter. Obviously, it is impracticable to have scattered throughout the tariff, items under which duties have been adjusted to the exchange situation. Any action in the direction of making allowance from duty on account of the incidence of exchange must be determined in principle, and relates to the protective tariff as a whole, not to isolated items. The acting leader of the Country party knows that a special Tariff Board inquiry is now proceeding into the effect of the incidence of exchange upon imports. When that inquiry is completed the matter can be dealt with comprehensively. In the meantime it would not be right to pick out odd items and suggest that the protection afforded by exchange should be considered when fixing rates of duty.

The manufacture of barbed wire is complementary to the production of fencing wire and wire netting, and in 1926 the Tariff Board conducted an exhaustive investigation into this branch ofthe iron and steel industry.. In recommending the retention of the 68s. duty on barbed wire, the board furnished the following information as to the position regarding the manufacture of these three commodities-

Mr Gregory:

– Did it recommend the existing foreign rate?

Mr WHITE:

– Our foreign imports have been chiefly from Germany. I have quoted only English prices, to which it would be advisable to confine our attention. The following are the reasons then advanced by the board:-

One thousand five hundred employees were engaged by Lysaght Brothers and Company Limited.
Six hundred and fifty employees were engaged byRylands Brothers (Aust. ) Limited.
Tasmanian spelter to the value of approximately £200,000 per annum was obtained by Lysaght Brothers and Company Limited, and between 35.000 and 40,000 tons of wire rods were used by that company for wire drawing.
Lysaght Brothers and Company claim to be the biggest manufacturer of wire netting in the world. The annual output represented 10,000 miles.
Direct employment was given to about 3,000 persons, and indirect employment to about 2,000.
The capital amounted to £1,000 000. 7.Practically the whole of the raw material and the machinery used was Australian.
The quality was equal to the bust British product.
Local industry was efficiently equipped and capable of meeting Australian requirements. The local manufacturers had supplied the greater proportion of Australian requirements.
The board was satisfied that the arrangement between the Australian manufacturers did not result in restraint of trade or the charging of unduly high prices.
The board was also satisfied as to the importance of the industry to the Commonwealth, both from an economic and from a national standpoint. Past experience had demonstrated the desirability of, and in fact the absolute necessity for Australia to be freed from dependence on overseas supplies of a commodity so necessary to the development of the primary industries in Australia.
Considerable disparity existed between the wages in the United Kingdom and Australia.

Mr Gibson:

– What proportion of the labour referred to is used in the production of barbed wire?

Mr WHITE:

– That would be difficult to determine. The production of each class of wire is co-related in one big industry.

In response to the appeal made by this Government in January, 1932, to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company and subsidiary companies, for a lowering of the prices of these commodities to assist in the rehabilitation of industry, those companies made substantial reductions in the price of the fencing wire, wire netting, and steel products extending over the whole range of their manufactures. The manufacturers of galvanized iron also responded to the Government’s appeal, and reduced the price by £2 per ton. The honorable member for Swan referred to a case which he took up, and to a letter with the contents of which, he said, I was familiar. Although he declared that it wasin his possession, the honorable member failed to read the letter. He claimed that the so-called monopoly had been pressing certain manufacturers out of existence, and that, on his representations, the Government promised that the matter would be inquired into. I do not desire to take any credit from the honorable member, of whom my recollection is that his speeches are always confined to barbed wire and galvanized iron. That impression is supported by a newspaper report which I read last week, which declared that he was still continuing in Canberra a speech he started in Melbourne. If the honorable member casts his memory back, he will recall that I asked, in this chamber, whether the manufacturers would be permitted to receive wire under by-law, to allow those who were being oppressed to carry on, and to compete against the alleged monopoly. It was revealed that, because of the existing competition, primary producers were buying barbed wire at considerably less than the cost of production. Certain barbed wire and nail manufacturers inVictoria complained that they had to pay more for the raw material than they received for the finished product. It was claimed that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company wanted to keep certain manufacturers out of some of . the States. However, we were not able to prove that that statement was correct. My predecessor in office did the right thing, and referred the matter to the Tariff Board. The manufacturers of barbed wire and nails, who had been complaining, then came to an agreement. There was a price reduction, and an arrangement of which I never heard the full details. The result was that the matter was not referred to the Tariff Board.

Mr Thorby:

– Those persons were deceived.

Mr WHITE:

– I gave the honorable member, also the honorable member for Swan, details at the time. That agreement prevented the Minister for Trade and Customs going on with the matter. So that the honorable member for Swan has told us nothing new. We merely find that certain people, who could have gone to the Tariff Board, decided that they would not do so. Of course, if they were hostile, they could not be made to give evidence.

.- I think the foreign duty was imposed on barbed wire when the Canadian article was selling in the country of origin at £12 a ton. At that time the duty was £9 a ton. We were then paying £24 a ton. That was in 1926.I have not looked up the figures recently. Certain remarks by the Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) require some comment. I have pointed out that, although there is an embargo on the importation of this wire, certain drawers of the wire threatened a Melbourne firm that if it did. not increase its price by £6 a ton, goods would be dumped against them to the detriment of their business. Surely we are entitled to expect more freedom in our trade than that. When threats of that kind are made, it is time for the Minister to act. Manufacturers should not be allowed to impose this kind of restraint upon trade. I am astonished that the Minister should admit that he approves of the adoption of such a practice.

Question - That the item be postponed - put (Mr. Paterson’s amendment). The committee divided.

AYES: 21

NOES: 35

Majority . . . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 158 (Wire Netting)-

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

Mr Gregory:

– I ask that the antidumping proclamation be withdrawn.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– The honorable member for Swan has been such a staunch opponent of the payment of bounties, that I cannot understand his favoring a return to that system iu the case of wire netting. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the present system. The British manufacturers have free access to our market, and there is a reasonable tariff against the importation of wire netting from the United States of America and other foreign countries. In comparison with the price which Britain charges for wire netting in other countries, the Australian price is reasonable, and we cannot have Australia made a dumping place for Britain’s surplus production.

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

– The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) tried to make us believe that there was something wrong in the anti-dumping provisions, as they apply to wire netting. This is the provision of which he complained -

A dumping duty may be imposed on wire nutting if it is sold to the Australian purchaser by the British exporter at a price which is lower than the domestic price in Great Britain and provided that the landed cost in Australia is lower than the manufacturer’s selling price of Australian-made wire netting.

Suppose wire netting was quoted at ,£25 a ton in Great Britain, but was invoiced at £20 a. ton when imported from that, country into Australia ; if that wire netting, > hen landed in Australia, was sold at less than the price of Australian-made netting, the dumping duty would apply. The anti-dumping duty would be imposed only if the English exporter were deliberately selling his product in Australia “"”at a price less than that for which he sold it in his own country, and were at the same time under-cutting the Austraiian manufacturer. The Tariff Board has inquired into this matter, and the report will be available shortly.

Item agreed to.

Item 159 sub-items (a) (b) (Wire).

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- Item 159 a deals with “ wire n.e.i. “ which is free, British ; and 15 per cent., general. Item 136 e, of group 8, however, covering metals and machinery, refers to wire “ other,” which carries a duty of 172s. and 173s. It is somewhat difficult to follow the differentiation. It is rather difficult to distinguish between “ wire, other “ and “ wire, n.e.i.” I think that it would be advisable to state what kind of wire is meant by “wire, n.e.i.”, since “wire, other” carries duties of 52s. per ton British, and 172s. per ton general, while on the other item, the rates are British preferential free, and general tariff 15 per cent.

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

– Item 136 applies specifically to wire made of iron or steel, whereas under item 159, wire, n.e.i.. may include non-ferrous wire, such as copper, brass, aluminium, bronze, and many other kinds of wire.

Item agreed to.

Item 160 sub-item (a), agreed to.

Item 161 sub-item (a) (Agricultural, horticultural, and viticultural machinery and -implements, n.e.i.) -

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- Items 161, 162, 163, 165 and 171 relate to similar articles, and, it would save a considerable amount of time if I could submit an amendment that would apply to all of them.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member may not move an amendment applying to all those items, but a test vote could be taken upon an amendment on the item now under consideration.

Mr PROWSE:

– I move- *

That sub-,i,te,n (a) be postponed.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- The representatives of the Country party, in their criticism of the tariff, have been most unfortunate in their selection of items. Their stock in trade seems to be galvanized iron and barbed wire, and if those items were obliterated from the tariff schedule, they would have no propaganda at all at their disposal. The Acting Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson), when examining the list of farming implements, found one item relating to horse-drawn mowers, and, as one honorable member reminded him, he compared like with unlike. He compared an inferior English article with a vastly superior Australian article. His contention was based mostly on presumption. In comparing the English price with the Australian price, he failed to take into consideration the cost of freight from England to Australia, and the difference between sterling and Australian currency. What is this commotion which has been raised by members of the Country party? They wanted the Government to take action with, respect to a number of items without any reference to the Tariff Board.

Mr Paterson:

– No. We asked that the items be submitted to the board.

Mr FORDE:

– The honorable member criticized the Government for not having slashed, by a rule-of-thumb method, tariff items from one end of the schedule to the other. It is true that in this instance, the honorable member has moved to postpone the item with a view to having it referred to the Tariff Board, but he must know that il has already been listed for report by that board. I have been informed by an outside organization that the applicant for the reconsideration of the duties on farming implements was the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory). As a result of an application by that honorable member, the then Minister for Trade and Customs (Sir Henry Gullett) referred the items to the “Tariff Board for public inquiry and report. The board has listed the items for investigation, and the .interested parties have been advised that an inquiry is to take place. It is extraordinary that this sham fight should have been put up by the Country party.

Mr Prowse:

– The honorable member knows all about sham fights.

Mr FORDE:

– The honorable member put up a sham fight on the tobacco issue, and ran away when the vote was taken.

The implement-making industry is of considerable importance to Australia, because agrcultural conditions in a young country like this are different from those obtaining in most of the older countries of the world. We have varying soils. We have country consisting of red loam, black land and sandy soil: we have also the Mallee, a most difficult type of country; we cultivate also, land only partially cleared of stumps and stones. At various times, such areas have been thrown open for agricultural and closer settlement purposes. The manufacturers of fanning implements have played an important part in evolving new kinds of machines for the cultivation of difficult country.

Mr Hughes:

– They have led the world.

Mr FORDE:

– They have led the world and our inventions have been copied by other nations. Let me inform those honorable members who have at times roundly condemned the pioneers of our implement-making industry that this great national undertaking is a prolific user of the products- of the great iron and steel works of Newcastle, and is thus of vast importance to Australia from a defence point of view. In wai* time it is imperative for Australia to have, not only its own iron and steel industry, but also its own farming implement factories. One would think from the utterances of the representatives of the Country party that the implement manufacturers have not been prepared to give a fair deal to the primary producer. What have they actually done for the man on the land? They have made superior machines, which are available to the producers at lower prices than those ruling in other parts of the world for inferior machines. They have made the local primary producer independent of overseas manufacturers and importers. The stripper-harvester, which’ is unchallengeably of Australian invention, has been brought to a high standard of perfection in this country. The machine, which is now being made with a 12-ft. cut. is a labour-saving device, for .Australian wheat-growers to the extent of many millions of pounds sterling. It has. put Australia on the map as a wheatproducing and exporting’ country. It enables the farmer to harvest all the acreage which he cares to plant, and it saves in harvesting expenses as much a bushel as the cost of railing the grain to . the seaboard and . freighting it to Europe. The header-harvester or reaperthresher is also an Australian invention. When heavy rain falls just before harvest, crops become badly tangled, and are sometimes flattened to the ground. Under such conditions it is not possible to gather all the grain with the stripper-harvester, which is designed only to take off the heads of grain without taking much straw, and it is only when the crop is standing that that can be done to perfection. Australian inventors, therefore, designed the header-harvester, which is capable of cutting an enormous quantity of straw, passing it through its threshing devices, and extracting the grain therefrom. It is estimated that in one season alone, when much rain had fallen just before harvesting, the use of the croplifter device saved the wheat-farmers of Australia £1,000,000. Overseas firms have copied Australian inventions in respect of the following machines: - The stripper-harvester, the reaper-thresher, the set beam- governor steerage plough, the stump-jump mouldboard plough, the stump-jump disc plough, and the combination drill and cultivator. I have no doubt that the Tariff Board will carefully investigate every aspect of this industry. My only fear is that the board, taking its lead from the Government, may make some drastic alteration of duty which will militate against the progress and development of this industry and bring about further unemployment. In 1930-31, the agricultural implement-making industry employed 3,043 hands and paid £607,421 in salaries and wages. The value of its production was £832,891, and the plant, machinery, land, and buildings in use were valued at £1,296,067. That the importance of this industry is appreciated in the United States of America is apparent from the following statement which appeared in a bulletin issued by the Department of Commerce, United States of America : -

The enormous increase in wheat-growing in Australia would hardly have been possible had not suitable machinery been evolved capable of satisfactorily handling the matured crops under tlie climatic and labour conditions provailing in that country. The entire credit for the development and perfection of the stripper, and, later on, of the stripper-harvester, is due to the Australians themselves, as both of these machines were invented and first perfected in that country. ‘ When it is considered that these machines as built at. present are but little different from the first ones built, and that under ordinary conditions they work in a most excellent manner, it must be admitted that Australian agricultural engineers are second to none when given an equal opportunity.

Because of local competition, our farmers have a decided advantage over the producers of other countries. The following is a comparison of prices of foreign agricultural implements in South Africa, British East Africa, and New Zealand with prices of Australian agricultural implements : -

The Tariff Board, in its last report relating to prices of implements, stated - in the case of New Zealand prices, the. board has examined figures back to 1920, and has found that the prices in New Zealand of certain imported drills, ploughs, disc ploughs, and harrows were, on an average, nearly 19 per cent, dearer than identically similar implements imported into Australia.

In 1924, a similar position still existed, at least in those classes of implements, the manufacture of which was firmly established in Australia, and the information before the Tariff Board is that iu that year imported ploughs, harrows, cultivators, and small kerosene engines were on an average about 7$ per cent, dearer in New Zealand than identically similar imported goods in Australia.

That was a very intelligent Tariff Board, comprising, ‘as it. did, such men as Her.bert Brookes, George Hudson, David Masterton, and Walter Leitch. It was a board with a protectionist outlook, and I inn certain that the agricultural implements industry would have nothing to fear from a close and careful investigation of its affairs by a board of similar calibre to-day.

After hearing evidence in every State iu Australia, and considering the representations of the importing interests, the primary producers, and the Australian manufacturers, the ‘board summarized its report in the following terms: -

Australian-made implements are sold cheaper, than imported implements.

The prices of Australian-made implements have been regularly and consistently reduced since the protective tariff of -1020-21 was introduced.

There is no need to import dutiable agricultural implements.

The ‘Australian farmer has the advantage of efficient service from factories “ on the spot “.

Australian implement makers are not charging excessive prices, neither are they making excessive profits.

The effect of the tariff on agricultural implements is not detrimental to the best interests of the primary producer.

What is the reason for all the present commotion, and the demand that, the matter be again referred to the Tariff Board for investigation and report? According to outside organizations, for the last three months interested parties have been acquainted with the position, and an inquiry is being held in response to the application of the Hon. H. Gregory, M.P. Is the Country party not cognizant of that fact, or is it rushing will-nilly into an attack on the tariff in the hope that it may convey the impression that it alone can save the country, when in reality it would deprive the uri mary producers of Australia of a local market, which from one end of the world to the other is recognized as the best possible market that can be procured?

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- The honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) has founded his speech on the brief that has been supplied to him by the manufacturers of agricultural implements. I admit at the outset that, very great credit is due to those masters of industry, the McKays’, for the magnificent works that they have established; but one cannot help wondering why this excessive protection is required by them. The honorable member for Capricornia has supplied the committee with figures showing the prices that are charged for agricultural implements in New Zealand, South Africa, and the Argentine. How is it that, with all the wonderful resources that Australia possesses, including everything that is essential to the manufacture of these implements, there has been no exploring ,by Australian agricultural implement makers of the market in New Zealand, South Africa, and the Argentine, where this machinery is being sold at much higher prices than those that rule in Australia? It would appear that there is hero presented a splendid opportunity to get rid of our adverse trade hal ante. At one time Australia did a very fine trade with the Argentine, but lost it during the war. Why is it that the owners of the Sunshine Harvester Works have sent to Canada Australian engineers and Australian capital, with orders to commence the manufacture there of agricultural implements, with a view to an endeavour being made to capture the Argentine trade? And Canada, we must remember, is a country which has to import most, of its pig iron and coal, and in which the factory wages are higher than those that are paid in Australia. In these circumstances it would be interesting to learn why the Canadian farmer is able to purchase a reaper and binder at nearly half the price that is charged in Australia. A few years ago a number of reapers and binders were sent from Australia to New Zealand to compete on that market, but in the following year we exported only a few pounds weight of parts. Why should the Australian farmer be mulcted in these extra charges? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the report of the Tariff Board in connexion with this matter, but did not read the whole of its epitome. It also said -

If a farmer insists on using an imported machine, it is not unfair to expect him to pay the duty.

Australian implement makers are not charging excessive prices, neither are they making excessive profits.

Tracing the history and setting out the position of T. Robinson and Company, the report states -

This was followed by five years of steady progress, in which each year a dividend of 10 per cent, was paid. In 1923, the dividend paid was 15 per cent., and in 1924, 20 per cent. In 1924, this company, in addition, distributed £60,000 in bonus shares, raising their capital issue from 40,000 to ‘ 100,000 out of the reserves that had been accumulated over a period of seven years. The very pronounced success of this company during the last two years has been, in the main, duc to the improvements made in their stripper-harvester, which gave thom something of a preponderance of this business, and enabled them to mass produce. During the last four years they have made reductions in the price of this machine.

In the light of that quotation, can it be said that excessive profits were not -made ? In both the United States of America and Canada the wages are higher than those that are paid in Australia, and the difficulties that have to be overcome are equally as great. In -view of the marvellous success of the industry in Australia, and the profits that are made, a further inquiry should he held to determine whether the proposed duties are necessary.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

. - The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) has read the report of the Tariff Board concerning the history and the position of T. Robinson and Company. From the point at which the honorable member concluded his quotation, the board went on to say -

Firms such as this one that have succeeded in mass production should not be discouraged. They are entitled to good profits, and the community that encourages such is likely to progress. The Tariff Board has impressed upon this firm the necessity for further reductions in prices, and will, in future, keep in touch with them, and with all other such firms similarly circumstanced, and press for the limit of price concession.

The Tariff Board is impressed with the necessity, when considering the case of firm? engaged in the agricultural implement industry, such as this one, and the question of profits earned by them, to have in mind the very large capital engaged in the undertaking, as represented by internal reserves and bank overdrafts, in addition to the amount of subscribed capital. Such firms perform the services of banking institutions by extending long credits on hire-and-purchase agreements, which are of stupendous importance to the primary producers, and, furthermore, are involved in heavy annual expenditure in the maintenance of expert staffs who educate the primary producer in the use and care of modern agricultural implements.

Having considered all these facts, including the profits that were madeby the company mentioned, the hoard arrived at the following conclusions : -

The effect of the tariff on agricultural implements is not detrimental to the best interests of the primary producer.
The manufacturing costs and selling prices of the Australian manufacturers of agricultural implements have been thoroughly investigated and show that the prices which are charged do not return “excessive profits to the manufacturers.
… It is estimated that, measured in terms of bushels of wheat, the burden of increased costs is equal to . 292 of a penny per bushel of wheat produced. . . .

– The honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) said that English mowers could be bought, in Great Britain at £13 10s., and by this figure he endeavoured to prove the contention, of the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) that’ the price of the Australian article is 100 per cent, greater. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) rightly pointed out the unfairness of comparing a price quoted in sterling with a price in Australian currency. Apart from exchange, freight and other charges have to be added to the English price. If the machine were landed here free of duty, it would cost £19. 14s.: with duty added the price would be £24 2s.; but the machine would not be sold for that amount. He states that the Australian mower costs £27 10s. It must be obvious from these figures that the local machine is competitive in price. I shall quote some figures to show the difference between the prices of Australian and other mowers. In 1928-29, when 45 machines were imported into the Commonwealth, the price was £24 each, and in 1930-31, when 21 machines were imported, the price was £21. According to the latest report of the Tariff Board, the price of the imported machine was £30. We are told that the price of these mowers in England is £13 .10s.. and the suggestion is that the Australian farmers could buy them for that price.

Mr Hughes:

– Even the British farmers cannot do so.

Mr WHITE:

– That is so. The cheapest machine that the British farmer pa ti buy is a Massey-Harris implement - made in France,- and it costs the British fanner £19 19s. A Massey-Harris machine landed at Durban costs £25 10s. in gold. In Australian currency the price would be £26 6s. 6d. Then it must he remembered that the 3-ft. 6-in. machines of Australian make weigh 6 cwt. 1 qr. 20 lb., whereas the MasseyHarris machine weighs 3 cwt. 3 qr. 23 lb. Honorable members will realize, therefore, how misleading are many of the figures that are quoted during a discussion like this by honorable members who are engaged in propaganda in favour of certain interests, and against a government which does not stand for prohibitions.

I direct the attention of honorable members to the following extract from the report of the Tariff Board on this subject : -

In concluding this report, the Tariff Board would mention that for some considerable time now the agricultural implement makers in Australia seem to have been made the chief target of attack by those who are critical of the protectionist system which has been adopted by the people of Australia. The Tariff Board considers, in view of its exhaustive investigation and report, this industry might be permitted to perform its useful functions to the community without being made the main objective of such attack.

Every phase of this matter has now been examined by the board. The result of the investigation is wholly favorable to the local industry, and the Tariff Board unanimously agrees that the protective duties should not be disturbed.

Mr Paterson:

– That report was made seven years ago.

Mr.WHITE. - Honorable members should realize that there is no sales tax on these machines, because the Government desires our primary producers to obtain the machines at the lowest possible price. In this connexion the following tables are most informative : -

page 422

PRICES OF AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS

Difference infavour of Australian. 6-ft. reaper and binder - £12 8s. less than in Argentine, even though prices in Argentine are on a sterling basis. 8-ft. reaper and binder - £14 13s. less than in Argentine. 8-ft. reaper harvester - £90 10s. 6d. less than in South Africa. 10-ft. header harvester - £145 8s.6d. less than in Argentine. 14 x 29 cultivating drill - £4 0s. 9d. less than in South Africa. 15-disc drill - £136s. 4d. less than in South Africa. 10-disc harrow (16-inch disc) - £2 16s. 3d. less than in South Africa.

– But our industrial position then was not comparable with that of to-day. The honorable member knows that. He also must know that, in their earlier years, our secondary industries had to overcome extraordinary difficulties. I recall the time when the firm of H. V. McKay, now the largest agricultural implement, making firm in Australia, and one of the largest in the world, had to suspend payment of wages to its employees in Ballarat, where the works were first established. In those days it was not an uncommon experience for employees in such industries to work, very often for weeks, without wages, because of the parlous condition of the industry. Such was the condition of the agricultural implement industry before the duties were imposed, so when honorable members talk about these works being established before the imposition of protective duties, they are misleading the committee, because they are not giving the facts. The Tariff Board report has been sneered at so often during this debate because it was made about seven and a half years ago. One honorable member erred in saying that ii was nine years old. My reply to that gibe is that it was the result of one of the most thorough investigations ever made into the industry, and that, although it may not bc up to date in some respects, the principle upon which it was based still stands. Let me make one or two quotations from it -

Imported implements are sold cheaper in Australia than in Argentine.

Argentine, I remind the committee, is a freetrade country.

Mr Hughes:

– Are the farmers there doing well?

Mi-. SCULLIN.- They are obliged to pay more for their agricultural machinery than is charged to our farmers under protection, and, as I have just shown, they are not so well off. May not we deduce from this statement by the Tariff Board that the establishment of successful secondary industries in Aus- fl->] tralia under a system of protection has been responsible for healthy local competition, thus enabling our farmers to obtain their machinery at prices lower than are charged to farmers in freetrade Argentine? The Tariff Board also stated -

The Australian-invented implements have made it possible to produce wheat in the Commonwealth at a lower cost than any other country in the world, and 30 per cent, cheaper than in the United States of America.

Here is another quotation -

Lit the opinion of the Tariff Board the prices of agricultural implements are, in all probability, much lower in Australia with protection and local mann fa etu re than they would be- under freetrade had no local manufacture existed.

Mr Paterson:

– I did not say they were.

Mr SCULLIN:

– No ; but when he was a Minister, the honorable gentleman did not attack them on the floor of the House. lt is true that, he conveyed the impression that he made his protest in Cabinet, but when challenged on this point, he said he did not intend to divulge Cabinet secrets. Had not he. already done so? The Postmaster-General (Mr. Parkhill) in respect of another matter, took up the same attitude, and when he was attacked ‘by the Acting Leader of the Country party, he offered the same defence - “I am only one member of the Cabinet.” I object to the way in which these honorable gentlemen now shelter themselves when a charge of inconsistency is levelled against them. Although this Tariff Board report is seven and a half years old, it was made subsequent to the imposition of the exist ing duties. This is. the point which I would impress on honorable members in the Country party when they talk about these “ high duties “. I have shown that at least two Country party members were members of a government that operated them, yet did nothing to have them reduced.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- I am satisfied with the assurance of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) that the Tariff Board will be asked to report upon these items very shortly. We were aware that this question had been submitted to the board, and the object of the amendment was to obtain from the Minister a promise that that body would be asked, at an early date, to make the inquiries. We are now satisfied on that point. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) did me rather less than justice when he suggested that I attempted directly to compare the British price of £13 10s. with the Australian price of £27 10s. for a 3-ft. 6-in. mower. I made it quite clear that £13 10s. was the - British f.o.b. price - not the price to the British farmer - and I quoted from letters which showed that, with exchange, the Australian price would he increased to about £17. I then went on to say that if machines of that kind, or better still, if Australian machines, could be sold retail at about £21, many small farmers would be able to buy them, but that they could not afford to pay £27 10s., the price quoted to me in Sydney.

Mr White:

– The Melbourne selling price is £26 6s.

Mr PATERSON:

– It is true that, in concluding my remarks, I made a comparison between the British f.o.b. price of £13 10s. and the Australian price of £27 10s., but .only in this way: I said that the margin between £13 10s. f.o.b. and the Australian manufacturers’ price of £27 10s. was too great, even allowing for exchange and all other costs, and that it was the best evidence we could wish to get of the necessity for an immediate investigation by the Tariff Board. I am glad that the Minister has agreed to speed up an inquiry.

Mr PROWSE:

– I understood the Minister to say that he would expedite the inquiry by ‘ the Tariff Board. As, apparently, he declines to give that assurance, we propose to press our amendment.

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

– As a matter of fact, the item has been before the Tariff Board for some weeks. It seems to me that honorable members are merely quibbling, but if it will satisfy them to receive the assurance, I can promise them that the inquiry will be expedited as far as possible.

Mr Prowse:

– On that assurance I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Leave not granted.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– I should not have addressed myself to this item were it not that it is evidently proposed to press the amendment to a division. Honorable members have admitted that the British duty is not too high, so that the only object in urging a Tariff Board inquiry into the matter must be to have the foreign duty reduced. In myopinion, the foreign duty, far from being reduced, should be increased, because most of the machinery that would be affected comes from the United States of America. This Parliament ought to be prepared to impose a duty of 100 per cent. against goods from that country. Australian-made machinery is admittedly as good as that made in any part of the world, so that there is no justification for importing machinery’ from the United States of America, which buys nothing from us, not even our primary produce, which, after all, the British working man does. If we do not want Australian machinery, then let us buy British, on which all admit that the duty is reasonable. If this item is submitted to the Tariff Board, anything may happen.

Mr Thorby:

– Of what is the honorable member frightened?

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– I have reason to be frightened of what the Tariff Board may do. The only extensive machinery manufacturing firm in Australia, Walker’s Limited, which has been subjected to inquiry by the Tariff Board in recent years, happens to be situated in my electorate. Recently, upon the recommendation of the Tariff Board, the duty of 45 per cent. on certain British machinery was abolished, and that machinery is now admitted free. The result has been that the manufacture of Diesel engines has been stopped, and there is not one man working in that section of tne industry where there should now be 250. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) said that he could not speak as a primary producer. I can, and, as a primary producer, I endorse his remarks. If we, by removing duties, kill our manufacturing industries, We shall lose an important market for much of our primary produce, because some of our farmers produce entirely for the local market. Honorable members have spoken of the wheat-growers, and it is no doubt true that they are in a bad way ; but they are not the only primary producers. I believe that if this matter is handed over to the Tariff Board for review and report, there is a grave danger of injuring an important section of the primary producers in this country. In the Argentine, where there is no tariff and where there are no local manufactures, foreign-made implements are sold at a higher price than are Australian-made or foreign implements here. The competition of local manufacturers in Australia has the effect of keeping down the price of foreign implements sold on the Australian market. No doubt the wheat-growers are suffering hardships ; but, after all, they have been helped to the extent of £5,360,000 in the last two years, and surely we ought to give the Australian workers and our primary producers a chance. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse), who is a free trader, has moved an amendment to this item, his object being to reduce the duty on machinery made in the United States of America. If he succeeds in that, the effect will be detrimental, not only to Australian workmen, but to Australian primary producers as well. For that reason, I oppose it.

Question - That sub-item (a) be postponed (Mr. Prowse’s amendment) - put. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. Bell.)

AYES: 16

NOES: 39

Majority … . . 23

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Sub-item agreed to.

Items 162, 163, 165, and 166 agreed to.

Item 167 (Metal parts of reaper threshers, stripper, harvesters, strippers, and harvesters, n.e.i.)

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

iMany complaints are made regarding the very heavy prices that have to be paid for machinery parts. I have an invoice before me showing that on certain of these parts, the factory cost of which is £1,624 14s. 5d., the duties total no less than £.1,268 13s. Hd. The duty on the outside casing alone amount’s to £15 2s. A short time ago, the Government, in its desire to help the primary industries, took the primage duty off the casing; hut because essential tools were included it was subsequently reimposed. I had a letter from the Assistant Minister (Mr. Guy) stating that it would be unfair to the local tool makers if that primage were not charged. In the case of the goods comprised in the invoice to which I have referred, the primage amounted to about £246, and the sales tax to about £271, and the actual cost of the goods was £1,801 16s. Id. above the factory cost. I have another statement showing that on machinery parts to the value of £23 0s. 7d., the customs duty alone amounted to £93 12s., while other charges brought the total cost of importation up to £9S 4s. lOd. I do not, intend to press this matter to a division ; but I hope that the Minister will give consideration to the substitution of an ad valorem duty for the proposed fixed duty of so much per lb. If this were done, far less complaint would be heard regarding these imposts.

Mr GIBSON:
Corangamite

– I support the request of the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory). The Government would not be doing too much if it reduced the duties on parts which are required to keep old machinery in working order. We have seen the amalgamation of the Massey Harris Company with H. V. McKay and Company, and now the Massey Harris stripper is manufactured in Australia in conjunction with the McKay harvester. The parts referred to are merely duplicates that fit into old strippers, and into the Massey Harris harvesters as previously imported. If the Government accedes to this request it will be assisting those primary producers who cannot afford to buy new machinery to tide themselves over these difficult times.

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

.- The request appears to me a reasonable one, and I shall ask the Tariff Board to consider whether an ad valorem duty would be fairer than a fixed duty. Yet it seems incomprehensible that anybody would order £1,600 worth of spare parts when the customs duties amounted to £1,200. Anybody doing that would deserve to pay the prescribed duty, because almost any spare part for agricultural machinery can be made in Australia. Of course, in the case of some obsolete machines it might be necessary to make patterns to enable those parts to be turned out by a local foundry, but to avoid a duty equivalent to 75 per cent, it would be better to place orders for these parts with local engineering firms. However, the whole matter is now before the Tariff Board, and I shall ask it to give consideration to the request that has been made.

. - I have been somewhat mystified by the remarks of the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Gibson). I was much struck with his argument, and, for the moment, I thought that he was referring to something that I had done, because I remember encouraging a company to start copper wire drawing at Port Kembla: but it appears that his remarks had nothing to do with anything for which I can be held responsible. The honorable member endeavoured to show that the Commonwealth, in protecting local manufacturers, had been loaded with additional costs amounting to £700,000, but according to the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) the honorable member, when Postmaster-General, could have imported the material without having to pay any duty at all. I fail to understand the honorable member’s point. The answer to the point taken by the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson), as to the small quantity of imports, is to be found in the remarks of the honorable member for Corangamite, who said that the value of the output of the Australian factories in two years -was £25,000. There is only one buyer, and that is the people of this country. We buy it and, as has been pointed out, we need not pay any duty on imported wire. There was no need for us to buy from the local manufacturers, unless we had made some arrangement with them to that effect, but if any arrangements were made they must have been made at the time the honorable member was Postmaster-General.

Mr GIBSON:
Corangamite

.- The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) seems to think that the Government should hand out money freely, and should not be liable for the payment of duties. He has had ministerial experience, and he knows as well as I do that every tender is submitted to the Tender Board, and that that body, in considering them, must take the duty into consideration. The duty must be credited to the local manufacturer before any decision as to the tenders can be arrived at. Further than that, certain departmental preference must be given. I cannot at the moment say what that preference was when I was PostmasterGeneral, but the right honorable member for North Sydney knows what it was during his term of office. No doubt the Minister for Trade and Customs knows the extent of the departmental preference given by this Government. But before any tender could be accepted by the Tender Board, the approval of the

Minister bad to be obtained. The Government could not say that it would purchase foreign material and thus evade the duty, lt was in duty bound to accept the decision of the Tender Board.

Mr Scullin:

– Is the Government, bound by any statute to accept the decision of the Tender Board?

Mr GIBSON:

– No; but the Government is in duty bound to accept the decision of the Tender Board after it had taken every aspect into consideration.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– I am surprised at the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Gibson) in making his complaint at. this late stage. When I was Postmaster-General, I was not at all satisfied with the way in which matters were conducted in regard to tenders for the supply of telephone cables, and I think that the departmental documents will show’ that not one tender but two tenders were accepted - one local and one overseas. .1 believe the position in respect of the requirements of the department is being investigated at the present time. I understand that some years ago, when the Government was short of telephone material, it encouraged certain manufacturers to start this industry in Australia. The Commonwealth Government has, from time to time, purchased, material from the company, and I presume that it is in duty bound to give it considerable support. In recent years the cable requirements of the Postal Department have fallen to zero, and consequently there is little opportunity for local manufacture or for the importation of materials. The honorable member for Corangamite stated that during his term of office, the local tender was £226,000, and the German tender £116,000. When I was Postmaster-General, there were three tenders - local, foreign and British, but there was not nearly the difference between the British and the Australian tenders as there was between the foreign and the Australian tenders. If the matter were inquired into, I believe it would be found that some government gave considerable encouragement to local production. Every one knows that immediately after the war millions of pounds were spent by the Postal Department, and much of that, I believe I am safe in saying, was devoted to the carrying out of telephonic extensions, which raised our telephone branch to a very high state of efficiency. From a rumour that I heard to-day, I understand that the matter is being inquired into further, and that the local company is asking for more patronage from the Government. During my term of office, I was not satisfied with some of the explanations that were made; consequently, the tender was divided, a certain quantity of material being brought in from outside, and the remainder being purchased locally.

Sub-items agreed to.

Remainder of division, viz., items 183, 185 (a), 187 (a) (d), 1S8, 189 (e) (f) (h), 191 (a), 193, 196, 19S, 199, 202, 204 (a), 205, 206 (c) (e), 207, 208 (e), 214, 218, 220 (a), 221 and 222 agreed to.

Division 7. - Oils, Paints and Varnishes

Items 223, 225 (a), 227, 228, 229 (a) (f) (c) (h 2, 3), (i), 231 (a 2) (b) (c) (d), and 233 agreed to.

Division 8. - Earthenware, Cement, China, Glass, and Stone

Items 234, 235, 236, 238 agreed to. Progress reported.

page 433

ADJOURNMENT

Exports op Butter to Great Britain.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

.- I move-

That the House do now adjourn..

I take this opportunity to make a statement with respect to the present position in regard to butter. A number of statements have been made which display a complete misunderstanding of the position, and it is therefore proper that I should inform the House of the stage that has now been reached as a result of the consultations that took place between the Government and the Dairy Produce Export Control Board at a meeting which was held in Canberra to-day.

It has been asserted in some quarters that the Government has consented to a restriction on the export of butter to Great Britain, and that this alleged fact shows that Australia is submitting to dictation from abroad. It has been stated that Australia’s declared three years’ right of free entry to the British market is already denied her, and that in regard to anything that might be classified as a favour she has to share with the foreigner. Indeed, it has been alleged - I am reading from a well-known Melbourne newspaper - that our primary industries are being dragooned by Great Britain or by the Commonwealth Government into export restrictions.

At the outset, I want to make it quite cleaT that the question of the restriction of butter exports to the United Kingdom was raised, not by Great Britain, but by the Dominion of New Zealand. It is only just to the Government of Great Britain, in view of comments that have been based upon misunderstanding, that that fact should be made quite clear. On the 19th January last, the British Government received from the High Commissioner for New Zealand a letter asking that, as a matter of urgency, a meeting should be arranged with a view to discussing the position that had been created by the fall of the price of butter in Great Britain to a level which could only be described as disastrous to exporting countries. That is the first point: That the question was raised by New Zealand, and that the British Government did no more than ask New Zealand and Australia to meet its representatives for the purpose of discussing the position.

The next point that I wish to make is this : As is well-known, the Ottawa agreement provides for ‘ tlie free entry of Australian and other dominion butter into Great Britain during a period of three years. The British Government does not ask that that provision be amended or altered in any respect. The Commonwealth Government is able to insist upon the observance of the terms of the Ottawa agreement. Indeed, no such insistence is required. Unless the Commonwealth Government agrees, no change can be made in the terms of the Ottawa agreement. The position, therefore, is that, if the dominions wish to maintain the Ottawa position, and to have no restriction in respect of butter, they can do so. No doubt has ever been raised as to that being the true position. The British Government does not urge the imposition of any restrictions. But if there are no restrictions, it is quite certain that negotiations which are now pending for the making of trade agree- ments between the United Kingdom and Denmark and other countries, will be greatly facilitated. The British Government, therefore, does not ask that any restriction be adopted. Tha question has to be considered in Australia simply from the point of view of the interests of the Australian industry. By the common consent of the British Government and the Australian Government, that is the only point of view which is being taken, or which if is necessary to take. The question under consideration relates to a dominion restriction, with a foreign restriction of double the percentage that might ultimately be adopted by agreement in the case of any dominion, together with the maintenance of the 15s. per cwt preference in respect of dominion butter. Accordingly, if ultimately a restriction were accepted, it would mean that double . that restriction would apply to foreign butter on a percentage basis, and that the 15s. per cwt. in favour of dominion butter would he retained. The Government has sought the advice of the Dairy Produce Export Control Board, which is representative of the dairying industry. That board is now due for re-election; in fact, nominations have just closed. An election will be held iii only one State, the sitting members in all the other States having been re-elected without a contest. It is reasonable, therefore, to suppose that the board possesses the confidence of the industry. If the board recommends that no restriction be imposed, the Government will have no hesitation in adopting that course. At the present time, the board does not, upon consideration of the facts recently placed before it, feel justified in. recommending that no restriction be imposed. It has been in communication with the Government, and this afternoon resolved -

The Australian .Dairy Produce Export Control Board resolves that the Commonwealth Government be requested to defer final determination of the question of restriction of the export of butter until the board has had an importunity of discussing the matter with the representatives of tlie New Zealand Dairy Board, who will visit Australia within the next few weeks.

The Government is prepared to accede to the wishes of the Australian board, and therefore does not propose to take any action at present.

I have not in this statement entered into the controversial subject of the probable effect of restriction. I have not referred to the undue increase of imports into the British market, and the great reduction of price that has recently taken place, nor have I speculated as to the possibility that a restriction of exports might raise prices to an extent that would more than offset any disadvantage suffered through abstention from exporting a proportion of our butter. Leaving all these matters out of account, I have sought only to make clear that there has been no dragooning on the part of the British Government. The proposal to restrict exports was made first by the New Zealand Government to the British Government, which afforded an opportunity for a discussion of the subject, and submitted the issue to the Commonwealth Government for consideration. Consequently, there is no foundation for the suggestion promulgated in certain quarters that the Commonwealth Government is dictating to the industry, and imposing restrictions upon it.

Mr Beasley:

– What was the necessity for the resolution of the board this afternoon?

Mr LATHAM:

– The Government has been consulting the board in order to obtain its opinion. No useful purpose would Be served by relating the views which have been expressed by the board from time to time. On the advice of that body, the Government has deferred determination of the matter.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- The statement by the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) was extraordinary. It suggested that there was nothing in all the talk we have heard, that the cablegrams we have read were based on myths, and that no request was made by the British Government that the Commonwealth Government should consider a proposal to restrict the export of butter. This proposal, we are assured, was made by New Zealand, and the British Government merely asked the Commonwealth Government to consider it. If those be the facts, what has given rise to all the discussion that has taken place during the last few weeks? What did the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) mean when, on the 14th March, he stated, in reply to a question, that discussion was then taking place between the Commonwealth Government and the Dairy Produce Export Control Board, that a plan was being evolved, and that an announcement would be made in due course?

Mr Latham:

– All of that was accurate.

Mr SCULLIN:

– In the speech of the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Stewart) there was no denial that the Commonwealth Government was considering a request that the export of butter be restricted. Did not the Minister stress the advantages that would arise from such a restriction?

Mr Stewart:

– True.

Mr SCULLIN:

– Yes ; but the statement made by the Attorney-General tonight was not consistent with the Minister’s speech. The fact is that the discussion on the motion for adjournment made by the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser) frightened the Government. Ministers now realize that they cannot carry through a proposal which challenges the whole Ottawa agreement. If there is no foundation for the concern that has been felt lately, if no request for restriction was made, why did the Dairy Produce Export Control Board request’ the Commonwealth Government to defer determination of the matter? What inspiration was contained in the communications from the Resident Minister in London (Mr. Bruce) ? I invite the Government to lay on the table the substance of all the communications that have passed between the British Government and the Resident Minister in London, between the Resident Minister in London and the Commonwealth Government, and between the Commonwealth Government and the Dairy Produce Export Control Board. The Government realized the political effect of a breakdown in the Ottawa agreement within a few months of its endorsement by this Parliament, and the Attorney-General, in endeavouring to cover up the whole business, has not deceived honorable members. There should not be a moment’s hesitation in rejecting any proposal bythe British Government that the Commonwealth should agree to a restriction of exports.

I do not say that those controlling the export of butter should not seriously watch the position during the present season in order to prevent this country from being depleted of stocks. The seasonal prospects in some States are not good, and it is the duty of the board to see that adequate stocks are maintained iu Australia. But it should not agree to a restriction of exports, because if the season should prove more favorable than at present appears likely, our surplus stocks can be shifted abroad. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that more than one communication on this subject was’ received by the Commonwealth Government from the Resident Minister in London, and that the British Government was insistent upon a restriction of exports, to which the board would not agree without conditions as to legislation which the Government was not prepared to accept. Now the determination, of the matter is being deferred, and there is an attempt to camouflage, which is not fair to honorable members.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– The Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) has just made a carefully-prepared statement, and, when honorable members sought further information, took great pains not to depart from it in the slightest degree.

Mr Latham:

– We called for a division as a protest against the action of the Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I remind the House that, under the circumstances, it is a very undesirable form of protest.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.41 p.m.

page 438

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Mr Holloway:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

y asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the repeated warnings of the Auditor-General, will he carry out his promise to appoint a commission to investigate the cost of our aviation activities in the past, with a view to taking the necessary steps to get better results for the money spent upon this necessary activity in the future; if so, can he inform the House when such investigation will commence?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

– No such promise has been made by me. The question of air transport services has been comprehensively investigated recently by an interdepartmental committee, comprising responsible officers of the Civil Aviation Branch of the Defence Department, Commonwealth Railways, Postmaster-General’s Department, and Treasury. So far as I am aware, the Auditor-General has not at any time suggested that there has been any malpractice in the administration of civil aviation, and the Government does not consider that there is any justification whatsoever for the appointment of a commission to investigate aviation activities in Australia.

Mr Lyons:
UAP

s. - On the 9th March, the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) asked the following questions, upon notice: -

What amount of gold was shipped overseas between January and June, 1032, by the Government or the Commonwealth Bank Board?
What were the dates of the shipments?
Wihat amount of gold was shipped overseas from June, 1932, to the present date?
What were the dates of the shipments?
What was the purpose of each shipment?

As previously advised, no gold has been shipped overseas by the Government. The following information in regard to shipments of gold overseas has been supplied by the Commonwealth Bank. All values are in gold pounds : -

£2,866,116.
1932-

£9.134,412.
1932-

The greater part of the gold was shipped in accordance with the 1932 amendment of the Commonwealth Bank Act. Of the amount shipped prior toJune, 1932, £865,000 represents current production, and of that shipped since June, 1932, £1,135,000 represents current production.

Protection of North Australia Waters

Mr Francis:
UAP

s. - On the 16th March, the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) asked the following questions, upon notice: -

With regard to recent occurrences in North Australia waters -

Has the department any knowledge of a Japanese vessel being recently challenged near

Thursday Island, and replying by running away flying the Japanese flag?

Has the department any knowledge of the landing of a crew from a Japanese submarine, alleged to have been witnessed by natives T

In order to allay the fears of the inhabitants of Thursday Island, cun he make a statement to the House in regard to recent, occurrences ?

If he considers it inadvisable to make a public statement, will he, for the information of the House, place a report on the position upon the tabic of the Library?

I am now in a position to inform the honorable member as follows : - 1 and 2. Reports to this effect have appeared in the press. Recently the. master of n Japanese sampan was fined at Thursday Island for a breach of the Customs Act for failure to answer customs’ signals. The report regarding the presence of a submarine i’.; unconfirmed, 3 and 4. There is no occasion for fear on the part of the inhabitants of Thursday Island. The explanation of the occurrences is that a certain amount of poaching for trochus; shell is going on in northern wain.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 March 1933, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1933/19330321_reps_13_138/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives21 March 1933

AUSTRALIAN WAR DEBT TO UNITEDKINGDOM

Mr LYONS:Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

QUESTION

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION IN FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr BLAKELEY:DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr PERKINS:Minister for the Interior · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SAVINGS BANK

Mr PROWSE:FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr LYONS:UAP

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS

PETROL INDUSTRY

Mr LATHAM:Attorney-General · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr BEASLEY:WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LATHAM:AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

Mr PATERSON:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

Mr LATHAM:

QUESTION

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH NEW ZEALAND

Mr BLACKLOW:FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

QUESTION

WIRELESS LICENCES

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:Postmaster-General · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

QUESTION

RIFLE CLUBS

Mr JENNINGS:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FRANCIS:Minister in charge of War Service Homes · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · UAP

DICTAPHONES

Mr BERNARD CORSER:WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

IRI

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:UAP

QUESTION

COASTAL DEFENCES

Mr HUTCHINSON:INDI, VICTORIA

Mr FRANCIS:UAP

QUESTION

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Mr JAMES:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:UAP

Mr McGRATH:BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:

QUESTION

TARIFF DEBATE. -

Mr RILEY:COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Report of Mb. Archdale Parkhill

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

RECIPROCAL TRADE

Mr McBRIDE:GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr WHITE:Minister for Trade and Customs · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · UAP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA’S ECONOMIC POSITION

Mr BEASLEY:

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:UAP

QUESTION

TASMANIA

Mr BLACKLOW:

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:UAP

QUESTION

SEARCH FOR OIL

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr LYONS:UAP

Mr BLAKELEY:

Mr LYONS:

QUESTION

EXPORT OF GOLD

Mr JAMES:

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

PAPER PULP

Mr FORDE:CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Mr MCCLELLAND:WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:UAP

House of Representatives
21 March 1933

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr PERKINS:
Minister for the Interior · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr PROWSE:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr LATHAM:
Attorney-General · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

Mr PATERSON:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

Mr BLACKLOW:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Postmaster-General · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr JENNINGS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FRANCIS:
Minister in charge of War Service Homes · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · UAP

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

Mr HUTCHINSON:
INDI, VICTORIA

Mr FRANCIS:
UAP

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr McGRATH:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr McBRIDE:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr MCCLELLAND:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr THORBY:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Commerce · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle

Mr BLACKLOW:
Franklin

Mr NOCK:
Riverina

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Indi

Mr HUTCHIN:
Denison

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

Mr MCBRIDE:
Grey

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

Mr GIBSON:
Corangamite

Mr THORBY:
Calare

Mr MAXWELL:
Fawkner

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP