House of Representatives
10 May 1933

13th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1278

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE

Cost of Living Deduction

Mr.HOLLOWAY. - In view of the decision of the full bench of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to begin the restoration of the 10 per cent. cut in real wages, and its decision not to make a further deduction in accordance with the decline in the cost of living index figure, I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will adopt a similar policy in connexion with its own public servants.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– I have already informed the House that the Government, when considering the attitude it shall adopt in regard to the application of cost of living deductions to the salaries of Commonwealth public servants, will have regard to all relevant circumstances, including the representations made by the public service organizations.

page 1278

QUESTION

AMALGAMATED WIRELESS AUSTRALASIA LIMITED

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– As the Commonwealth has invested ?350,000 in Amalgamated Wireless Australasia Limited, will the Postmaster-General state what amount was expended by the company on advertising during the last twelve months, and the reason for such expenditure? The advertisements state that the company has paid to the Commonwealth Government ?450,000. Will the Minister explain what that amount represents?

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

-It is obvious that this advertising is costly. So far as it relates to the activities of the company and their advantages, the advertising may be justified, but I cannot understand the reason for the publication by advertisement of statistics which have no relation to their activities. I shall endeavour to ascertain through the Government nominees on the directorate whatamount has been expended on advertising during the last twelve months, and what the ?450,000 alleged to have been paid to the Commonwealth Government represents.

page 1278

QUESTION

SUNDAY SPORT IN CANBERRA

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for the Interior whether it is true that an agitation is afoot for the introduction of organized Sunday sport into Canberra. Will a decision on this point he made by the Minister, or by the Government; or will this House be afforded an opportunity to express its opinion on the matter?

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

– I have seen a reference ii the Canberra Times to a proposed deputation by citizens of Canberra to . ask that organized Sunday sport be permitted in this city. Without having gone closely into the matter, I am under the impression that any decision will rest with the Minister controlling the Federal

Capital Territory.

page 1279

QUESTION

EXCHANGE AND PRIMAGE

Mr PATERSON:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs state whether the Government has yet considered the report of the Tariff Board on the incidence of primage and exchange; if so, when will theq document be available to honorable members ?

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

– The report has been received, but because of its comprehensive and far-reaching character, it will require careful consideration. It is now receiving the attention of the Government, and, in due course, copies of it will be available to honorable members.

page 1279

QUESTION

STATE DISABILITIES COMMISSION

Mr CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Ca n the Prime Minister inform the House when the commission to inquire into the disabilities of the smaller States will be appointed? Will a condition of the appointment be that a report shall be available to the governments of the States before they frame their financial policies for 1933-34?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– When the tariff schedule has been disposed of in this chamber, a bill for the appointment of a commission to investigate the disabilities of the smaller States and their claims upon the Commonwealth for financial assistance will be introduced. Obviously, no undertaking can be given that the report will be available to State Treasurers when framing their budgets for the next financial year. The first inquiry will probably occupy a considerable time, but the report of the commission should be available during the next financial year for consideration by the Commonwealth Government and this Parliament.

page 1279

QUESTION

POWER KEROSENE

Mr NOCK:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the AttorneyGeneral advise the petrol commission that, although the relative value of kerosene to petrol and the extra import, cost of petrol represents a difference of approximately lOd. per gallon, the prices charged to farmers for power kerosene are within 5d. per gallon of petrol prices? Mr. LATHAM.- Certainly.

page 1279

QUESTION

TRAVELLERS FROM OVERSEAS

Customs Examination

Mr BLACKLOW:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Trade and Customs aware of a report published in the Sunday Sun of the 7th May, that new arrivals at Australian ports were treated like aliens? Mr. Sheridan, a London licensed victualler, said -

After examining my passport, a customs officer at Fremantle put me through an inquisition - the sort of thing a British subject might expect in Russia or Persia, but not in a British dominion. The customs put my wife through an equally close and impertinent examination. I concluded that we were undesirable immigrants.

Will the Minister order that these charges be investigated, and ascertain whether the procedure in this instance is that usually adopted by customs officers when dealing with new arrivals from other British countries ?

Mr WHITE:
UAP

– I shall certainly inquire into the allegations. Passports are controlled by the Department of Commerce, but all persons arriving in Australia must answer certain questions as to whether they are landing dutiable goods. I have not previously heard of any discourtesy on the part of customs officials discharging this duty.

page 1279

QUESTION

NEW GUINEA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that the Legislative Council of New Guinea was inaugurated yesterday in accordance with a statute of this Parliament? If so, in view of the fact that the Legislative Council is a first step towards the establishment of a new parliament in a territory of the Commonwealth, does the right honorable gentleman propose to make any announcement to this House on the subject ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The only statement I have to make is that the opening ceremonies were successfully carried out to the great satisfaction of the people concerned. I have received a communication to that effect from the Minister who represented the Commonwealth Government.

page 1280

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Transfer to Canberra

Mr STACEY:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is it the intention of the Government to transfer any more Commonwealth departments to Canberra during the next financial year?

Ml-. LYONS- Whatever decision the Government comes to in regard to that matter will be announced later. As financial considerations are involved, it is unlikely that a decision will be come to for some time.

page 1280

QUESTION

THE LATE MR. H. HINKLER

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Has the Prime Minister noticed in the newspapers references to the honour paid by the Italian Government to the remains of that very distinguished and lamented Australian, the late Mr. H. Hinkler, and, if so, has he considered expressing the thanks of the Australian Government and people for the action taken?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I have taken notice of the honour which has been paid to the remains of the late Mr. Hinkler, and the Government deeply appreciates the courtesy and kindness shown by the Government of Italy. Our added thanks are due for the latest exhibition of kindness, but immediately action was first taken by the Italian Government, the Minister without Portfolio in London (Mr. Bruce), on behalf of the Government and people of Australia, conveyed the gratitude of the Australian people to the Government and people of Italy for what they had done.

page 1280

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF LUBRICANTS

Mr NAIRN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the form of the government tenders for lubricants, specifying 40-gallon drums and 4-gallon tins, which is the American method of packing? Will he give instructions that the specifications be altered to conform with the British method of packing?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The matter comes under the Commonwealth Stores Supply and the Tender Control Board. I shall obtain a report, and supply the honorable member with what information I receive.

page 1280

QUESTION

TRADE WITH THE EAST

Mr JENNINGS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the public interest which has been taken in the voyage of the trade show boat, the Nieuw Holland, to the East, will the Minister for the Interior supply honorable members with any information which he has obtained regarding the progress of the vessel, and the success of its mission ?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– The question should have been addressed to the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Stewart).

page 1280

PAPERS

Thefollowing papers were presented: -

Air Force Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1933, No. 63.

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determination by the Arbitrator, &c. - No. 3 of 1933 - Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union of Australia; Federated Public Service Assistants’ Association of Australia; and Fourth Division Officers’ Association of the Trade and Customs Department.

Defence Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1933, No. 59.

Northern Territory Acceptance Act and Northern Territory (Administration) Act - Ordinance of 1933 - No. 1 - Supreme Court.

Patents Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1933, No. 57.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon G H Mackay:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– It is too late now for questions.

page 1280

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS

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

– I lay on the table reports and recommendations of the Tariff Board on the following subjects : -

Carbide of Calcium

Hurricane Lamps

Textile articles as covered by Item 120 (a) of Tariff Proposals 1932; and Cotton or Linen Handkerchiefs and Serviettes, Item 120 (b).

Wind Screens whether imported separately or with motor vehicles or parts thereof.

Wrought White Marble for monumental purposes.

I move -

That the reports be printed.

Mr FORDE:
.Capricornia

.- Item 120 a, dealing with napery and certain classes of drapery, is the subject of a Tariff Board report which was not in the hands of honorable members when the item was dealt with on Friday last. Members of the committee must have been in the dark as to the nature and extent of the industry concerned, yet they were called upon to discuss the duties affecting it. It was said in committee that the industry was a small one, employing only a few people. I have since learned, though I have not yet been able to obtain a copy of the report, that in Melbourne alone approximately 400 persons are employed.

Mr ARCHDALE Parkhill:

– I i-ise to a point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) is discussing a Tariff Board report, not the question whether they shall be printed, which is the subject of the motion before the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have been listening carefully to the honorable member, and presume that he will immediately connect his remarks with the motion.

Mr FORDE:

– The report I have been discussing i3 among those which the Minister has just tabled. My point is that the report should have been tabled last week, before the item was amended. I suggest that, in future, the Minister should give at least three days’ notice to honorable members of the intention of the Government to revise the duty on any particular item, I have no doubt that what the Minister said on Friday in regard to the industry was true; but honorable members should have an opportunity of studying the Tariff Board’s report.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honorable member is now departing from the terms of the motion before the Chair.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- Would it bc possible for the Minister to state when the reports are to be distributed, and what items are likely to be amended as a result of the Tariff Board’s reports? Honorable members should be given a reasonable opportunity of looking at the report before being asked to’ discuss the item.

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

.- The report to which reference has been made is among those which have been tabled to-day, and which is already printed. The. Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) was absent last week, and does not know that I gave his leader an intimation as to what items were to be dealt with. It would be impossible to give two or three days’ notice before reducing the duty on an item.

Mr Scullin:

– Why?

Mr WHITE:

– To do so would affect sales, and upset business. When group 7 was brought before the committee, I stated that Tariff Board reports dealing with the several items were being prepared, and that amendments would be made either in this committee or in another place. It was in order to expedite the passage of the items that action was taken before the reports were received. The items were fully discussed ‘at the time, and all the information contained in the report was given to honorable members.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1281

QUESTION

WINE EXPORT BOUNTY

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

by leave - In order to meet a situation which had developed, the following facts in relation to the wine bounty were supplied to the press on Friday after the House had risen. I take the first opportunity to give them to honorable members.

The Wine Export Bounty Act provides that bounty is payable upon the exportation of wine if the Minister is satisfied that a reasonable price has been paid for the grapes used in the production of the wine, or in the production of the fortifying spirit contained in the wine. It is, therefore, only when an application is made for payment of bounty that the Commonwealth Government has any legal control over the price of grapes. Winemakers can purchase grapes for making wine for domestic consumption, or for export, without bounty, and not be obliged to pay the prices fixed by the Minister as reasonable under the act authorizing the payment of the bounty. The control of domestic prices is, therefore, not a Commonwealth matter, but one with which the States alone have the legal power to deal; and although the Commonwealth has in the past been able to render, through the Wine Export Bounty Act, some measure of assistance to the grower of domestic grapes, a situation has arisen under which this state of affairs can no longer prevail. Hitherto the Minister has exercised control over domestic grapes by refusing to recognize a claim for payment of bounty unless the wine-maker has paid the approved prices for all the grapes he purchased. Taking advantage of the strict terms of the law, a large wine-maker has recently informed the Trade and Customs Department that, during this vintage, he paid the approved prices up to a certain date, that he will claim the bounty on the wine made from the grapes so purchased, and that after that date, he will buy grapes at lower prices and use the wine made from such grapes for the local market. As wine is fortified in bond and exported direct from bond, the department has a knowledge of the different lines and vintages, so that if the wine-maker takes the necessary precautions he can prove that wine made up to the date mentioned was made from grapes on which he paid the approved prices. In these circumstances, the department would find itself unable to resist a claim for payment of the bounty. This situation has developed rapidly, but it necessarily involves a recognition of the fact that the Commonwealth Parliament cannot, in fact, fix domestic prices. That is a power inherent only in the States. The situation, however, arises that if one wine-maker buys for the local market below the approved prices, other winemakers who pay the full prices cannot possibly compete with him, and in fairness to them, it was necessary to make the facts known. Steps have, therefore, been taken to notify wine-makers that if, up to a specified date, to be notified to the department, they pay the approved prices, and observe the necessary conditions, keeping the wine separately in bond for export, they will not be debarred from receiving the bounty on such wine, simply because at a later date they bought grapes or spirit for the domestic market at lower than approved prices.

In some districts large quantities of grapes were still unbought. If these grapes can be used for export wine, they will, ofcourse, bring the approved price; but if they are not so required, the alternative to selling them for the domestic market is to let them rot on the vines.

It is regrettable that the practical protection hitherto accorded to the grower of grapes for domestic wine under the Wine Export Bounty Act has broken down through force of circumstances; but that the control of domestic prices is really quite outside the powers of the Commonwealth is a fact which must be recognized. The State Parliaments could, if they thought proper, legislate to fix the price for grapes for local wine.

Mr Scullin:

– Have representations to that effect been made?

Mr WHITE:

– Yes. The New South Wales authorities endeavoured to fix prices, but their scheme broke down.

Since the sale of such grapes is usually made entirely within the State, and does not involve any question of interstate trade, the matter is one that is exclusively within the scope of State powers and outside those of the Commonwealth. The position of the local grower is, however, being brought prominently under the notice of the various State Governments. The Government has recently received a report upon the wine industry from an independent expert. The report, which deals with every aspect of the matter, is now receiving careful consideration.

page 1282

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 5th May(vide page 1269), on motion by Sir Henry Gullett(vide page 1167, volume 135) -

  1. 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) -

  1. 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.

And on further motion by Mr. White (vide page 1094).

Group 7. - Items amended by the Scullin

Government which are not supported by Tariff Board reports.

Item 123, sub-item (a1, 2) (Waddings and cotton wool).

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- Is the Minister in a position to inform the committee whether the report of the Tariff Board on waddings and cotton wool and absorbent cotton wool has been received? In view of what happened in a debate in this chamber about two years ago, I am rather surprised that the duties on this sub-item have not been altered. I understand that the waddings and cotton wool covered by sub-item aI are really padding used by upholsterers. I am not so much concerned with them as with the absorbent cotton wool referred to in sub-item a2. This cotton wool is used largely by our hospitals, and, prior to the imposition of duties of 4d. per lb. British, and 6d. per lb, foreign, by the Scullin Government, it was imported free if manufactured in Great Britain. The duties imposed by the late Government have had the effect of greatly increasing the cost of this necessary commodity to our hospitals. I have not the exact figures showing the quantity of absorbent cotton wool used in all the hospitals of Australia, but I am informed that the public hospitals of Victoria use approximately 50 tons of absorbent cotton wool each year. On that basis, it is reasonable to assume that the total consumption of absorbent cotton wool in the public hospitals throughout Australia is about 170 tons per annum. Only to-day I have been informed that the price of Australian-made absorbent cotton wool is ls. l£d. per lb., and that similar cotton wool could be imported from Britain at from lid. to 11½d. per lb., if there were no duty. Taking 11½d. per lb. as an average, the difference between the cost of locally-produced cotton wool and that of cotton wool of equal quality imported from Great Britain, free of duty, is 2£d. per lb., ,or £21 per ton. The imposition of this duty therefore costs our hospitals an additional £3,500 per annum. Although our public hospitals are assisted by grants from the various State Governments, they depend largely on the subscriptions of charitably disposed persons for their income. I submit that it is not reasonable to impose a duty which diverts some of the money so provided into the Treasury or the pockets of manufacturers. Those who contribute to the hospitals expect their money to bc U3ed in providing beds for patients, and in paying for nursing and medical attention, &c. They would not approve of any portion of the funds being diverted, either into the Treasury, in the shape of import duties, or into the pockets of manufacturers. I distinctly remember that, in opposing this duty, two years ago, I received general support from members of the United Australia Party, who were then in Opposition, and from members of the Labour party, with the result that the Minister of the day postponed, at least temporarily, the ratification of the duty, although he subsequently submitted it again to the committee,, apparently having assured himself that he had sufficient support among honorable members. If a report by the Tariff Board on this matter is in the Government’s hands, the committee is entitled to be informed as to the nature of the board’s recommendations before being called upon to pass the , sub-item, and I shall move for its postponement. If no such report is available, I propose to move to strike out the duties of 4d. and 6d. per lb., with a view to reverting to the original rates of free and 20 per cent.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– I trust that the proposed amendment will not be supported at this stage. If the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) has good grounds for the statement that he has made, he should have been content to suggest that the consideration of the sub-item be postponed. The information that I have had from my electorate does not accord with what has been said by the honorable member. I am assured that the leading hospitals are now using the locally-made product, and that the capacity of the plant in Australia is sufficient to enable the local manufacturers to meet all our requirements of cotton wool. The British manufacturers who formerly exported this article to Australia aru now making cotton wool in our own” country. They are producing between 300 and 400 tons of it, and they would make more if increased orders were received. I understand that medicated woollen bandages could be imported under another item. The leading chemists are selling the local product, and no complaints have been made recently regarding its cost. It is claimed by the local manufacturers, the chemists, the hospital experts, and others - and, so far as I know, their claim is fully justified - that the locally-made cotton wool is equal in quality to the article previously imported. The hospital authorities are not complaining on the ground of cost, which is not greater than that at which this commodity could be imported. Since the hospitals are maintained largely by public subscriptions, and the employees in the factories which produce this article contribute towards the cost of the upkeep of the hospitals, I feel warranted in saying that no real objection is taken to the present cost of cotton’ wool. It Ls used in every State in Australia, and is largely made out of Australian cotton and wool. The Cotton Tender Board supplies this material, and the local product is purchased by government departments in several of the States. I am not aware of deputations having waited upon government departments recently, and having complained of the cost of this article, or having pointed out that the public is being exploited. About 80 persons are employed in the industry in Port Melbourne alone, and a number of others are engaged in the manufacture of this commodity in Sydney. The industry is gradually developing, and, if it could obtain a wider demand for locally-made goods of this class, it could supply the whole of this country’s requirements. Then its prices could be reduced.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- I consider that this sub-item should be postponed. I read reports in the Sydney press last week to the effect that the secretary of the New South Wales Hospitals Committee had appeared as a witness before the Tariff Board, and had protested against the price charged for the local product. His statement was similar to that of the Acting Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson), being to the effect that the hospitals of Australia were being charged an exorbitant price compared with the cost at which cotton wool could be imported, lt was also shown that this commodity is a by-product of the woollen industry, being made from the scraps taken off the factory floor, after other materials had been manufactured, and representing, therefore, added profit to the woollen industry. I should be loath to give a vote on this matter to-day. The Minister might reasonably be asked to postpone consideration of the sub-item, to enable the committee to ascertain whether the statements that have been made to-day are in accord with the facts of the case.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- This duty was imposed by the last Government, it is true, without the support of a recommendation by the Tariff Board, but I am confident that the Minister will be able to place before honorable members information that will allay any apprehension that they may have in regard to the allegation of increased prices being charged to hospitals. I experienced some concern in regard tothis item when I was Minister for Trade and Customs, because of the anxiety of a number of honorable members as to the possibility of the price being increased to hospitals, which already were in a bad financial position. The companies concerned then gave the definite assurance that no increase would be made in prices, and that they would put on the market an article at least equal to the best imported waddings and cotton wool. Doubtless, the Minister has in his possession facts that show whether those promises have been kept. I am assured that hospitals and other institutions are satisfied with the quality of the Australian product. If there has been an increase in prices, it is only slight, and I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to explain the reason for it.

This is one of the subsidiary industries that utilize some of the raw products of the farms of Australia. The Queensland Cotton Board was, until recently, not at all optimistic regarding the prospects of selling the whole of the Queensland crop on the Australian market. The manufacturers of waddings and cotton wool purchase largely Queenslandgrown cotton and linters. In the light of our experience, I have no doubt that if the Tariff Board recommends adversely to the present rate of duty, the Minister will have the item amended. We should not be anxious to reduce the duty, seeing that there has been no increase in prices.

Mr Paterson:

– That is not so.

Mr FORDE:

– I am assured that there lias been practically no increase in prices, and that the companies concerned have carried out to the letter the definite assurance that they gave to the Department of Trade and Customs when the present duty was imposed. That being the case, we should not haphazardly slash r lie item, nor postpone its consideration. The Minister has probably had inquiries made into the matter, and will be able to satisfy honorable members that the rate proposed is a fair one.

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

.-The Acting Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson) made an incorrect statement when lie said that prices had been increased to hospitals. Honorable members will recall the debate that took place on this item during the regime of the last Government, and the strong opposition to it that was then expressed. My reason for opposing it was that there had been no inquiry by the Tariff Board into the industry, and also that it would be an impost on hospitals that they might find very hard to bear. The Minister of the day gave the assurance, which he had received from the company, that prices would not be increased to hospitals. At u deputation that waited upon me recently, it was alleged that the duty on ordinary cotton wool was being evaded by the importation under another item of cotton wool containing a slight degree of medication. I then inquired whether local prices had been raised, and was told that they had not. The Tariff Board inquiry into this industry began on the 5th May, and has been adjourned to the 19th May. No good purpose would be served by postponing the item.

Mr Lane:

– Has the Minister had before him the evidence given by the secretary of the New South Wales Hospitals Board?

Mr WHITE:

– No; but I shall be pleased to read it. Recent inquiries show that at the present time, 65 employees are engaged in the manufacture of absorbent cotton wool. The capacity of tho plant is 5 tons a week, working two shifts, and 7 tons a week working three shifts. Further plant is available if required. An estimate of Australian requirements is 7 tons a week. This is a comparatively new industry, and it assists both the cotton grower and the cotton manufacturer. The manufacture of absorbent cotton wool in Australia is being conducted in conjunction with, and to the formula of, a well-known overseas manufacturer. The price of the local product, in the quality and the size of package that is in popular demand, is ls. 2-Jd. per lb. to wholesalers, and ls. 1-kl. per lb. to hospitals.

Mr Paterson:

– The price to hospitals is the one that I quoted.

Mr WHITE:

– But the honorable member did not say that in 1931 the price to hospitals was ls. 2d. per lb.

Mr Paterson:

– What would be the price of the imported article, free of duty, to-day ?

Mr WHITE:

– I am dealing with the allegation that the local manufacturers have raised prices.

Mr Paterson:

– I did not say that they had raised prices.

Mr WHITE:

– The honorable member began his speech with the statement that prices had been increased to hospitals.

Mr Paterson:

– So they have; but I did not say that the manufacturer had raised them.

Mr WHITE:

– The price of imported cotton wool, of comparable quality, prior to the duty being imposed, was ls. §d. per lb. There is thus a difference of led. between the old, lauded duty free, price of imported cotton wool, and the price charged by the Australian manufacturers to hospitals at the present time.

Mr Nock:

– That is an increased price.

Mr WHITE:

– It is an increase on the imported price, for which the duty is accountable. But that is not what the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) said.

The honorable member also dealt with the cost of overseas cotton wool. How he costed it, I do not know; but his result is different from that obtained by the department’s method of costing.

Mr Nairn:

-What would be the cost if it were imported duty free?

Mr Paterson:

– The price that I quoted was that at which it could be landed by hospitals if it were free of duty.

Mr WHITE:

– But they do not get it free of duty.

Mr Paterson:

– Unfortunately, they do not; but they ought to.

Mr WHITE:

– This industry should be an economic one, because it uses Queensland cotton linters, which otherwise would find no market; in other words, it uses cotton scrap, and by-products of the cotton industry. It is estimated that from 350 to 400 tons of Queensland cotton linters per annum are needed to meet Australia’s requirements. I understand that various hospitals have expressed satisfaction with the quality of the local product. If any of the facts that I have given are capable of being controverted, the opportunity to controvert them is presented by the inquiry that the Tariff Board is now conducting. If the board recommends either the raising or the lowering of the duty, that matter can be dealt with by this Parliament.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- If the committee passes this sub-item, all I can say is that the appetite of some honorable members for the protection of Australian industries, and, consequently, the taxation of our people, is insatiable. There appears to be no end to this burden in one form or another. The tax-gatherer pursues a person to the very grave, taxation being imposed on coffin furnishings and tombstones. The duties imposed under this sub-item are a definite tax upon our hospitals. Parliamentshould not encourage any industry to batten on the misfortunes of the people, nor should it do anything that might interfere in any way with the excellence of the work now being done by our hospitals. The amendment of the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) will, if adopted, give substan tial relief. Under the Pratten tariff the duties were free British, 10 per cent. intermediate, and 20 per cent. general. The Scullin Government increased customs duties in a most haphazard fashion, and without inquiry as to their effect upon the people generally. I hope that the committee will agree to the amendment.

Mr HUGHES:
North Sydney

– Naturally, there is no desire to increase taxation upon our public hospitals, essential institutions which, unfortunately, are at present struggling in a sea of difficulty. But we must view these duties in their proper perspective. What amount of cotton wool is required in the every-day work of a hospital. Probably, for every1s. spent on cotton wool, very muchmore is spent on other commodities. For instance, at least £5 is, perhaps, spent on butter, and I suggest that patients, if invited to say whether money should be spent on cotton wool or butter, would prefer its expenditure on butter. The mentality of some of my friends of the Country party amazes me. They approve of application of protectionist principles to certain products as highly moral and economically sound; but, when the same principles are applied to other commodities, as for example, cotton wool, they become, in their view, grossly artificial and improper. If the Acting Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson) would contrast the expenditure on cotton wool with the total maintenance costs of the hospitals - which probably run into millions of pounds - he would realize thatthis duty is not a matter of life or death to those institutions. At first I was inclined to support the amendment, but, as I understand that the manufacture of cotton wool is a subsidiary branch of a great natural industry, the encouragement of which is essential to land settlement in certain of the States, I must oppose it. Whether cotton-growing is profitable or not must depend upon the satisfactory disposal of the cotton crop, and this, in its turn, depends largely on the use to which the product can be put in Australia. Unless we can provide a market for cotton products, wo cannot expect this great primary industry to make headway in Australia. Members of the Country party have made out a very good case for a bounty on flour as an aid to wheat-growing, and whenever proposals are made for the payment of a bounty on wheat, or the establishment of a wheat pool, they strongly support them ; but, when the proposal is to assist the poor cotton-grower by imposing duties on cotton products, they are not inclined to give it their support. In this they are most illogical. In any case this objection to the duties under discussion is more or less a storm in a teacup, because the total increase in cost to our hospitals is, I understand, only £3,570, and the Minister has shown that the Australian manufacturers have not increased their prices. The honorable member for Gippsland told us that, if cotton wool were imported duty free, our hospitals would be able to buy it for 2d. per lb. below the existing prices. Similarly, if the duty on butter were removed, our people would be able to get butter more cheaply than at present.

Mr BLACKLOW:
Franklin

.- I support the amendment, because I consider it highly improper to impose additional burdens on hospitals. I have listened to the debate with a good deal of interest, and I have yet to learn that tariffs do not increase’ the costs of products. It has been shown that these duties will increase the cost of colton wool to hospitals by £21 a ton.

Cotton wool is a by-product of the cotton manufacturers, and is dependent for its medical value entirely upon its absorbent properties. The highest and best grade, of cotton is the most absorbent. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) referred to butter, but butter has nothing whatever to do with this subject. Cotton wool must be free from grease, and should have a long absorbent fibre. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), who has been unfortunate enough to have to spend some time’ in the Lewisham Hospital with a poisoned hand, has, within the last few days, doubtless learned something about cotton wool. The honorable gentleman has the sympathy of us all in his suffering, and we have no desire to penalize him, or, for that matter, any other people in Australia who suffer. In ray humble opinion, the object of the duties provided on this item in the Scullin tariff was to provide revenue to assist us in overtaking our ‘adverse trade balance, and not to protect this industry. We should. not, therefore, accept those duties as the standard. It would be an ‘act of grace for the Minister to agree to the postponement of this item until the report of the Tariff Board has been received. This industry should not be disturbed, but the carrying of the amendment will not disturb it. I intend to vote for the amendment, mainly because I believe that cotton wool should be made ‘available to the sick and suffering people of Australia at the lowest possible price.

Mr FRANCIS:
Assistant Minister · Moreton · UAP

– I urge the committee to support the item as it appears in the schedule. The Tariff Board is now inquiring into this important and rapidlydeveloping primary industry. , The industry has just passed through very difficult and struggling days; but, as it is now stepping forward towards stabilization, it should not be thrown to the wolves. At present the major success of the industry is in its returns from by-products such as cotton meal, oil, cotton lint, and now, cotton wool linters. We hope that before long, surgical dressings will also be made in Australia from our own cotton. Just before the depression overtook Australia, we were importing cotton goods to the value of about £15,000,000 per annum. A great and ever-increasing proportion of those goods could now be made. in Australia from raw cotton produced in Queensland. ‘

We are asked to condemn this industry, although the price at which Queensland cotton wool is being sold to-day is slightly less than the price it was sold for before the Scullin duties came into operation. The Australian cotton industry has not taken undue advantage of the tariff protection afforded it, nor has the manufacturer of goods made from Queensland-grown cotton. The Government is pursuing its declared policy in regard to this industry, for it has referred it to the Tariff Board for inquiry. In a preliminary examination of the position made some little time ago, the Tariff Board stated -

It is evident, therefore, that the trade in Australia for waddings and cotton wool is of sufficient importance to justify efforts in the direction of meeting the requirements from materials of Australian production. The Tariff Board secs no reason why most, if not all, of the lines imported should not be produced in the Commonwealth.

I remind the committee that cotton wool is available in Australia at present at a price slightly lower than the price for which it could be bought before any duty was imposed upon it. The Australian cotton industry is going ahead by leaps and bounds, and we should not give it its death-blow by following the policy which has given rise to the amendment of the Acting Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson). I am surprised that that honorable, gentleman and his supporters are not doing everything they can to help this struggling primary industry. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) expressed some fear recently that this year’s Australian cotton crop would not be disposed of at a satisfactory price. I am pleased to be able to say that the latest information available is to the effect that 10,500 bales of Queensland cotton have been definitely sold or firm ordered for supply throughout the cotton season. As it is estimated that the total crop will be 12,000 bales, I feel justified in saying that the position of this industry was never so bright as it is to-day. As this is a new industry which definitely helps primary producers, it is important that it should be given reasonable encouragement. The cotton wool being produced in Australia to-day is eminently satisfactory, and is spoken of in the highest terms.

Mr Prowse:

– They have been trying for 40 years to grow cotton in Queensland.

Mr FRANCIS:

– The honorable member is concerned only about the commodities that are produced in his own State. He ought to take a broad national outlook. Recently the honorable gentleman endeavoured to obtain protection to the extent of 400 or 500 per cent, on a commodity in which he was personally interested.

Mr Prowse:

– That statement, like many others that the Assistant Minister has made, is untrue.

Mr FRANCIS:

– I do not desire to do the honorable member an injustice, and I do not make untruthful statements. The Australian cotton industry has now turned the corner, and I appeal to the committee to accept the duties now proposed by the Government, pending the receipt of the report of the Tariff Board. The postponement of the item will get us nowhere. If the debate on this schedule is ever to be completed, it is imperative that we shall deal with the items as they come before us. If we continually postpone items, the schedule will never be ready for submission to another place, and the bill incorporating it will never bc placed on the statute-book. This perpetual postponement of items will have to cease. I ask the committee to support the item on the assurance of the Minister that the subject will be reconsidered immediately the report of the Tariff Board is to hand, which, of course, may be before the item is dealt with by another place.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– I support the Assistant Minister for Defence (Mr. Francis) in his opposition to the postponement of this item. This is one of the new and valuable industries which are enabling Australia satisfactorily to pull through the existing depression. The cotton industry has brought about additional land settlement in Queensland, and it provides .employment for hundreds of pickers during the season. It has been proved that the quality of Queensland cotton is unsurpassed, while the price ,is competitive; consequently, neither the manufacturers nor consumers suffer from the imposition of this duty. Those engaged in the industry are establishing their homes in the virgin forest, starting from the very survey peg, and rendering yeoman service to the nation. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) said that for 40 years there have been abortive efforts to grow cotton in Australia. This time the effort has been successful, thanks to the assistance of the government, in the form of a bounty and protective duty. Before long the industry will supply the whole of. our requirements of raw cotton and lint. How can it be claimed that the community will benefit if the duty is reduced and hundreds are thrown out of work? We should be proud of the splendid endeavours of those engaged in the industry, and do our utmost to afford them reasonable assistance. If Australian raw cotton were not converted into lint, it would be necessary to import our requirements of this commodity, to the detriment of a worth while industry. I see no justification for the postponement of the item, and hope that no alteration will be made in the existing duty, even after the report of the Tariff Board has been received

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- We have been given a false method of comparison regarding the price charged for this commodity, for we have been told that, since the duty was imposed, producers of Australian cotton wool have not increased their prices. I point out that, as the world prices have since fallen enormously, we should be supplied with present-day prices as a basis of comparison, not with those which were charged two years ago.

The honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) criticized the mover of the motion with inconsistency. He declared that the amount paid by hospitals for cotton wool is a mere bagatelle compared with their total expenditure. Almost in the same breath, he termed the manufacture of cotton wool a subsidiary branch of a great national industry; which indicates how descriptions vary according to the viewpoint of the speaker. It it true that this is only a small item, but a principle is affected. It is the cumulative effect of these small items in the tariff which produces the general result of high prices. People who are ill are being taxed to the extent of 3d. per lb. on cotton wool in order to provide a bounty for Queensland growers. It is idle to suggest that the local industry would be dealt a death blow if the duty were removed from this minor item. The industry is capable of surviving, even if those who are ill obtained the cotton wool they needed, free of duty. Any increase in the price of this item will act detrimentally upon those who are not in a position to pav.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

.- I hope that the Government will reject the amendment of the Acting Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson), and continue the existing duties, pending the receipt of the Tariff Board’s report on this item. It has been urged that imported cotton wool would be cheaper than that which is produced locally. Certainly cotton wool from Great Britain would not be cheaper, though it might be possible to buy an inferior article at less cost from certain sources which some honorable members are only too prone to patronize. I do not agree with the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) that this is a great national industry; but it is a growing industry which is doing well under existing conditions. The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) urged that we should do nothing to add to the cost of those unfortunates who are not able to pay. From long experience as a member of hospital committees and boards, I know that those unfortunates in hospital who are not able to pay, do not pay. The only objection to this duty appears to come from that group of so-called freetraders to whom anything made in Australia is anathema. The honorable member for Perth, the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse), and the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) never fail to attack anything produced in Queensland. The honorable member for Perth declared that this duty was designed to bolster up another Queensland industry. He should bear in mind that, some clay, cotton might be grown successfully in the State which he represents. Because this growing industry has prospects of success, certain “ little “ Australians, who claim to have been born in the country, belittle it, and do their utmost for the products of other countries. This duty should be allowed to remain as it is until the report of the Tariff Board has been received, and if the board recommends a reduction of duty, the Government will, if it sees fit, adopt that recommendation, no matter what may now be said to the contrary.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- I have indicated two alternative amendments, which are dependent upon whether there is a Tariff Board report upon this item or not. I understand from the Minister that the board is at present inquiring into the cotton-wool industry, and for that reason, I propose to move that the item be postponed to the end of the schedule. If that amendment is accepted, it will overcome the difficulty raised by the Assistant Minister for Defence (Mr. Francis), because in all probability, the report of the Tariff Board may he received in time for us to deal with it before the tariff schedule passes to another place. If the report is not ready by that time, we can deal with the matter again. I agree with the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser) that absorbent cotton wool should be produced in Australia, but I do not agree that its development should take place by means of a subsidy from the hospitals. The test to be applied is whether the production of this commodity in Australia is extracting a subsidy from hospitals. We have heard a great deal about prices. The Minister quoted certain prices, and I quoted others. At five minutes to 3 o’clock this afternoon, just before the meeting of this House, I obtained by telephone the latest prices for absorbent cotton wool used by the hospitals. The price for Australian absorbent cotton wool was ls. l£d. per lb., which is the price quoted by the Minister, but the price of British absorbent cotton wool of equal quality, landed free of duty, was from lid. to 11½d. per lb.

Mr White:

– The wool would not be of the same quality.

Mr PATERSON:

– I was informed that the wool was of equal quality.

Mr Maxwell:

– That show3 how difficult it is to deal with this item without a report from the Tariff Board.

Mr PATERSON:

– That is an argument in favour of the postponement of the consideration of this item. Instead of taking the figure of lid., which I might have done, to magnify as much ais possible the difference between the prices, I took the figure of ll;)d.- -half way between lid: and ll£d. - and that shows a difference of 2£d. in. favour of the British absorbent cotton wool, landed free of duty. That difference of 2¼d per lb. represents £21 a ton. I have already said that the quantity of absorbent cotton wool used annually in the public hospitals of Australia is approximately 170 tons. The Minister has said that our requirements of this commodity represent about’ 7 tons a week, or twice the annual requirement that I have indicated.

Mr White:

– I said that the output of the mill was 7 tons a week.

Mr PATERSON:

– There would not be that output if it were not required.

Mr White:

– Some of the cotton wool is imported, and some is made locally.

Mr PATERSON:

– Taking into consideration the consumption of the private as well as that of the public hospitals, we arrive at a much greater quantity than I have indicated. I shall now reply to the gibe which the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) threw at me. The commodity in respect of which he characterized me as being inconsistent in my attitude, is butter. That commodity is purchased by the public and the hospitals in Australia at a price no greater than that charged in Great Britain for butter of equal freshness. If the hospitals could obtain cotton wool at prices remotely approaching those charged in Great Britain, I should not be moving my amendment.

Mr White:

– How long has the position in regard to butter in Great Britain obtained ?

Mr PATERSON:

– For a long time. When we change the British price intoAustralian currency, we find that the wholesale price charged to-day for fresh butter is no greater than that charged in Great Britain for butter of equal freshness. Therefore, we should not be unreasonable or inconsistent if we said that that being so,, the price of cotton wool need be no greater in Australia than it is in Great Britain; but I am not proposing to go nearly as far as that,, because I realize that the price of cotton wool must be somewhat greater here than in London. I move -

That the sub-item be postponed.

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

– There has, on this item, been a long debate which need not have taken place at all. The Acting Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson), as well as other honorable members, has already been informed that the Tariff Board is making an inquiry into the position of the industry. All that the Government is seeking to dois to ratify the present duties pending the report of the board. At the last election the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) made it clear that no duties would he altered, and that no industry would be dislocated, without inquiry being made by the board. The members of the Country party applauded that statement, yet today some of them have asked for a reduction of duty, which, if granted at this stage, would be grossly unfair to the cotton wool industry. Statements have been made which are likely to lead the people to believe that the Government is callous in its attitude to those who are suffering in hospitals and elsewhere. The following statement in criticism of these duties was made by me when a member of the Opposition in this chamber: -

The Minister is aware that our public hospitals are carrying on their important work with the assistance of a generous public and a large body of surgeons’ and physicians, who are rendering valuable voluntary work. Many hospitals are working on a big overdraft, and, owing to lack of funds and space, find it impossible to accommodate all the patients requiring attention.

At that time I asked that the duties be referred to the Tariff Board to ascertain whether they were equitable. That is now being done. The Government has not increased the rates. It is merely seeking to validate duties which were imposed to assist an industry which now employs 65 hands. The Acting Leader of the Country party and other honorable members are too impatient to wait for the report of the Tariff Board. They prefer to make two speeches on this item when one would have done. The Government, in putting forward its present proposal, believed that it was dealing with the industry in the most expeditious way. So that there may be no misunderstanding, and so that the people may not be misled into believing that it is the Government’s intention to maintain the price of cotton wool to the disadvantage of the hospitals, I am prepared to accept the amendment. The Acting Leader of the Country party has referred to the price of butter in Great Britain as being11d. per lb., but I would remind him that in Australian currency that sum represents1s. 4d.

Mr Paterson:

– I quoted the figure in Australian currency.

Mr WHITE:

– The honorable member did not say so. I accept his explanation. The company concerned has not attempted to exploit the people. If the prices charged by it are excessive, the Tariff Board will ascertain the position, and report to the Government.

Motion agreed to; sub-item postponed.

Item 126, sub-item (b) (Collar check, collar cloth, saddler’s kersey and saddlers serge).

Mr.NOCK (Riverina) [4.31].- The specific duties of1s. 3d. and 2s. 6d. per square yard are out of proportion to the ad valorem rates, and in respect of the cheaper qualities of collar check are equivalent to 92 per cent. In addition, there is the natural protection of exchange, transport, &c. Satisfactory collar check, which is used for lining the collars of horses employed in transport and on the farm is not made in Australia. It is aminor item, but the cumulative effect of the higher costs of many small items is reflected in a higher cost of production. A few years ago, when a farmer took his collars to the local saddler to be re-lined, the price charged ranged from 8s. 6d. to 10s. each. To-day the charges are from 15s. to 18s., and the saddler ascribes the increase largely to the excessive cost of lining. This is true also of kersey for saddles. I ask the Minister to postpone this sub-item, pending a further report from the Tariff Board, with a view to removing the extra burden now placed on transport and farm production.

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

.- If the Government were to accede to all the requests of honorable members for the postponement of items no progress would be made. We wish to send the schedule to the Senate as early as possible, so that it may speedily become law, and the commercial community may know where it stands.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- Is the department unable to offer any justification of these duties ? Will not the Minister say whether there is any warranty, other than pressure by the manufacturers, for increasing the duty of 25 per cent. to 1s. 3d. per square yard, which we are told is equivalent to 92 per cent. ad valorem. Last year, when the Minister was a private member, he spoke with some heat against the duties on wringers, and said that the protection proposed, in addition to exchange, primage and transport charges, was preposterous. To-day he is supporting similarly ridicu lous imposts. This is not the time to put extra charges on the primary producers. I am afraid that many people will receive a severe shock towards the end of this year unless good rains fall. We cannot continue adding to the cost of every item used by the farmer, who has to sell his goods in the markets of the world. In 1929 the Australian tariff was the highest in the world; yet the duties have since been increased, and no explanation of this course is offered. Wages have been considerably reduced during the last couple of years, and there is no need to continue this molly-coddling of minor industries.

Sub-item agreed to.

Division 6. - Metals and Machinery

Item 136, sub-items (d1, 2, 3) (e1), agreed to.

Item 154, sub-item (d), (Railway and tramway material - Switches, points, crossings and intersections).

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- On this sub-item, the 1921-30 rate of 27½ per cent on British material has been increased to 45 per cent. The Government shows no desire to honour the Ottawa Agreement, notwithstanding the wonderful concessions that agreement gave to our export industries. Wages and the price of coal have been substantially reduced. One of the directions in which the unemployed might be absorbed is in the construction of new railways, but the increased cost of railway material is likely to prevent the undertaking of developmental works. The duties on railway and tramway material have to be paid by State governments, and government instrumentalities add considerably to the cost of construction. The committee should not agree to this substantial increase in the rate of duty unless the Minister is able to justify it.

Mr Watkins:

– This is one of the few items the cost of which was not increased during the war.

Mr GREGORY:

– The committee is well aware that the honorable member is a fervent supporter of the great “steal” industry. There has been too much stealing through the customs tariff; this continual drain from the pockets of the people should be stopped. I ask the Minister to revert to the duties of the 1921-1930 tariff.

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

– It is interesting to have from the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory), an admission that the Ottawa agreement confers great benefits on the primary producers. No member of the Country party made such an admission onFriday last, when the position of the export industries was discussed on a formal motion for the adjournment of the House. The honorable member for Swan has repeated the threadbare arguments which we are accustomed to hear from members of his party. The honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) moved some months ago that all duties be reduced to the 1921- 1930 level; that proposal was defeated, but it is revived in detail by the members of his party on every item. I have said before that the Government does not necessarily support these duties, but it is asking that they be validated, pending a report by the Tariff Board, which is now investigating.

Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle

.- The opposition of members of the Country party to item after item is becoming tiresome. Railway material has been made in Australia, for many years, and throughout the war, when imports were not available, and the local manufacturers could have charged whatever price they chose, they took no advantage of their opportunity. Even the transcontinental railway was built with material supplied at pre-war prices. I hope that the committee will not entertain the unAustralian sentiments that are continually expressed by members of the Country party. Australian manufacturers can produce these goods, and will continue to do so despite the opposition of people who will neither do anything for themselves, nor allow others to do it for them.

Sub-item agreed to.

Item 176, sub-items (c) (h) -

  1. Metal split pulleys, per inch of diameter, British,9d. : general,1s. 3d.; or ad valorem, British, 45 per cent., general,65 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.
Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- Formerly, the duty on metal split pulleys of British origin was 45 per cent. To-day, there are specific duties of 9d. and ls. 3d. per inch of diameter, alternative to the ad valorem rates of 45 per cent, and 65 per cent. An interesting discussion on this item took place two years ago, when I asked the then Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Forde) to inform the committee of the f.o.b. value of imported pulleys, so that we might estimate the ad valorem equivalent of the fixed rates of 9d. and ls. 3d. The Minister would not supply that information, and the then honorable member for Oxley (Mr. Bayley) moved that the fixed rates should be reduced to 4$d. and 7-£d. On that particular item the PostmasterGeneral stated - -

I strongly protest against the repeated efforts of the Government to impose heavy duties of this nature which do not provide additional employment or revenue.

The honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett), speaking on the item, said that the Minister had given a monopoly of the Australian market to an individual factory. “It is tariffmaking gone mad “, he said, “ It is an offence against the intelligence of this chamber “. The present PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Parkhill) made this statement -

Having regard to the burden which this duty would impose on the public, the Commonwealth would save money if it pensioned off all those connected with the industry, including the directors. Wo have had no report from the Tariff Board.

I remember asking the Minister of that day, the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), whether he could tell me the price at which one of these split steel pulleys could be imported, but I could get no information from him. Next morning I sent a telegram to the secretary of the Australian Association of British Manufacturers, asking for f.he f.o.b. price of pulleys, 10 inches or 12 inches, and also the Australian price. T had previously pointed out in the House that, with a general duty of lod. an inch, the amount of duty paid on a 12-in. pulley would be 15s., so that, if the price without duty were 15s., the protection would amount to 100 per cent. If the price were 7s. 6d., the duty would represent 200 per cent. There was a division on the item, and when the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) was passing me on the floor he said that it was absurd to suppose that such pulleys could bo bought anywhere for 15s. In’ due course I received a reply to my telegram, and was informed that the f.o.b. price for the pulleys was 7s. Id., while the Australian price was 34s., less 15 per cent.

Mr White:

– How long ago is that.

Mr PATERSON:

– Two years ago, and I admit that the position may be entirely different to-day. At that time I was quite unable to reconcile the two prices, even taking into consideration the immense duty, plus 50 per cent, surtax, plus exchange and primage. I merely give the committee the figures which were telegraphed to me from a reliable source. These steel split pulleys are really capital plant equipment, and are to be found in practically every factory throughout Australia.

Mr Scullin:

– Did the honorable member’s informant give him the comparable weight of the two pulleys?

Mr PATERSON:

– No. In my opinion it is wrong to place such heavy duties on equipment of this kind. To put heavy duties on the article which goes direct to the consumer is one thing, to heavily tax capital equipment is another. The amendment of the ex-member for Oxley was supported, not only by the Country party, but also by all the members of the United Australia Party, with the exception of the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton). It was supported in particular by the votes and speeches of the present PostmasterGeneral and the present AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham). I move -

That sub-item (u) be amended by adding the following: - “And on and after 1.1th May, 1933: (h) Metal split pulleys, per inch of diameter, British 4id., general 7$d., or ad valorem, British 45 per cent., general 05 per cent, whichever rate returns the higher duty.”

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

– What useful purpose does the honorable member think he is serving when he quotes what happened in this Parliament two years ago, and when he quotes prices which obtained as long ago as that? The honorable member knows that the Government is not necessarily supporting the present duties at all, but is awaiting the report of the Tariff Board before taking action. I urge the honorable member, if he wishes the tariff to be dealt with quickly, not to move amendments on every item.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- I regard it as almost impertinent to ask the committee to agree to this item without any explanation from the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) beyond the statement that he is awaiting a Tariff Board report. We have no assurance that the report will be available when the tariff goes before another place. The assumption is that if a Tariff Board report is obtained, which, in the opinion of the Government, justifies a reduction of duty, action will be taken to have the duty reduced, but we have no knowledge when such action will be taken, if at all. Only a few days ago, when the committee was discussing the duty on glass, the report of the Tariff Board was already in the hands of the Government, yet the Minister had the item postponed.

Amendment negatived.

Sub-items agreed to.

Item 178, sub-items (b) (c) agreed to.

Item 179, sub-items (d 4, 5) (f) (g) -

Electrical machinesand appliances -

Ironclad or moulded fuses, ironclad or moulded switches, ironclad or moulded airbreak switches and fuses combined -

Up to and including60 amperes - each,British, 8s.; general, 10s., or ad val., British,65 per cent.; general, 75 per cent. whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Over60 amperes - ad val., British,65 per cent., general, 75 per cent,

Distributor arms for distributing high-tension current to sparking plugs - each, British,9d. ; general,1s., or ad val., British,65 per cent.; general, 75 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Amendment (by Mr. Guy) agreed to -

That that portion of the tariff resolution introduced into the House of Representatives on 8th March. 1933, relating to sub-item (f) of item 179 be incorporated in the present proposals as on and from the 9th March, 1933, in lieu of sub-items (f) and (g) of item 179 of the tariff resolution introduced into the House of Representatives on the 13th October, 1932.

Mr CASEY:
Corio

.- This item covers one of the component parts of motor car chassis. Ignition coils came in under the chassis item until the advent of the Scullin Government. The duty now is 6s. and 45 per cent. ad valorem, British, of which the 6s. is the operative duty. In addition, there is 10 per cent. primage. Ignition coils have been before the Tariff Board, but we have not yet received its report about them. There is a particularly good case for a reversion to the previous state of affairs. This is a very small industry, and might, I think, with complete justice, be called a backyard industry. Less than £2,000 worth of coils are required annually, and the existence of the industry in Australia places a burden upon the transport business of the country of at least £1,000 a year, which would probably be more than sufficient to pay the wages of all the men engaged in it. I await with interest the appearance of the board’s report, and have every hope that, on the evidence heard, the board will recommend that the item be again included in the chassis item from which it was removed.

Sub-item 179 f deals with distributor arms for distributing high tension current to sparking plugs. I suggest that, in the interests of accuracy, the description be altered. I believe, on the authority of the Ford Motor Company from which I get the bulk of my information, and also on the authority of others, that the item should be otherwise described. In the design of this piece of electrical mechanism, distributor arms as such do not exist. Their place has been taken by a small vulcanite ring with a metal section in it. This item represents another small part of the chassis that was picked out by the last Government as one that might be manufactured locally, and the effort to establish an Australian industry for its manufacture has created a good deal of trouble and disturbance. It is only a very small part, about half as big as the end of one’s thumb, and forms a part of the distributor of every car. Hardly any one engaged in the assembling ofmotor cars in Australia takes advantage of locallymade articles for this purpose, and the demand would be for no more than a limited number for replacement parts. In my opinion, the item could conveniently be restored to its former place, which was item 179 c in group 6, where the duty was 45 per cent. and’ 65 per cent., sufficient to protect a local industry if ever one were established.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

– I have received a request from persons interested in the motor trade to ask for the reconsideration of the duty on ignition coils. I support the suggestion of the honorable member for Corio (Mr. Casey) in regard to them.

Paragraphs and sub-items, as amended, agreed to.

Item 180, sub-items (h) (i) (j) -

  1. Sparking plugs whether imported separately or incorporated in or forming part of any goods covered by subitem (d) of item 359, each, British, 1s. 6d.; general,1s. 9d. ; or ad valorem, British, 45 per cent.; general,65 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.
  2. i) Dry batteries and dry cells of all descriptions whether imported separately or incorporated in any article or appliance -

    1. Up to and including 1 lb. in weight, each, British, 4d.; general,6d.
    2. Over 1 lb. in weight, per lb., British, 7d.; general,10d.
  3. Wall, stand or table lamps, ad valorem. British, 45 per cent.; general, 65 per cent.
Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- I should like to know whether the Tariff Board’s report on this sub-item has been received, and if not, when it is expected ? The manufacture of sparking plugs is an Australian industry which has developed considerably in recent years. In 1929-30 our importations of these goods were valued at £90,931. In the following year the sparking plugs imported were valued at £14,760, and in 1931-32 at £15,778. The protection given to this industry by the Scullin Administration has resulted in the price of sparking plugs being considerably reduced. I am informed that local manufacturers of farm tractors and motor boat engines can obtain suitable sparking plugs at prices less than those at which comparable goods could be obtained from overseas, free of duty and exchange. That is further evidence that the prices of goods to local consumers fall when this country is no longer dependent on importers for its requirements. This industry has incurred heavy losses in the past ; first, because of insufficient protection, and, secondly, because of initial faults in factory equipment. The local factories are, however, now turning out a highclass product which is giving satisfaction, and for which there is an increasing demand. The Australian factories are efficiently managed, and, I understand, that their production costs compare favorably with those of similar factories overseas. The Australian manufacturers of sparking plugs claim that they can meet all demands for equipment and replacements of these goods. They fear, however, that any interference with the present duties will increase the importations of certain makes of imported sparking plugs which are fashionable, and are claimed to be of superior quality to those produced in Australia. As a result of the Tariff Board’s inquiry this industry may be adversely affected.

Mr Maxwell:

– Does the honorable member know the views of the Tariff Board in this connexion?

Mr FORDE:

– I merely issue a warning against any precipitate action by the Government in the event of the Tariff Board recommending a reduction of the duties on sparking plugs. The Government should accept the responsibility for its action, and not throw it on any board. If we are to follow, without question, the recommendations of the Tariff Board, or any other similar body, we may as well hand over the government of the country to boards. Australian importers prefer to handle certain brands of sparking plugs exclusively on behalf of overseas manufacturers. An immediate lowering of these duties would reduce by one half the present output of the Australian factories, whereas, if action in that direction were delayed for two years, it is believed that the local manufacturers would then be able to withstand all reasonable competition. I hope that no hasty action will be taken, because this industry is now in the transition stage. The raw materials used in the manufacture of sparking plugs comprise steel bars, brass rods, copper gaskets, transfers, packing material, dies, taps and similar tools, porcelains and nickel, most of which are obtained in Australia. It is not possible to state exactly the number of persons employed in these subsidiary industries, but, undoubtedly, any reduction of the duties on sparking plugs would affect a number of persons indirectly connected with this industry, which makes sparking plugs of first quality for all standard makes of cars and trucks, including many different makes of racing cars. I hope that before putting into effect any recommendation of the Tariff Board for a reduction of the duty on sparking plugs, the Minister will agree to see representatives of the industry, so they may put their case before him.

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

– This subitem is now before the Tariff Board. I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) that the Australian factories are efficiently managed and make sparking plugs of good quality. I suggest, however, that it would be better if the arguments submitted by the honorable gentleman were placed before the Tariff Board by those actively connected with the industry. When the Tariff Board’s report comes to hand, it will be carefully considered by the Government. I give the honorable gentleman an assurance that if a deputation representing the Australian manufacturers of sparking plugs visits Canberra when I am here, I shall arrange an interview. I ask the committee to pass the sub-item as it stands.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– I am pleased with the Minister’s reply to the representations of the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde). What is, perhaps, the biggest Australian factory for the manufacture of sparking plugs is situated in my electorate. I know many of the men employed in this efficient industry. Many racing cars use Australian-made sparking plugs exclusively. I do not know whether it will be possible to reduce prices still further, but I have heard no complaints about the prices charged by Australian manufacturers. I hope that before any alteration of the existing duties takes place, a thorough investigation of this industry will be undertaken by the Tariff Board. I am satisfied with the assurance given by the Minister.

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

.- The Tariff Board’s report on sub-item i (dry batteries and dry cells) has just been received. In order that the Govern ment and honorable members may study it before this group is disposed of, I move-

That sub-itemi be postponed.

Motion agreed to.

Sub-itemi postponed.

Sub-items (h) and (j) agreed to.

Items 185 (b) and 191 (b) agreed to.

Item 197, sub-item (a) (Plated-ware).

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- I should like to know when this sub-item was considered by the Tariff Board. The existing duties of 45 per cent. British, and 65 per cent. foreign, represent a considerable increase on the rates of 35 per cent. and 50 per cent., respectively, under the 1921-30 tariff. This sub-item covers such articles as spoons, forks, and knives, and concerns an efficient industry which has made great headway since the introduction of the Scullin Government’s tariff schedule. This industry, which employs at least 250 persons, represents a capital expenditure of at least £200,000. Since the duties were increased by the Scullin Administration, local manufacturers have installed new plant, and that, together with the greater volume of business which has resulted from the increased protection, has enabled them to reduce prices considerably. Most of the raw material used is of Australian origin, but as the local manufacturers have to pay a duty of 25 per cent. on certain raw materials obtained from England the protective nature of the tariff is lowered to some extent. The principal raw material used is nickel silver. This material is sold for 11½d. per lb. in England, whereas the local manufacturer has to pay1s. 7d. per lb. for it. English competitors employ a considerable proportion of juvenile labour in the manufacture of electro-plate; and since such labour is uncontrolled, it is estimated that there is a disparity of at least80 per cent. in favour of England between the wages paid in the two countries. Local manufacturers of electroplated ware produce articles which, both in design and workmanship, compare with the best imported goods. They claim that they can cater for all the Australian requirements of these goods. I fear that this industry will suffer as a result of the Ottawa agreement. Because the Tariff Board has now to keep in mind Articles 9 to 14 of that agreement, a duty which it might have recommended eighteen months ago, is not likely to be recommended to-day. Any reduction of duties in compliance with the Ottawa agreement must necessarily reduce the number of persons employed in this and other industries. I am particularly apprehensive regarding many Australian industries since the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) boasted that the present Government is the only government in the world which is reducing tariff barriers. With one eye 011.the Country party, the right honorable gentleman suggested that what the Government had already done was merely an indication of what was to follow. The most unfortunate feature of the Government’s boast that Australia is the only country that is reducing its tariff is that the statement made by the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham), on behalf of the Government, is true. It is also true that Australia is the only member of the Empire which The Ottawa agreement has robbed of fiscal autonomy, because this Government has handed over the decision of tariff matters to the Tariff Board. If the board does not recommend increases of duties on British products, these duties cannot be increased. The Minister is tied by the board’s decisions, irrespective of whether they militate against the success of this aud a number of other Australian industries. I desire an assurance from the Minister that amendments will not be hurriedly brought down without giving the committee full opportunity to consider the recommendations of the board. The industry in question gives employment to a number of Australians, and precipitate action in this matter would throw them out of work.

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

– I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) that this industry produces goods of high quality. Nobody denies that; but it falls within the same category as all the other industries in the present group. It must justify the duties sought before the economic tribunal which inquires into the claims of all industries that seek tariff protection. The policy of the Government is to refrain from making drastic tariff changes on ministerial initiative, and I am sure that the industry, when it goes before the board, will be able to place the facts of the case before it.

Sub-item agreed to.

Item 203, sub-item (a) agreed to.

Item 204, sub-item (b) - (Aluminiumware and enamelledware, n.e.i., but not including stoves and baths., ad valorem, British, 50 per cent.; general, 70 per cent.).

Mr GUY:
Assistant Minister · Bass · UAP

– I move -

That sub-item (b) be amended by adding the following: - “And on and after 11th May, 1033, (b) aluminiumware and enamelledware n.e.i., but not including stoves and baths, ad valorem, British, 40 per cent.; general, 00 per cent.”.

This amendment is moved in order to give effect to a report received from the Tariff Board on the 28th April. Theduties proposed are the same as those operating under the 1921-30 tariff, aud are 10 per cent’, lower than those operating at the present time. They are also lower, to the extent of 10 per cent. British, and 5 per cent, general, than those imposed by the last Government.

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

– This is an amendment to one of the items in group 7, with respect to which it was indicated that when a report from the board came to hand, it would be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. I regret that members of the committee have not received a printed copy of the report. I have had a copy of it only during the last few hours, and I have allowed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) to have a glance at it. I shall endeavour to explain the case as fully as possible, and if honorable members require further information after hearing my speech, I shall endeavour to furnish them with it. This sub-item deals with two distinct manufactures, namely, aluminium ware and enamelled ware.

As to aluminium ware, S7 per cent, of the raw material used is of United Kingdom origin, and the local manufacturers indent circles and sheets of the required gauge, cut to the exact size. The prices for standard grades of aluminium sheets, circles, &c, are similar to purchasers in all countries, and, consequently, the protection on the finished article represents more on the Australian labour and the small proportion of Australian material used than the duties indicate.

The cost of landing the raw material, excluding primage and exchange, is from 3 per cent, to 4 per cent, of the f.o.b. price, whilst the cost of landing the finished article under the same conditions, owing to the shape of the articles not permitting of good packing, represents from $ per cent, to 20 per cent. The local manufacturer has, therefore, an additional natural benefit by way of freights. The local manufacturers are handicapped as against the overseas manufacturer through higher wages and shorter hours, and the employment of a larger proportion of male labour, but a comparison of prices, both Australian and overseas, shows that the rates proposed are sufficient to give ample protection to the local manufacturers on those lines less difficult to manufacture, and for which a reasonable demand exists. The importation of these goods was prohibited from the 4th April, 1930, to the 31st August, 1932, and under the prohibition, local manufacturers were encouraged to produce certain lines which could not be economically made with their existing equipment and methods, and any higher duties imposed, in order to maintain the production of these goods at unreasonable prices, would be imposing too much of a burden on the consumer.

Half of the raw material used in the manufacture of enamelled ware is of Australian origin; the sheet metal being supplied principally from Australian sources. Enamelled ware, like aluminium ware, has a natural protection, by way of freight, representing, in many instances, over 20 per cent. The Tariff Board goes fully into the matter of Australian and overseas prices, and a perusal of these shows that the local manufacturer is more than adequately protected on many lines, and there is no fear of overseas competition; but, on other lines, the duties which would be required would be unnecessarily high, and would result in maintaining prices at a level which would not be in the best interests of the public. The adoption of the Tariff Board’s recommendation will allow of ample protection on those lines for which the demand is reasonable, and which can be economically manufactured in Australia with the existing plants. In one paragraph of its report, the board states -

The present costs of landing United Kingdom enamelledware into store represent from 125 per cent, to 150 per cent, of the f.o.b. cost.

Honorable members must admit that that cost is too high on household requisites such as enamelledware. The report continues -

Bearing this in mind, reference to the foregoing table readily illustrates that many of the items could be produced by the Australian manufacturers without fear of competition from the United Kingdom, even if the duties were dispensed with. On the other hand, it is also clear that duties which would be required to safeguard the local production of other lines would be unreasonably high, and would result in maintaining prices at levels prejudicial to the best interests of the public.

The board simply made an inquiry regarding the protection given to the industry previously, without a proper investigation of the merits of the case. I ask the committee to support the present duties.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- The committee has agreed to-day, at the request of members of the Country party, to postpone the consideration of certain items, in the hope that reports upon them will be received from the Tariff Board. A strong case can be presented for the postponement of this sub-item, because honorable members have not had a chance to see the report that the board has submitted. The Minister courteously permitted me to see a typewritten copy of the report a quarter of an hour ago, and I have endeavoured to scan it. The Minister has given a summary of the report, and has made a quotation or two from it. My attention was directed to one quotation which should influence some honorable members against accepting the recommendation of the board. It emphasizes the tremendous attack that is being made on Australian industries by the importation of goods from Japan. The board says that it would require a 400 per cent, increase of duties to bring the landed cost of Japanese articles up to the Australian price, and it remarks that that would be unreasonable. I think that it is time we made up our minds whether we are willing to have the existence of our industries threatened with importations from the

East of goods sold at abnormally low prices. According to a cable message appearing in to-day’s press regarding the goodwill ship’s visit - the Nieuw Holland - to Batavia, it is feared that, owing to the invasion of Japanese goods, there is grave danger to Austraiian and British industries. In one instance, a lady’s dress, complete, was purchased for 4£d. I cannot account for these extraordinarily low prices. Last Friday, the Minister mentioned that handkerchiefs were being imported from Japan at 6d. a dozen. I made inquiry as to the quality of these goods, and 1 was assured that they were well made and ornamented, and were of fine quality.

Mr Maxwell:

– “Where can we buy them?

Mr SCULLIN:

– The honorable member will find that he cannot purchase them in the shops at even Id. each, which would be an advance in price of 100 per cent. Probably they will not be obtainable at even 6d. each. Some of the largest retail houses in Australia have sent buyers to Japan, particularly since the reduction of certain duties, and the low prices ruling owing to the depreciation in Japanese currency. The British manufacturers themselves fear that they may lose the Australian and other markets, on account of the flood of Japanese goods. Yet the Tariff Board declares that because the protection of Australian industries would require a 400 per cent, increase of the duties on goods coming from Japan, such an increase is unthinkable. If honorable members can say that it is reasonable that we should allow our industries to be destroyed, it is a poor look-out for us.

The Minister truly remarked that for some time the importation of these goods was prohibited. For two years Australia did without imports of these lines. I have not heard that anybody had to suffer in consequence, and proof of exploitation of the public is lacking. It is true that the cost of the Australian article is greater than that of the imported line, but these goods are not purchased every day. Saucepans and kettles are bought, probably, only once or twice in a lifetime. I find from the report of the board that in 1928-29, 97 persons were employed by one firm in this industry. In 1931-32, the number had increased to 159. This showed that with the decrease of imports there had been a corresponding increase in the number of persons employed in the local industry. In 1929, the. value of the imports of aluminium warealone was, I understand, £101,000, andi of enamelled ware £115,000. In 1931-32,. the value of imports of aluminium waredropped to £1,000, and of enamelled warc* to £19,000. It is true that during part of the latter period, prohibitions were in operation; but in that period increased employment was given in the industry. It is not denied that a considerable quantity of raw material has to be imported, and that fact has been used as an argument against the adequate protection of the industry; it is said that this is not an industry natural to Australia. But if there is justification for the protection of a natural industry, there is even more justification for the protection of an industry that has to import a good deal of its raw material. It is unfortunate that we have to import the aluminium used in the manufacture of the ware. It is more economical to import in sheets cut to shape, than to cut the sheets here, because of the considerable wastage involved. The fact to be remembered is, that the industries are established. If it can be shown that there are some articles which are not made nor are likely to be made here, that would be an argument only for their removal from the higher range of duties, no.t for the reduction of the whole. In any case, what hope have we of debating this matter on its merits until we have perused the report of the Tariff Board? There is a case for the postponement to the end of the schedule of those items that the Minister proposes to amend as a consequence of recommendations by the Tariff Board. These duties have been operating for two years or more, and we should not be asked to consider alterations to them before we have had an opportunity to learn what information has been placed before the board. The Minister said today that announcements concerning reductions of duties could not be made prior to the tabling of the alterations. I know of no reason why they should not.

I appreciate the fact that recommendations in favour of increasing duties handicap and embarrass the Minister in that respect, because, as soon as an announcement along those lines is made, the schedule giving effect to it must be laid on the table. But even in that case, the schedule could be tabled and the item be then postponed; because honorable members wish to have time to examine proposals for increases as well as for decreases of duty. Announcements of decreases, however, cannot affect trade. The Minister has been good enough to indicate to me the items with respect to which reductions are to be effected. I have seen only one report, and that for but a few minutes; consequently I am handicapped in discussing the merits of the case.

Mr MAXWELL:
Fawkner

.- I hope that the Minister will see his way to adopt the suggestion of the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (M’r. Scullin). As I understand the position, the Minister is now asking the committee to come to a final determination in regard to this particular item, on the strength of a report by the Tariff Board of which he has given a summary to the committee. I confess myself quite unable to give an intelligent vote on the item without further consideration of that report; and as I act on the principle that in these technical matters one ought to be guided by such reports, I shall certainly vote for the postponement of the item, so that my mind may be thoroughly informed when I come to discuss the matter on its merits.

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

.- The Government is not desirous of forcing any decision on the committee. Other items have been passed, although the report of the Tariff Board upon them had only just been tabled. In my introductory speech, I pointed out that this was an awkward group, and that the present position was bound to arise. If, however, honorable members wish to obtain fuller information from a perusal of the report of the board, I am willing to postpone this item. But that practice ought not to be applied generally to the whole group, which contains a number of somewha t simple items upon which a decision could be come to without delay.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) made two points to which I wish to reply. Dumping is a condition that can be dealt with under the provisions of the Industries Preservation Act. If. manufacturers find that goods from any country are being sent to Australia at less than the domestic price, and that their cost when landed is under the wholesale selling price, the act may be invoked. That is a much better way of dealing with the position than would be the keeping up of the general tariff, the effect of which would be to impose a high duty on articles that cannot be made in Australia.

The Leader of the Opposition also said that he could not see how trade would be affected if advance information concerning decreases of duty were given to the committee. In reply I point out that when goods came to hand they would be put into bond until the decreases were implemented.

Mr Scullin:

– That would not make any difference.

Mr WHITE:

– It might affect the revenue to the extent of thousands of pounds. Then, too, those who had stocks would intensify their efforts to dispose of them, and that might cause prices to slump. In fact, there could be repercussions in many directions. I agree to the postponement of this sub-item.

Further consideration of sub-item postponed.

Item 208, sub-item (d) -

  1. Kitchen ware (other than electrical heat ing and cooking appliances) manufactured of wire, tinned plate, plated metal, or a combination of such materials, with handles of any material or without handles; metal stove toasters; dish, pot, pan or plate washers or scrapers; metal soap racks; can-openers; metal soup ladles; cooks’ forks; corers and peelers; egg whisks or beaters; asbestos mats; ice picks - per dozen, British, 3s.; general, 4s.; or ad valorem, British, 45 per cent.; general, 05 per cent, (whichever rate returns the higher duty).
Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- I move-

That the sub-item be amended by omitting the fixed duties.

These fixed duties are very high, amounting in many cases to 300 per cent, on the value of the article. The claim for them was instigated in 1927, by an application by a Sydney firm which had met with a certain measure of success in the manufacture of various articles of kitchen ware. That project wa3 started in 1922, when the protection afforded was British 35 per cent., general 45 per cent. Under that protection, this company succeeded to such -an extent that, when its application came before the Tariff Board in 1927, the board referred to its balance-sheet, and said -

This demonstrates that the applicants are manufacturing the bulk of their output on a profitable basis, and they desire by further tariff assistance to strengthen their position in regard to non-payable lines now under consideration.

In other words, this company, under the comparatively meagre, although quite sufficient, protection then afforded, had succeeded in building up a useful and a profitable -industry by the manufacture of the larger and more legitimate lines of kitchen utensils; but there were small lines - such as potato-mashers, potatopeelers, asbestos mats, and the like - which the company attempted to manufacture, but which it found could not be profitably made in competition with overseas manufacturers, the lines being too small and the Australian requirements comparatively slight. In 1927, the Tariff Board compared the local and the overseas prices of these smaller items, and published the result in its report, from which I make the following quotation: -

With regard to wire tea-strainers, teastrainers with wooden handles, and coffeestrainers, the f.o.b. price of the complete article in Germany is less, and sometimes very much less, than the bare cost of raw material in the Australian article. In many lines on the schedule referred to the wholesale price of the Australian article is three times as much as the landed duty-paid cost of the imported article.

In those circumstances, ‘the. Sydney company applied to the ministry of the day for an increased duty of 25s. a gross British and 35s. a gross general, and ultimately received the protection of 36s. a gross British and 4Ss. a gross general; that is to say, it was given protection largely in excess of its request, despite the fact that the gap which it sought to bridge by means of protection represented a difference of 300 per cent, between the prices of the Australian and the overseas article. The Tariff Board at that time found that, to impose such a duty a? would effectively bridge that gap, would place a serious burden on Australian households, consequently, it could not see its way to recommend increases to anything like the extent asked for. In its report it said -

There are, however, lines on which the Australian manufacturer can more nearly compete, and with a reasonable increase in the duty it is considered that he would be naturally assisted.

Some of these lines were coffee-strainers, metal soap-savers, stove-toasters, asbestos mats, and potato-mashers. The board selected a number of lines which it considered might be economically made in Australia, and recommended an increase in the duty upon them to 45 per cent. British and 65 per cent, general; but it was not prepared to recommend - in fact, it definitely reported against - the wholesale increase in the duty requested by the company. Notwithstanding that report, the Scullin Government imposed fixed duties of 3s. a dozen British and 4s. a dozen general, and raised the ad valorem rates to 45 per cent. British and 65 per cent, general. The latter can be disregarded, in view of the fixed duties, which, I repeat, are unreasonably high. According to the Tariff Board report, in 1927 the f.o.b. price of foreign metal soap racks was 3s. 1-Jd. a dozen, so the protection given by the Scullin Government amounted to 125 per cent. Prices in foreign countries are probabl.y lower to-day than they were in 1927. Another article to which I should like to direct attention is asbestos mats. In 1927, the f.o.b. price was ls. Id. a dozen, so the protection given by the Scullin Government represented 350 per cent. The commodities covered by this sub-item are iri daily use in every Australian household, and, although the increased price of individual articles may not be felt very much, taken in the aggregate, the higher prices charged for a wide range of these small kitchen utensils represent an unreasonable addition to the cost of maintaining the home. When housewives are using these small commodities, I hope they will remember that they carry a duty of 3d. each, and will also remember who was responsible for that. All these items which affect so closely household costs in

Australia should be considered with some regard to the interests of the general public. It is practically impossible for Australian manufacturers to produce economically all these small kitchen utensils, because the cost of the raw material alone is, in some cases, higher than the selling price of imported, articles. This attempt to manufacture all these small kitchen requirements in Australia results in the general public having to pay twice, and sometimes three times, the cost of imported articles. I am entirely in agreement with those who favour protection for bona fide industries that have a reasonable prospect of success; but I cannot support this subitem, because I am convinced that the attempt to manufacture all these articles in Australia can only result in excess costs being piled on the purchasers.

Mr Holloway:

– Does the honorable member dare to say that we shall never be able to manufacture all these kitchen utensils?

Mr NAIRN:

– I have in mind articles such as ice picks, potato-peelers, and a number of similar commodities which, I maintain, cannot be manufactured in Australia economically, under present conditions, at all events.

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

– I am sure that all honorable members were interested in the comparison of costs made by the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn), but it is not desirable to judge this industry while an inquiry is being made by the Tariff Board. The higher duties were imposed by the Scullin Government, and we have asked the board to give them its earliest consideration. As has been stated so often in this debate, the policy of the Government is not to make radical changes in the duties except upon recommendations by the board. I therefore cannot accept the amendment.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.This sub-item affects one of the industries which received higher protection from the Scullin Government. Its subsequent development provides an interesting story. The manufacturers not only increased their plants, thus providing more employment for our people, but they also substantially reduced their prices. As the Tariff Board has been instructed to make inquiries into about 200 items upon which the Scullin Government increased the duties, I suggest that the Minister (Mr. White) instruct an officer of the department to make an investigation into this industry, so as to satisfy the committee that the duties are necessary. There is no justification whatever for throwing the Australian market open to the manufacturers of Japan or any other country, because we have the factories, the equipment, and the workmen to supply all our own requirements in these particular lines. The Scullin Government made a careful inquiry before imposing these higher duties, and was quite satisfied that the course taken was the proper one in the circumstances. I hope that the amendment will be rejected. [Quorum formed.’]

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) has indulged in a general tirade against Australian secondary industries, and has specially singled out the manufacturers of kitchen ware. I remind him that there is an enormous sale of these small articles in the principal cities of the Commonwealth through such stores as Coles, and that the public generally are quite satisfied with the prices charged. Mr. Coles stated at a meeting of shareholders in his company about a month ago that when his firm suggested to Australian manufacturers that they should give their attention to the production of a number of commodities in daily use, including the smaller lines of kitchenware which hitherto had been imported, it hardly expected that the response of our manufacturers would be so effective. He gave eloquent testimony to the efficiency of the Australian industry, saying that the articles made were excellent in quality, and the price quite suited to the pockets of the people. The firm in question has an enormous turnover, and, notwithstanding the depression, is able to show good profits on its business. It is providing the requirements of the people at the lowest possible cost, and I have heard of no complaints about the prices charged for the Australian-made articles. With regard to this sub-item, I am inclined to think that the Tariff Board is being somewhat pressed to make its inquiries at express speed, and I am afraid that, in quite a number of instances, mistakes will be made by that body. In the circumstances, the sub-item should be postponed in order that we may have an opportunity to consider the Tariff Board’s report. I therefore suggest that the honorable member should withdraw his amendment.

Mr Casey:

– I suggest also that the honorable member should withdraw what he has just said about the Tariff Board being liable to make mistakes.

Mr FENTON:

– It has done so on a number of occasions.

Mr Lane:

– That is only the honorable member’s opinion.

Mr FENTON:

– Possibly, it is. In my opinion, some of the board’s conclusions are without foundation, and I, for one, refuse to accept all its recommendations. I intend to stand up to my responsibilities as a member of this Parliament. I decline to endorse everything that the Tariff Board places before us. These higher duties, which were imposed for the protection of Australian industries, are more necessary to-day than ever. Those of us who take any interest in the operations in the kitchen of our homes, know very well that the kitchen utensils manufactured in Australia are usually much more satisfactory than those manufactured in foreign countries.

Mr Dennis:

– The foreign-made article is usually cheap and nasty.

Mr FENTON:

– That is so. The consequence is that our people rarely object to the payment of a penny or two more for the Australian-made article, because they know that it will be more serviceable.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- This is another objectionable item in respect of which there are the alternative duties. The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) has pointed out that the Tariff Board has made a report upon this item. We, therefore, think that the report should be accepted, seeing that it is the policy of the Government to accept the reports of the board. The honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) has time and again stated in this House that, as we have enough people in Australia to make the things that we require here, we should not open our markets to the products of overseas countries. If we could do our manufacturing on a competitive basis, that would be all right; but that is not the case. Seeingthat the Government has the option of choosing between the duties recommended bythe Tariff Board and those provided by the higgledy-piggledy system . of the last Government, it should not hesitate in choosing the former. No one can blame the manufacturers for trying to get the highest possible duties, but the Government should remember the users as well as the manufacturers of these goods. I notice that in this item, hand fire-extinguishers, asbestosmats, and ice picks are mentioned. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, I suggest that he agree to an alteration of the words “ asbestos mats “ to “asbestos shrouds “, as probably he and some of his predecessors in office may subsequently find an asbestos shroud very useful.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- The Minister has asked the committee to agree to this item, pending the receipt of a report from the Tariff Board; but I point out to him that the board has already reported on the item. It may be said that that report was made as long ago as 1927 ; but I remind honorable members that the only conditions which have altered since that time have been conditions which would not justify the imposition of a high duty. We know that protection has since then been increased by 10 per cent. primage duties, 25 per cent. exchange, and the reduction of wages and other local costs. In these circumstances, the degree of protection required in 1927 is not now required. Although the Scullin Government disregarded the report of the board, and imposed higher duties than those recommended by it, this Government, which has declared time and again that it believes in accepting the recommendations of the board, is actually preferring the Scullin duties to those recommended by the board. Four or five members of this Government roundly condemned the Scullin duties, but in this case they are now supporting them. The board recommended that the duties should be 45 per cent. and 65 per cent., but the schedule provides, also, for fixed rates of 3s. and 4s. per dozen, “ whichever rate returns the higher duty.” I think the fixed rates should be deleted. There is no justification for imposing a duty of 300 per cent. on kitchen utensils of this character.

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

.- The statement of the honorable member for Perth (Mr: Nairn) that the Government is accepting the Scullin duties in preference to the duties recommended by the Tariff Board is erroneous and reckless. I have said over and over again during this debate that we are asking the committee to ratify the duties provided on the items on this group, pending the receipt of reports from the Tariff Board. The statement of the honorable member for Perth, therefore, misrepresents the true position. The Tariff Board is at present investigating this item, and, when its report is available, the Government will determine what action shall be taken.

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

AYES: 10

NOES: 32

Majority … . . 22

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Sub-item agreed to.

Items 215 and 216 (b) agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m. [Quorum formed.]

Division 7. - Oils, Paints, and Varnishes

Items 229 (h1), 230 and 231 (h) agreed to.

Division8. - Earthenware, Cement, China, Glass, and Stone

Item 255, sub-item (c) (Gelatine of all kinds).

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- I should like to know whether the Minister has received the report of the Tariff Board on this item, also whether it is one of those items which will suffer a reduction of duty as a result of the application of the Ottawa agreement? Surely the honorable gentleman has some explanation to give on the subject. This is one of the most efficient of our secondary industries. It uses large quantities of raw material and gives employment to many Australians. As a result of the schedule introduced by the Scullin Government it is at present enjoying a reasonable measure of protection. Unfortunately, the reductions of duty that have already been effected by the present Government appear to be only a slight indication of what is to follow. It is quite possible that, towards the close of this debate and without notice, the Minister will introduce an amendment which will substantially reduce the protection given to the gelatine industry. In addition to successfully capturing the major portion of the Australian market and exporting portion of its output, this industry has established branch factories in Canada and South Africa; it has proved that a great secondary industry can be successfully placed on a high standard of efficiency in Australia, notwithstanding the fact that compared with any other country the wages paid here are higher, and the hours worked shorter. In view of the excellent results obtained by this industry I should like an assurance from the Minister that the present margin of protection will be continued.

Mr WHITE:
Minister for for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde · Balaclava · UAP

to ask whether this is an industry that is to suffer as the result of the application of the Ottawa agreement, for it is obvious that the Government cannot express an opinion on the subject until it has received the report of the Tariff Board. This Government does not intend to follow the policy of the Scullin Government and impose indiscriminately any duty that occurs to it. This is one of a group of items, all of which are in the same category, and which arc being investigated by the Tariff Board ; when the reports of that body are tabled its recommendations can be debated.

Sub-item agreed to.

Division 9. - Drugs and Chemicals.

Item 273-

Carbide of calcium per lb., British, 2d.; general, 3d. ) .

Amendment (by Mr. Guy) proposed -

That the item be amended by adding the following: - “And on and after 11th May, 1933, Carbide of calcium per lb., British,1d.; general,1½d.”

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- The amendment proposes to reduce existing duties by 50 per cent. When I was Minister for Trade and Customs I inquired carefully into the carbide industry, and I found that it was being developed scientifically in Tasmania; consequently, I was glad to give it adequate protection to permit its further development, and to enable it to put on the local market a carbide equal to the world’s best, at a reduced price. I am indeed sorry that the Government now sees fit to propose to reduce the existing rates of duty by 50 per cent. The industry is worth £100,000 a year to Australia, and the materials used in the production of this product are of Australian origin with the exception of about £6,000 per annum, which is expanded on Welsh anthracite coal, which is used in order to give consumers a product that is unexcelled. A study of the industry reveals that it is a shining example of the lower prices which can be brought about when Australian manufacturers capture the whole of the local market. With all modesty, I submit that it may be claimed that the industry has developed to its present state of efficiency as the result of the protection granted by the Scullin Government. The manufacture of calcium carbide in Tasmania was undertaken some years ago at the express wish of the Commonwealth Government then in power. At that time, foreign manufacturers of carbide and their selling agents in Australia had Australian consumers so completely at their mercy that they were charging them almost £80 a ton for this commodity. The present price of Australian carbide is £24 a ton ! When the Tasmanian industry was established and began to market its product, the foreign manufacturers reduced their price to a fraction of that previously charged, in an endeavour to crush the local manufacturer off the market; and they would have succeeded had not adequate protection been granted by the Scullin Government. The interests behind the imported carbide were foreign, for out of a total importation of 30 per cent. of Australia’s requirements of carbide not more than 6 per cent. was imported from countries within the British Empire. Upon investigation, I found that the rates of wages paid in European countries from which the imported carbide came were only about one-half of those enjoyed by Australian workers.

The Australian Commonwealth Carbide Company Limited, of Hobart, wrote to me on the 29th October; 1930, as follows : -

We would particularly mention that we have given an undertaking to the Department of Trade and Customs that, in the event of our application for increased duty being granted, the selling-price will not be increased above £20 per ton. On the contrary, we are convinced that the increased duty, if granted, will secure for us an expanded volume of trade, which will, by keeping the furnaces in continuous operation, ensure a reduction in cost of production and enable us to reduce the present selling-prices.

The company has carried out its assurance, for the price of Australian carbide is now £24 a ton, as against the £25 10s. a ton then charged. In addition, it must be remembered that during the depression 200 men, who would otherwise have been out of employment, have been kept at work by this industry. The Australian raw materials used by the company include limestone, steel sheets, timber, fuel coal, &c, while Australian labour, power and transport services are employed. In the case of foreign imported carbide, not one penny of such costs finds its way to provide work for Australian factories or labour. In addition to the 200 persons directly engaged by this company a considerable number are indirectly employed by associated industries which supply the raw material that is needed. Since the protective duties were imposed by the Scullin Government in June, 1930, Australian purchasers of carbide have enjoyed the use of a high-grade local article at a lower price than that charged at any time since the war. The Assistant Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Guy) gave no explanation when he moved his amendment, and I am at a loss to know why his Government has decided to give such a setback to this splendid Tasmanian industry, for nature has smiled beneficently upon the island State, which, favoured with cheap power, and a climate admirably suited for the purpose, should have a great manufacturing future. Tasmania has proved that it can produce carbide equal, or even superior, to the world’s best, at a cheaper price. There is no question about exploitation of the Australian people. Why, then, does the Government propose tb tinker with this protection and interfere with a worth-while industry? It cannot justify its action, and I am amazed that a Minister who represents a Tasmanian constituency should move so destructive an amendment.

Mr BLACKLOW:
Franklin

.- As the Deputy Leader of the- Opposition (Mr. Forde) has said, the calcium carbide industry is being carried on most efficiently in Tasmania. It is a highly technical industry which, probably, only a State such as Tasmania could initiate, for it has the advantage of possessing the greatest and most economical hydro-electrical system to be found in the Southern Hemisphere. As the honorable gentleman stated, the local article is equal in quality to the very best produced in Scandinavia, and it is sold at a price lower than that charged for the foreign article. This industry has certain features which should not be lost sight of. It is considered to be a key industry, and from the manufacture of carbide certain useful products are obtained. Key industries should be encouraged in every country. China., because of the war in which it is now engaged, must now realize that it is necessary in the interests of its own defence to establish key industries. In the same way Australia, in order to defend itself properly from invasion, must establish key industries. Tasmania does not believe in extremely high tariffs; all it. desires is fair and reasonable protection for its industries; and these must be established on a fairly substantial basis. Small concerns are soon forced out of business because of the facilities offering to similar activities in the large manufacturing centres on the mainland. If this industry suffers from any disability it is probably that, connected with freights. Because of the operation of the Navigation Act, and the consequent high freights, it is difficult for Tasmania to export its products to Western Australia. I do not doubt that, the Government has seriously considered this proposal to reduce the duties by onehalf. Judging by the efficiency of the industry, it should be well able to withstand foreign competition, which last year did not amount to more than £50 worth of carbide.

Mr Forde:

– That was because of the higher protection.

Mr BLACKLOW:

– This industry has now become so efficient, and has so improved its methods, that it should now be able to withstand foreign competition. If not, it mil be necessary for this Government to increase the duties.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- The honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Blacklow) might have been expected to put up a fight for the maintenance of the existing protection, which has enabled this industry to establish itself and become as efficient as he now says it is.

Mr Hughes:

– Not only to establish itself, but also to be maintained !

Mr SCULLIN:

– Exactly. It has also been admitted that the industry has not exploited this country. That is o an important thing to remember. When one recalls the exploitation that took place before this industry “was established, one trembles to think what would be the position in Australia to-day if it were allowed to languish for lack of proper protection. Before its establishment, the price of carbide was £80 a ton. To-day it is £25 a ton for small lots and £23 a ton for large lots. Why does the Government, or even the Tariff Board, recommend that we should interfere with an industry which is efficient, is serving this country well, and does not take advantage of the protection given to it? The report of the board was received only to-day, and I wonder how many honorable members have had an opportunity to examine it carefully. Yet we are asked to deal with this item now. The board, in its report, says -

If no customs duty were payable, Australian consumers would obtain some immediate benefit from the lower prices at which the overseas product can now bc purchased; but if overseas prices were raised to the level now obtaining in non-producing countries such as the United Kingdom, or to the level of the domestic values in the countries of export, consumers would pay much higher prices than they are now paying for the local product.

That is an important point. Had we to pay for carbide on the basis of the price ruling in the United Kingdom, where this article is not produced, we should be charged a much higher price than we are paying to-day for the domestic product. The Tariff Board has recommended this reduction of duty. It considers that the industry is now so well established, is so efficient, and is charging such reasonable prices for its product, that it can carry on successfully against importations under the lower duties. But why should we expose this industry to any risk ? Why reduce these duties?

Mr White:

– They are being reduced in order to protect the consumer.

Mr SCULLIN:

– Is there any proof that the consumer requires protection?

Mr White:

– The consumer must be protected from a monopoly.

Mr SCULLIN:

– As the industry is taking no advantage of the existing duties, why should we disturb it?

Mr Maxwell:

– Does the right honorable gentleman contend that if the duties arc reduced, the industry will not be able to carry on?

Mr SCULLIN:

– If the duties are reduced, I believe that the industry will be able to carry on; but I also believe that the reduction will result in importations.

Mr Hughes:

– From what countries do the imports of carbide come?

Mr SCULLIN:

– Mostly from Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States of America, but none from Great Britain. If our imports increase to the extent of only 20 per cent, of our local manufacture, the immediate effect, apart from the loss of labour, will be an increase of overhead costs on the remaining 80 per cent, of the local manufacture, with a consequent increase of prices, or a loss to the company. As the industry is well established, and is not exploiting the people, why should we disturb it ? The honorable member for Franklin has really made out a good case for the retention of the existing duties. In view of his personal knowledge of the Tasmanian industry, he must surely admit that the existing protection should be maintained. I cannot find in the board’s report one argument that would warrant any interference with the industry.

Mr Maxwell:

– What profit is the company making on present prices?

Mr SCULLIN:

– I do not think that is stated in the board’s report.

Mr Hughes:

– What is the recommendation of the board?

Mr SCULLIN:

– The board has recommended a reduction of duties from 2d. and ‘ 3d. to Id. and 1-Jd. per lb. respectively. If there were any evidence that the company was making an undue profit, I presume that the Tariff Board would have said so. I cannot see in the report any reference to exploitation. One witness gave sworn evidence as follows: -

Without the aid of this duty, the industry could not remain long in existence against the combined power of the European Carbide “ Ring “, and the mere existence of the local manufacturer has been the principal factor in forcing down and keeping the price to the consumer at a reasonable level.

Surely we must admit that those engaged in the industry have an expert knowledge of its operation and effect upon the community. The same witness continued -

Prior to the establishment of this industry, the price of carbide was about £80 a ton, but immediately on the completion of the local factory, the price fell about 50 per cent., and has since been gradually reduced from time to time.

Mr Hughes:

– When was the industry established ?

Mr SCULLIN:

– It must have been established before 1926, because at. about that time, the Government of Tasmania, which had control of it, transferred its interests to a private company. Since the establishment of this industry, there has been an enormous reduction in the price of carbide, and it has therefore conferred a great boon upon the Australian public. Taking into consideration the costs of carriage and freight, we are really obtaining carbide at a price lower than that charged in the United Kingdom, where the present price is £22 a ton, notwithstanding the fact that that country is in close proximity to the countries of export, and that there is, presumably, no duty, or at any rate, nothing more than a revenue duty, imposed upon this article. The report contains evidence to the effect that Canada has been prepared to dump carbide into Australia, that it has quoted an f.o.b. price of £12 a ton notwithstanding the fact that its domestic price is from £20 to £22 a ton, but that, because of the action of the Customs Department in applying the provisions of the Industries Preservation Act, dumping has been prevented.

Mr Stacey:

– Canadian carbide at £12 a ton, even under the proposed duties, could not be sold at a price lower than that now charged for the local carbide.

Mr SCULLIN:

– Other factors have to be taken into consideration.

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– According to the board’s report, the cost of Canadian carbide, plus landing charges, would be £41 9s. 8d.

Mr SCULLIN:

– That cost is based on the domestic price, but the Canadian industry is prepared to quote an f.o.b. price of a little more than half its domestic price. That shows that this industry, unless adequately protected, will be in danger of foreign competition. If the duties are reduced as is now proposed, I fear that there will be importations which will have the effect not only of increasing unemployment, but also of taking from the local company trade which rightly belongs to it, thus increasing overhead costs, and the price of the local article.

Mr HUGHES:
North Sydney

– I join with the Leader of the Oppo sition (Mr. Scullin) in regretting that the committee has not had an opportunity to peruse fully the report of the Tariff Board on carbide of calcium. The committee has not had the advantage of hearing from the Minister, but I assume that he has adopted the recommendation of the Tariff Board. I understand that before the industry was established, the price of carbide was £80 a ton, that it is now £23 a ton, and that the price in the United Kingdom, which has to import this product from countries of export is little, if anything, below the price charged by the Australian manufacturers. It has also been stated that notwithstanding that the domestic price of carbide in Canada is about £20 a ton, the manufacturers there are quoting an f.o.b. price of £12 a ton for delivery to Australia. I should like to remind the committee of the circumstances under which this industry began. It was established during the war, for the purpose, I think, of aiding the manufacture of explosives. We found that it was vital to the existence of this nation that we should have this raw material in Australia, and so the Government started the industry. When war broke out, it was found that all the materials necessary for the manufacture of munitions were, without exception, in the hands of the enemy. Thousands of Australian soldiers were killed because of the fact that Australian spelter was in the hands of Germany.

Mr Stacey:

– What explosives are made from carbide?

Mr HUGHES:

– I cannot say; but I had an idea that carbide was used for military purposes. I may be wrong; but the point is not material. Carbide is necessary to the community; this is the point. As “ to the price of carbide, I have not had the advantage of perusing the report of the Tariff Board ; but I was rather astonished to hear that the ground upon which the board based its recommendation is that the industry is so firmly established as to warrant the belief that it can continue with very little assistance. Presumably, the board believes, also, that the user will gain some benefit from a reduction of duty. But the trouble with the world to-day is that the prices of all commodities are abnormally low, and it is generally recognized that, unless and until they are raised, the world cannot be set firmly on its feet again. The raising of prices is the objective of the great movement started by President Roosevelt in recent months. If prices are raised, the consumer may not get any benefit; but it is clearly to our interest to encourage a local industry which is supplying its customers at reasonable rates. If by a reduction of duties 100 men were thrown out of work in a particular industry, they would still have to be maintained. We should hesitate long before we interfere with any enterprise which has conducted itself so admirably as has the carbide industry. It is most unfortunate that we should be asked to discuss this item and determine the future of this industry without being conversant with the report of the Tariff Board. It is suggested that the carbide industry is a monopoly. That may be true; but it has been conducted in a way that should win the commendation of the committee. I suggest that this item should be postponed until honorable members have had an opportunity to inform their minds by a study of the Tariff Board’s report; indeed, that course should be generally adopted in the consideration of this schedule.

Mr GUY:
Assistant Minister · Bass · UAP

– I agree’ that the manufacture of carbide is a valuable and efficient industry, worthy to be maintained. The proposals of the Government will provide adequate protection for it. Subject to the amendment I have just moved, the proposed rates of duty on carbide of calcium are exactly half those operating under the schedule of the Scullin Administration. Expressed per ton, the proposed rates are -British, £9 6s. 8d., and general, £14, and are approximately twice the 1921-30 tariff rates of £4 and £7 10s. respectively. The rates I have moved were recommended by the Tariff Board as the result of an inquiry recently held. The board found that employment was given to 200 hands in Tasmania in the production and distribution of carbide. All the raw materials used, with the exception of Welsh anthracite coal, are Australian. The industry is a large user of electric current, and helps to maintain the load on the Tasmanian hydro-electric depart ment’s power plant. Considerable comment has been passed on the quality of Australian carbide. The Tariff Board found, however, that the local product is equal in quality to carbide previously imported. In addition to the present duties, the industry receives protection through the Industries Preservation Act, which applies to carbide from all countries except Canada, and in effect ensures that, this commodity cannot be imported into Australia at prices lower than £1S 10s. Id. per ton c.i.f. The board found that overseas manufacturers are quoting prices to Australian buyers much lower than those quoted to buyers in other countries, and much less than the domestic price in the country of export. The selling price of Canadian carbide to Australian purchasers is £12 per ton f.o.b., whilst the price on the domestic market is from £20 16s. 9d. to £22 8s. lOd. Norwegian carbide is invoiced to Australia at £14 13s. 5d. a ton, whilst the domestic price in Norway of carbide recently imported into New Zealand was £21 10s. 4d. a ton. Having regard to the market prices in the country of export the prices charged by the Australian manufacturers are by no means high. Their present selling prices, c.i.f.e., capital cities, are 5 ton bts, £25 4s. lid.; larger parcels, £23 7s. Id. An important point which the board made was that if the same prices were charged by overseas suppliers to Australian buyers as are charged to buyers in countries where carbide is not produced, and the carbide were admitted free of duty, Australian users would pay rauch higher prices for the imported product than they now pay for that of local origin. There is ample evidence in the board’s report that much lower rates than those imposed by the last Government would provide adequate protection to the industry. A fact which the Government cannot overlook is that there is only one company manufacturing carbide in the Commonwealth, and that there is always a danger when industries become monopolized of the public having to pay higher prices than if free competition existed. So far there is no evidence of that occurring. An examination of the figures cited in the board’s report shows that under the proposed rates, with normal exchange and no primage, Canadian carbide would be landed at £25 12s. 5d. a ton, and the Norwegian product at £32 12s. 6d., as compared with the Australian rates of £25 4s.11d. for 5 ton lots, and £23 7s.1d. for larger parcels. The proposed rates will provide adequate protection to the local industry, and will at the same time, under normal exchange conditions, safeguard the interests of the public by establishing a maximum price for Australian carbide. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) proposes to amend my amendment by increasing the general tariff from1½d. to 2d. This will make the position of the carbide industry absolutely safe.

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

. -Under article 3 of the Australian-Canadian Preference Agreement of 1931, the Commonwealth undertook, in regard to goods set out in schedule b, which includes carbide, to maintain the then existing margins between the British preferential tariff and the intermediate and general tariffs. That means that there should be an additional½d. per lb. protection in the general column beyond what the board has recommended. We are unanimous in agreeing that this industry is an efficient and valuable one. The Tariff Board never recommends a reduction of duty without the fullest investigation having been made. As the Assistant Minister has stated, the industry will still be sufficiently protected, and, in addition, there is the Industries Preservation Act, under which further protection can be granted if dumping takes place. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) asked why the existing duties should be interfered with at all. I have already frequently made it clear that we may look upon the Tariff Board as an automatic price regulator. This was emphasized in the case of matches, in respect of which the Government, through the Tariff Board, was able to force prices clown without inflicting injury on any one. I do not say that this is a similar case, but, as a general principle, when duties are reduced, industry is stimulated by competition. When an industry has a monopoly of the market, it can fix its own prices. The Government, in accepting and supporting the Tariff Board’s recommendations, shows that it is considering, not only the industries concerned, but the interests of the community at large. I ask leave to amend the amendment of the Assistant Minister by making the rate in the general column 2d. per lb. instead of1½d.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

– It would not be in order for the Minister tobe given leave to amend an amendment moved by another Minister. He must either move an amendment on the previous amendment, or the Minister who moved the amendment must obtain the necessary leave.

Mr Guy:

– I ask leave to amend my proposed amendment to read as follows : -

And on and after 11th May, 1933 - 273. Carbide of calcium, per lb., British, 1d.; general, 2d.

Leave granted; proposed amendment amended accordingly.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- There is a saying that too many cooks spoil the broth, but this seems to be an exception. The Minister has improved the amendment moved by the Assistant Minister (Mr. Guy), and if we could get the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) in, we might have an amendment moved on the lines of the request he made to the Federal Government when he was Premier of Tasmania. It is amazing that the honorablemember for Franklin (Mr. Blacklow) did not protest against this substantial reduction of duty and that there was no protest from the Assistant Minister himself, who, on the other hand, moved a reduction of 50 per cent. in the duties. I have here a copy of a letter written to the Minister for Trade and Customs on the 14th November, 1929, in which the following paragraph occurs: -

In December, 1925, the Premier of Tasmania lodged an application for an increase in the tariff duty, to a straightout amount of 2d. per lb., and, subsequently, an inquiry was held by the Tariff Board, but as no action was taken, this company re-opened the question in July, 1928, and we attach hereto copies of correspondence between the Department of Trade and Customs and ourselves relative to the application.

It occurred to me to find out who was Premier of Tasmania at that time, and who was Deputy-Premier, and I found that Mr. Lyons was Premier and his deputy was Mr. Guy.

Mr Guy:

– That is not correct.

Mr FORDE:

– I made inquiries of the Library officials here, and this is the information I received -

Premier and Treasurer - Mr. Lyons.

Attorney-General and Education - Mr. Ogilvie.

Chief Secretary of Mines - Mr. Guy.

Lands, Works, Agriculture, Forestry - Mr. Belton.

Without portfolio - Hon. Lawson, M.L.C.

Mr Guy:

– That does not say anything about who was deputy leader.

Mr FORDE:

– At any rate, the Assistant Minister was a member of the government which made the request. Therefore, I was amazed to find the Assistant Minister moving an amendment that the duty be reduced to1d. British and1½d. foreign, particularly as he was a member of a State cabinet that went cap-in-hand to the Federal Government in 1925 and stated that the industry was being annihilated because a duty of 2d. per lb. all round had not been imposed. It is a remarkable reversal of form. We have been told that the industry does not want the extra duty, but I have before me a letter, dated the 18th March, 1933, from the Australian Commonwealth Carbide Company Limited, which contains the following: -

In spite of the trade depression we have managed to keep our works in operation and our workers fully employed during the last two most difficult years, without in any way increasing the cost to any section of the community, and we can make the definite assertion that had it not been for the. protection of 2d. per lb. which has been afforded us since June, 1930, we could not possibly have done so, for we were previously running uneconomically, and the reduction in the consuming power of Australia due to the depression would inevitably have forced us to close down our factory had we been obliged to share the market with others, thereby throwing our workers out of employment, lessening the amount of work available to all those others indirectly dependent upon our operations, and losing to Australia a valuable and, in certain circumstances, vital, industry, consuming as it does many thousands of pounds worth of Australian raw materials, &c., every year.

In conclusion, we have no hesitation in saying that we consider the continuance of the 2d. per lb. duty, which practically amounts to a prohibition of imports, is absolutely imperative to ensure the maintenance of our industry in Australia, since this market is only just large enough to absorb the production of the smallest economic carbide manu facturing unit, and we could not run efficiently if we are forced to share the market with the huge foreign plants of the international carbide “ ring “, which only uses Australia as a dumping ground, and once free of our competition would not hesitate to set the price at a level to suit themselves, knowing that, with our works out of existence, the consumer would have no alternative but to pay what was demanded.

Provided that we can retain the whole of the Australian market, we are confident that, with the revival of trade which we see ahead, increased turnover will enable us to further reduce our costs and so lower our selling price, but we cannot hope to do other than increase our costs if foreign carbide is again allowed to upset the balance of production and sales, which it is our aim to achieve; therefore, we maintain that the consumer cannot expect anything other than an increase in price to result from a reduction of the customs tariff which would allow foreign carbide to disturb our market.

P.S. - Two hundred men are now kept in constant employment.

So much for the statement that the company does not want protection. The company is just as earnest in asking for additional protection now as were the Prime Minister and the Assistant Minister for Customs in asking for the duty which was not granted until the Scullin Government took office. Then the increased duty was imposed on the understanding that there should be no increase of price. Both the Ministers I have mentioned agreed to that protection. The company cannot share the market with foreign combines, which, during the war, charged £80 a ton for carbide. When the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), as Prime Minister, asked that the industry be established, . he promised it assistance and protection. The Tariff Board recognizes that the industry is efficient and well established, and notes that the prejudice of previous non-buyers of Australian products has been practically overcome. I try to read all the tariff reports as they appear, but the report on the carbide industry came into my hands only this afternoon. I have no clerical assistance to make summaries of the reports, and, therefore, have not been able fully to assimilate its contents. In order to give honorable members an opportunity to study this report, I move -

That the further consideration of the item be postponed.

Mr STACEY:
Adelaide

.- I am convinced that the protection proposed by the Government is adequate to meet the case. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) said that carbide was formerly sold in Australia at £80 a ton; but I remind him that that was during the war. He also referred to threats that foreign carbide would be dumped in Australia at £12 10s. a ton. However, when a duty of1½d. per lb. is paid on that, together with other charges, the price is well over £26 a ton. That should be sufficient to enable the local industry to carry on, even though the protection were no higher than originally proposed. In any case, it is now proposed to increase the rate on foreign carbide to 2d. per lb., and that should be ample. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) claimed that this industry had been established at his instigation, and assisted by him in its developmental stages. I understood him to say that carbide was used in making explosives, that history might repeat itself, and, in the event of war, we would be pleased to know that the industry had been established. I have racked my mind ever since to find what kinds of explosives were made from this material. 1 have ascertained that carbide is used only for lighting purposes.

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– And welding.

Mr STACEY:

– At any rate if there should be another war we shall have to make our explosives of something other than carbide.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

.- I support the request for the postponement of this item. The Australian manufacturers of carbide of calcium have kept their pledges to the consumers, and are entitled to consideration on that account. In its report, the Tariff Board states -

In evidence before the Tariff Board in 1920, N. M. Hutchinson, representing overseas manufacturers of carbide, stated that, owing to the reduction of the price of the local carbide and the improvement in quality, the general level of prices of carbide of calcium in Australia had fallen considerably. Surely no better evidence than this is required to substantiate our claim that we are the consumers’ best friend and safeguard as far as concerns the carbide requirements of Australia.

I agree with what Mr. Hutchinson said, particularly in the last paragraph that I have quoted. Australian manufacturers do safeguard Australian consumers. As soon as a local industry has been destroyed by overseas competition, the price of the article concerned goes back to approximately the rate charged for it before the local factory was established. There is ample evidence to show that the establishment of factories in Australia has resulted in lower prices being charged for the articles they produce.

A good deal has been said on the subject of combines. I remind the committee that this Parliament has full power to deal with monopolies in this country, but not with those overseas. It is well-known that there is an overseas combinewhich manufactures carbide of calcium. This combine can well afford to lose money while fighting a small Australian industry, knowing full well that, when it has destroyed its competitor, it can make good its losses, because of the absence of competition. Australian consumers have more to fear from overseas combines than from any monopoly in this country. The Tariff Board states in its recent report -

During the last two years the local manufacturing company has been the sole supplier to the Australian market, and has had the opportunity of demonstrating that Australian carbide of calcium is equal in quality to that previously imported. The local brand is now well established, and the prejudice of previous non-buyers of the Australian product has been practically overcome.

As the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Blacklow) has pointed out, the success of this Tasmanian company depends on its output. Should its output diminish, its overhead charges rise proportionately, making it most difficult for the company to continue. It is the duty of this Parliament to protect Australian industries which do not attempt to exploit the consumers. From a brief glance at the Tariff Board’s report, I gather that the evidence is to the effect that the duties on carbide should not be reduced. I shall vote for the postponement of the item.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- I rise because of a remark by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), that the duties on carbide may not be sufficient to preserve to the local manufacturer the whole of the market in distant States, such as Western Australia and Queensland. Apparently, the right honorable gentleman feels assured that the Australian manufacturers will have a monopoly of the market in the more thicklypopulated States. If his fears regarding the distant States are well-founded, it is because the provisions of the Navigation Act have caused freights between Tasmania and Fremantle to be greater than between Europe and Fremantle. The right honorable gentleman showed a lack of consideration for the interests of the distant States.

Mr White:

– -Some of the so-called protectionists in this chamber are really prohibitionists.

Mr NAIRN:

– That is so. They realize that the Tariff Board’s recommendation will practically give the Australian company a monopoly of the market in some of the States, but that in the other States its position may not be so secure. In the interests of the whole of Australia, we should provide for competition, so that the Tasmanian company will not take advantage of its monopoly to raise prices. Apparently, this company has not attempted to exploit the people so far, but it would be well to offer it no inducement to become dishonest and1 raise prices. The protection recommended by the Tariff Board will give the local producers adequate protection against overseas competition. There is no reason for maintaining a duty beyond that rate. The proposals of the Government should enable the local product to compete

Against imported carbide. Should there be any attempt at dumping by overseas competitors, the Government has ample power to deal with it under the Industries Preservation Act. I am prepared to accept the recommendations of the Tariff Board, even though I may not in all cases agree with them; but the protectionists in this chamber are not prepared to do that. When the board recommends higher duties, they agree with the board; but when it recommends a reduction of duties they ask that the item be postponed for further consideration. In this case there is no good reason for any further delay.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– I support the proposal for the postponement of this item. The report of the Tariff Board on carbide of calcium is only just to hand, and it cannot possibly be considered properly in the short time available to honorable members. The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) suggested that we on this side of the chamber are prohibitionists, and the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) agreed with him. On other occasions the Minister has supplied arguments in favour of prohibition. The Hansard reports of the speeches of the freetraders in this chamber during the past two or three months contain many paradoxes. On the one hand, they argue that if Australian manufacturers cannot sell their goods in competition with the cheapest manufacturer in Europe, the Australian industry has not been economically established, and is, therefore, not entitled to protection. On the other hand, they contend that if Australian manufacturers, by installing modern and efficient plant, and adopting economical and efficient methods, can sell articles of high quality in competition with imported goods, they are so well established that the protection afforded to them ought to be reduced by one half. The Tariff Board agrees that the carbide industry has acted openly and honestly, has produced an article of good quality, and has not attempted to exploit the Australian consumer; and then it recommends that the duty should be reduced. The Central European combine, which manufactures carbide of calcium, is prepared to go to almost any limit to undermine its competitors. It works quietly. It does not openly dump goods in other countries; instead, it builds up stocks gradually, and then it releases them gradually, slightly underselling its competitors. It may not got a large proportion of the trade, but it gets sufficient to upset its competitors and, perhaps, to drive them out of business. After that it has things its own way. The honorable member for Perth, in reply to the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), suggested that by over-protecting this company it might be made dishonest, and he remarked that it had been honest during the last two and a half years. I agree that there would be a clanger of undermining this company, which has never attempted to exploit the public, were its tariff cut to the hone, and it were not quite sufficiently protected. It would be induced to gamble with competitors in such a way as to accept overtures that might be made to it to join the overseas combine. As soon as a combine gets an honest competitor in its grasp, up go the prices to the Australian consumers. Primary-producing industries are usually the last to realize this danger. In the last few months we have risked the destruction of industries that are making a good attempt to establish themselves on an economic basis ; but they have received a check at the hands of the present Government, which is proposing to give many more slaps in the face to local industries. The attitude of the Government to the carbide industry makes clear what may be expected in the months to come. Here is a company that everybody admits has “played the game “ with the people. It produces a commodity of good quality, and it has cut down its prices. If it had not been assisted to its feet, and if it had not made its plant efficient and reduced its prices, the Tariff Board would have told the people that the prices would have been much higher in Australia to-day if the duties had not been imposed. Therefore, why should we wrangle as to whether the duty is a -£d. per lb. too much, so long as the company is not taking advantage of the extra ½ ? The European combine could make the Australian company dishonest by selling its product in this country at a loss until it forced the local company to make overtures to it for amalgamation. The Tariff Board has lauded this company, more than has any speaker to-night, on the way it has served, but not exploited, the people. Since we have not had sufficient time thoroughly to digest the board’s report, -consideration of the item should be postponed.

Mr GIBSON:
Corangamite

.- I soc no justification for the postponement of this item. Although the manufacture of carbide in Australia is a monopoly, there is no danger of the public being exploited, because the manufacturers have to face strong competition from those who supply electric light, air gas illumination, and other artificial lighting systems. At one time carbide was used for lighting purposes in practically all country towns, as well as in many country homes, but those days have almost gone. Here is an opportunity for the Government to give effect to its policy, which is to accept the recommendations of the Tariff Board, although in this case the Government does not accept them in their entirety, because it has increased the duty in the general column to 2d. per lb. The “ present rate of £14 a ton is equivalent to an ad valorem duty of 100 per cent. The Minister can put into effect the provisions of the Customs Tariff Australian Industries Preservation Act at any time he pleases, by loading invoices, as he recently told us; and if any dumping occurs in the near future, I have no doubt that in this way ample protection can be accorded to the industry. A new system of electric lighting is advertised from time to time, and this will provide keen competition with acetylene gas lighting. It is claimed that by means of a windmill, electric light can be provided for a home free of all cost except the initial outlay. I am not afraid of carbide proving a serious competitor of that system; but it will be required for oxy-welding plants, and for other purposes. I have no doubt that the community will always receive a fair deal from the manufacturers of carbide, although they have a monopoly of the market.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– I support the postponement of this item. I have listened with interest to the debate, in the hope of securing a lead from honorable members in whose State the carbide of calcium industry has been established; but I find from their remarks that they are inclined to believe that the reduced rates of duty now proposed are quite sufficient to enable the industry to be carried on successfully. This view supports the Government’s proposal for a reduction of the tariff, but it is not borre out by the statements made by Mr. Peacock, the representative of the company, when he gave evidence before the Tariff Board. Speaking on behalf of the company, he remarked -

Without the aid of this duty, the industry cannot remain long in existence against the combined power of the European carbide “ ring “, and the mere existence of the local manufacturer has been the principal factor in forcing down and keeping the price to the consumer at a reasonable level.

That statement is contrary to the contention of honorable members from Tasmania, and Mr. Peacock claimed that the duty is necessary. “We have the further statement by the Tariff Board that no exploitation of the public has occurred, and I fail to see why the board has meddled with the industry at all. Apart from the admitted efficiency of the industry, the Tariff Board was kind enough to say that the popularity of the local brand of carbide is now well established, and that the prejudice of previous nonbuyers of the Australian product has been practically overcome. That is the kindest thing that the board has ever allowed itself to say. It need not have made that remark, because whereas in 1928-29, we imported 30,500 cwt. of carbide per annum, last year we imported only 43 cwt. That fact shows that the prejudice against the local article has disappeared. The Tariff Board has not been able to show that the company has taken advantage of the higher duties for any reason other than to protect itself against overseas competition. This is a useful industry, and under the increased duties, a reduction of prices has occurred. Therefore, it is not necessary to reduce the duties. No reduction of price can result from the Minister’s amendment. Country people who are using carbide, and who may imagine that owing to the reduction of the duties some reduction of price will occur, will soon be disillusioned. The board states in its report -

The high duties now in operation are more than necessary to enable the local manufacturers to retain the local market, and the board considers they could be substantially reduced without exposing the industry to the unfair competition of overseas manufacturers.

Yet this board recommended that diesel engines be placed on the free list. Its recommendation is now likely to upset the equilibrium of the carbide industry, thereby doing an injustice to Australian workmen and to an Australian product, without bringing about a reduction of the price of carbide. I support the postponement of this item, in the hope that in the interests of the industry, honorable members may become more conversant with the facts. They will then have ample time to analyse the statements made by honorable members from Tasmania as to whether the proposed rates of duty are sufficient. Since the industry has not exploited the public, hut has reduced its prices, and has supplied practically the whole of the requirements of Australia, I submit that no case has been made out for a reduction of the duties.

Mr GUY:
Assistant Minister · Bass · UAP

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) in discussing this item, has exhibited inexcusable ignorance. Of course, the honorable gentleman has his brief, and must argue according to it in schoolboy fashion - by hook or by crook. We have been compelled to listen to the honorable member along those lines for more than a month, and the matter that he has presented has consisted merely of tedious repetition.

Mr Scullin:

– That is a most provocative statement.

Mr GUY:

– The honorable gentleman stated that the company had asked for greater protection. Of course it has. I remind him, however, that this is not a “ write-your-own-ticket “ Government. In the past, when industries have asked for certain duties, little or no inquiry has been made into the matter, and the duties have been granted.

Mr Scullin:

– Did not the Minister support those duties?

Mr GUY:

– No; not in all cases.

Mr Forde:

– The honorable gentleman pestered the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) and myself to impose these duties, and supported them when they were proposed. He was on our doorstep every morning.

Mr GUY:

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asserted that there would be unfair foreign competition. He knows as well as I do that the Industries Preservation Act still operates. I definitely state that that act applies to all countries with the exception of Canada, and ensures that carbide cannot be imported at a lower price than £18 10s. Id. a ton. Coming as I do from the State in which this industry is established, and being acquainted with all the circumstances surrounding the case, I say that ample protection is afforded, and that there is no possibility of the industry going out of existence. It is an efficient and a valuable industry. The Government has no desire to kill it; on the contrary, we desire to do everything possible to protect it. If honorable members believe that I would do anything to kill the industry, they are very greatly mistaken. If I thought for a moment that the result of this action would be to wipe the industry out of existence, I would not support it. Under the proposed rates, there will be an advantage to the local industry under the British preferential tariff, so far as Canada is concerned, of over £2 a ton, not taking into consideration exchange or primage, which considerably increases the margin. The advantage over Norway and other foreign countries will be equal to £10 or £11 a ton, not taking into consideration primage and exchange, which make the margin much higher.

The honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser) quoted the evidence of one interested party. I do not deny that Mr. Peacock gave the evidence referred to. I suggest, however, that the honorable member should study the evidence given by persons who are interested on the other side. I am not taking notice of interested parties, but am basing my opinions on the independent report of an impartial body. The Tariff Board took evidence from those who were opposed to an increased duty as well as from those who were in favour .of it; and, having given the matter due consideration, it decided to recommend duties of Id. per lb. British and 1½d/ per lb. general. The proposal before the committee is that the rates shall be Id. and 2d. respectively, and I urge the committee to accept it.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- I cannot understand the arguments that have been used by honorable members who have expressed the fear that this industry will be endangered if the original duty is reduced. At page 4 of the Tariff Board’s report there is a table which gives a comparative summary of costs. It shows that the f.o.b. cost, free of duty and primage, is £14 13s. 5d. The addition of freight and insurance makes the c.i.f. cost £18 12s. 6d., and with exchange - £4 18s. 9d. - added, the total is brought to £23 lis. 3d.

Mr Scullin:

– That is not the Tariff Board’s report; it is evidence. We are not allowed to quote it on the one side, but the honorable member may quote it on the other.

Mr PATERSON:

– Even if these figures be not strictly accurate to the last shilling, the margin is so tremendous that it is obvious that the rates of Id. and 2d. are more than sufficient to protect the local industry, the highest price charged by which is £25 4s. lid. a ton, while for 50-ton lots the price is only £23 7s. Id.

Mr Maxwell:

– Is there in the report any evidence contradicting those figures?

Mr PATERSON:

– In the second column of the table the landed cost is given at £32 13s. 6d. on the basis of a duty of £7 103. a ton, which was the figure at which the duty stood before it was increased by the Scullin Government, and primage of £1 12s. 3d. The difference between that duty and the duty of Id. per lb., that is now proposed, is £1 16s. 8d. a ton. The addition of that sum, according to the figures here given, will make the landed cost £34 10s. 2d. Therefore, the margin above the Australian price is £9 a ton. If we add to the f.o.b. cost the proposed general duty of £18 13s. 4d., and take into account freight, insurance, exchange and primage, we obtain a total landed cost of £43 16s. 10d., which is almost £20 above the local selling price. These figures have been challenged, on the ground that they have been supplied by some person who is interested in having the duty lowered. I do not dispute that. But even if .they be not completely accurate, the margin is so tremendous that no one who realizes the extent of the protection given can have any fear that the industry will be jeopardized by the lower duty.

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– There has been a considerable amount of discussion of this small industry, which is located in only one part of the Commonwealth, where there are ample deposits of limestone, and where a very good electric power supply is available. When the procedure has once been adopted, the preparation of carbide of calcium is a simple process. It is only a mixture of limestone and the proper amount of coal in a retort heated to 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, the resultant product being poured off at that temperature. The uses of carbide of calcium have been misstated once or twice this evening. It is not used as a munition preparation, but solely for lighting and for oxyacetylene welding. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), who said that it is used as a munition preparation, was slightly confused on account’ of the high pressure at which he worked during the war years, when he really started this industry at Electrona. The trouble began through lack of the necessary shipping space to bring supplies of carbide to this country, which made it difficult for the man on the land, who used if as an illuminant, to obtain the quantity that he needed, with the result that the price rose to the very high figure of £S0 a ton. After the war, the Tasmanian Government assisted the company for some time; but on account of faulty methods of production the industry failed. The company was revived, however, and was helped considerably by the Industries Preservation Act, and the duty of £7 10s. a ton. For the five years or so prior to 1929, the sales in Australia amounted to about 4,700 tons a year, of which, according to the evidence of the manager, 64 per cent, was produced by the Tasmanian company. During the last, three years, the figure has dropped to 3,600 tons, and it will continue to decline as better methods of lighting are introduced throughout the country, although, concurrently with the diminished use of carbide as illuminant, there will be a more extensive use of it in connexion with metal work. It can almost he regarded as a raw material for much of the-iron work that is carried on, .especially in country districts, where large plants are not available, and an oxy-acetylene plant is easily transportable. Of 01 3,600 tons that have been used annually in the last three years, only some 447 tons have been imported - a negligible quan tity, due to the prohibition imposed by the last Government. During 1931, only 6 tons were imported, and during 1932, the quantity was only 1 ton. Reviewing the evidence given before the Tariff Board, it is interesting to note that two witnesses gave evidence in opposition to that of the manager of the carbide company. After quoting various figures, they proved to their own satisfaction that without any duty the local price is still below the cost of imported carbide. The second of the two witnesses said -

It will bo seen that the present rate of duty amounts to prohibition, and is therefore not a part of the protective policy of Australia.

The Tariff Board, summing up the evidence, gives a table which differs slightly from the figures mentioned by the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson). I also have varied its figures so as to make them conform to the duties suggested by the amendment. The total duty-paid cost in Australia for Canadian carbide of calcium, according to these calculations, should be £32 3s. a ton, and for Norwegian and Swedish carbide of calcium slightly over £43 a ton. The Australian company itself states that it can sell its product at the factory for £25 4s. lid. a ton in 5-ton lots, and that, for larger quantities, it is prepared to give a discount of 7£ per cent, and 1 per cent. There does not seem to be the slightest anxiety that this company will not be able to carry on with the rates proposed. But there is always a tendency, when one manufacturing concern has a monopoly of the market, for it to raise its prices higher and higher with the object, perhaps, of making good losses that may have been incurred in previous years. Therefore, this committee has a definite duty to the purchasers of carbide in our country districts and smaller towns where electric light is not available, and where the people depend on carbide as an illuminant or for industrial purposes. The committee would be well advised to accept the Government’s proposals. There is no need to postpone the item.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) having pointed out that this is one of the few industries which has been established in Tasmania as a result of the protectionist policy of this country, the Assistant Minister (Mr. Guy) has become a little bit ruffled, and, to some extent, abusive. Abuse, I remind the Assistant Minister, is not argument. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in my judgment, rendered a distinct service to the people of this country by speaking on behalf of the Australian industries. It is to he regretted that the Assistant Minister is not as loyal to his own little State as the honorable member for Capricornia is to the whole of Australia. The Assistant Minister endeavoured to persuade the committee that this Government is not following the lead set by my Government, and went on to suggest that when we were in office anybody could come along and practically “write his own ticket,” as regards the degree of protection required for his own industry. He added that this Government took no notice of interested parties in “ such matters. I ask the honorable gentleman to refresh his own memory, and to recall the part which he took in the agitation by interested parties to have the duties increased, to enable the carbide industry to carry on. I invite him to recall the representations made by him on behalf of this industry because, as I remember the circumstances, he kept the agitation going until the higher duties were imposed. Now, in his position as Assistant Minister, he has moved an amendment to substitute lower duties. The honorable member went on to talk about the motives of the. people who are interested in the industry, and mentioned, as one of the interested parties, Mr. Peacock, a representative of the present company. Need I remind the honorable gentleman that Mr. Peacock gave sworn evidence before the Tariff Board in support of his company’s request for the maintenance of high duties. But, of course, all that is now brushed aside by the honorable gentleman, because it does not suit his purpose. The Acting Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson) quoted extracts from the report of the Tariff Board. Honorable members who listened to him gained the impression that he was reading from the report of the board itself, when as an actual fact, he was quoting portions of evidence given by partisan witnesses. I am not going to challenge the accuracy of the figures cited by the Acting Leader of the Country party, but I do definitely challenge his deductions. On figures given by Mr. N. W. Hutchinson, on behalf of the Carbide Importers Association, in other words, on behalf of the European ring, the honorable member showed that, with the duty at £7 10s. a ton, the landed cost . would be £32 13s. 6d., and declared that, in such circumstances, importation would be impossible. I invite the honorable member for Gippsland to say if my interpretation of his argument in any way misrepresents the position he takes up.

Mr Paterson:

– Yes; it does to this extent: I stated that with a duty on British carbide of £9 6s. 8d. a ton, instead of £7 10s., the landed cost would be £34 10s. 2d.

Mr SCULLIN:

– The honorable gentleman said definitely “ that with a duty of £7 10s. a ton the landed cost of imported carbide would be £32 13s. 6d.

Mr Paterson:

– That is right, but the proposed duty is not £7 10s. a ton; it is £9 6s. 8d.

Mr SCULLIN:

– On that basis, the honorable gentleman declared that it would be impossible for importers to sell in competition with the Australian commodity, at prices ranging from £23 to £25 a’ ton.

Mr Paterson:

– What I said was that, with the landed duty paid cost of £34 10s. 2d. a ton, the protection for the Australian industry would be more than ample. I am not going to allow the right honorable gentleman to put other figures in my mouth.

Mr SCULLIN:

– The honorable gentleman quoted figures supplied by Mr. Hutchinson, a partisan witness, and certainly gave the impression that he was reading from the report of the board, when, as a matter of fact, he was’ doing nothing of the sort. Such is the nature of arguments advanced to damage protected industries.

The Assistant Minister tried to excuse himself by declaring that he would not be likely to approve of these duties if their effect on the Tasmanian industry would be what we say it will. Does he pretend to know more about the industry than the men engaged in it - men who appeared before the board and gave sworn evidence? The fact that there was a margin of £9 between the landed cost of imported carbide, with a duty of £7 10s., and the price of the local commodity sold in 5-ton lots, does not prove that importation will be impossible, because when this duty was in operation in 1928-29 we imported £28,000 worth of carbide. I therefore contend that a margin of £9 or £10 a ton would not render importation impossible. Nothing is impossible in the present state of world trade, and when dumping is so generally practised. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) was quite right in all that he said. Why should the Australian industry be expected to carry on with an insufficient margin of protection? There is no proof that there has been exploitation of the Australian purchasers of the commodity with the existing duties.

The honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. E. F. Harrison) took to task the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), who, he said, had declared that the carbide industry was, in a sense, a war-time activity, and that its product was used for munition purposes.

Mr Makin:

– The right honorable gentleman did not say that.

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– I think he did. He certainly used the word “ explosives “ in his remarks concerning the industry.

Mr SCULLIN:

– I did not hear him say that, but the honorable member for Bendigo was wrong when he said that the industry was of no value in relation to defence, because carbide was used in connexion with war-time shipbuilding.

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– I doubt that oxyacetylene welding was used in those days.

Mr SCULLIN:

– It was used in the shipbuilding industry. But the point 1. wish to make is that this is one of the few industries that has been established in Tasmania, a State which has not bene fited to the same extent as the larger States from the protectionist policy of the Commonwealth, and it should be encouraged. I therefore ask the committee to postpone further consideration of the item so that honorable members may read the report of the Tariff Board, and be fully informed of all the facts relating to this industry.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- I cannot allow the distorted statements of the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) to pass unchallenged. He implied, if he did not actually say, that I juggled with figures. I hope I made it clear that the figures which I was reading were given in evidence by Mr. Hutchinson before the Tariff Board. I also stated that my figures were based, not on a duty of £7 10s. a ton, but on the proposed rate of £9 6s. 8d.

Mr SCULLIN:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– The honorable gentleman spoke of £14 a ton as the f.o.b. price.

Mr PATERSON:

– The honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. E. F. Harrison) corrected any error which 1 might have made in that regard by mentioning the Canadian price of £12 a ton f.o.b. It will be noticed that in respect of importations from Canada, freight and insurance are somewhat higher than in respect of Norwegian carbide. The final result when using the other table is not very different from the figures which I quoted. I assure the committee, if assurance be needed, that I had no intention of misleading honorable members in any way.

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

– The carbide of calcium industry is not a new one. The Tariff Board’s report shows that in 1927 it was taken over by the present company from the Tasmanian Government. As the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. E. F. Harrison) has stated, carbide is not now so generally used for lighting purposes, but there is demand for it in connexion with oxy-acetylene welding in garages and other country industrial establishments where electric welding is not common.

The right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), in common with other honorable members, urges that something may happen to the industry unless it gets a margin of protection which a government led by him would provide. This Government believes in allowing such matters to be determined by the Tariff Board, which is now watching this industry with a view to preventing dumping, so there is no danger of its being smashed. The second amendment to make the duties 1d. British and 2d. general, though that correction need not have been made at this juncture, has been moved because the Government realized that, in its original form, the item was a contravention of the Canadian-Australian Trade Agreement. If there is any dumping of carbide into Australia, the provisions of the Australian Industries Preservation Act can be applied. No carbide is imported into Australia from Great Britain ; but some comes here from Canada. There are no dumping provisions in the trade agreement with Canada, but article 9 of the agreement provides that the general rate of duty may be applied if Canadian manufacturers are undercutting the Australian manufacturers. The position of this industry is quite safe. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) read a letter from the general manager of the Australian Commonwealth Carbide Company Limited, in which that gentleman asked that the Scullin duties should be retained; but, for the reasons I have given, there is no need for the retention of them. The gentleman to whom I have referred had something to say about a decrease of employment in this industry; but the Government will not be influenced by statements of that kind when the actual statistics show that employment in industry generally is increasing. I hear the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) interjecting. That honorable gentleman wants only one duty, and that is the duty which he thinks desirable. The honorable member sets his own opinion above that of the Tariff Board.

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

AYES: 13

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 279, sub-item (b) (Tartaric acid, cream of tartar, &c.).

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

– The Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) has this evening quoted from typewritten copies of several reports by the Tariff Board, and he has also supplied the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) with typewritten copies of certain reports by the board. I wish to know whether the board has reported on cream of tartar, and, if so, when the report will be made available to honorable members ?

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

.- The honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) must have seen reports in the press recently of the evidence given before the Tariff Board in respect of cream of tartar. The inquiry has not yet been completed. The duty on this item was increased by the previous Government. When the Scullin Government sent an item to the Tariff Board honorable members were fortunate indeed to be furnished with a report thereon. This Government does produce the reports of the board when they are presented, and honorable members may rest assured that the customary practice will be followed in this instance. The item is receiving the attention of the board and, should any amendment be necessary, it will be made at the proper time.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- The Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) should be fair. He said that when the Seullin Government was in office it withheld the reports of the Tariff Board from honorable members. I challenge the honorable gentleman to consult the Comptroller-General of Customs on the subject, when he will find that the last Government did not depart from the procedure followed by previous governments, that of making the reports of the board available as soon as the Government arrived at a decision thereon. I give the present Minister credit for following th.-. policy that I carried out of making reports available as quickly as possible. It is a fact that occasionally, for very good reasons, a report has had to be held up for some four or five months. In such instances there was a sound explanation; the Government did not desire to give importers prior information by indicating its intention prematurely.

Mr White:

– If the honorable gentleman wants a specific case, I mention that of the board’s report on gas meters.

Sub-item agreed to.

Item 281, sub-items (c) (o), agreed to.

Division 10. - Wood, Wicker and Cane.

Item 291, sub-items (mI, 2, 3) (n) and 301 (d) agreed to.

Item 302 (File and chisel handles, t00 handles unattached, n.e.i.).

Mr NOCK:
Riverina

.- This item provides a duty of 4s. 6d. a dozen on British, and 7s. 6d. a dozen on foreign tool handles, unattached n.e.i., or an ad valorem duty of 50 per cent, and 65 per cent, respectively, and it includes axe handles. An examination will reveal that the protection is exorbitant, for to that 65 per cent, must he added 10 per cent. to work it out at the ad valorem rate, also exchange, transport costs, sales tax, and primage, making a total protection of 220 per cent. We must recognize that Australia does not possess any wood suitable for making axe handles. We have nothing that can be compared with American hickory. In spite of the attempts that have been made to put on the market a reasonably good axe handle made of Australian wood, our product has been received with contempt. Last Saturday, when I was at Forbes, I met a man who showed me his hand split from the fingers right across the palm - caused by the use of an Australian axe handle. On a recent Monday I purchased three Australian-made axe handles and sent them home. When I reached home at the week end, I found that two were broken, and I have brought them with me to show to honorable members. One is split from end to end. The third lasted three weeks. These handles were oiled before being used. It is ridiculous that axemen and Australian householders should be made to pay for their axe handles the exorbitant price of 4s. 6d. each to afford this extreme protection to an impossible Australian industry.

There is another anomaly to which I will draw attention. Item 219 covers axes, which are admitted free, British, and 15 per cent., foreign. A householder requires a new axe only once in every ten or twenty years, but he requires an axe handle comparatively frequently, yet he pays 15 per cent, duty 011 the axe and 65 per cent, on the handle, if imported from foreign sources. It is no use biting off our nose to spite our face. However much we may object to purchasing American products, we must realize that it is foolish to penalize ourselves by imposing these exorbitant rates of duty for no good cause. If it is not possible to reduce the rate on axe handles, I urge the Minister to include them under 219 c, so that they may be brought in at the same rate as axes. I have here an invoice showing that the price of axe handles in America is 10s. 5d. a dozen, purchased in 120 dozen lots, yet the landed cost in Australia is 32s. 5d. a dozen. I submit that- this is an absurd imposition, and I commend my suggestion to the Minister.

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

.- There is much merit in all that the honorable member has said. This is a typical example of the tariff-making of the Scullin Government, which, in this instance, increased the duty by 100 per cent, without referring the item to the Tariff Board. That is the kind of thing the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde’ and the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) applaud. It is generally accepted that hickory is the most suitable timber from which to make axe handles; that timber is not grown in Australia. Consideration has been given to the importation of hickory in logs, from which axe handles may be manufactured locally. The item will be investigated by the Tariff Board in due course, and, if necessary, steps may.be taken in another place to bring about an amendment. Meanwhile, the Government asks the committee to validate the existing duty pending receipt of the board’s report. I assure the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) that his suggestion will be referred to the department.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- I am pleased at the moderate attitude of the Minister on this occasion, and confirm what has been said by the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock). Years ago, with a better buying capacity, our people paid ls. for an axe handle; to-day, they have to pay 4s. 6d. They cannot afford to do so. An axe and its handle are just as much tools of trade to the man who undertakes clearing contracts and the supply of timber, as is machinery to the manufacturer; yet he is loaded with this tremendous impost. In other countries, persons pay about’ ls. for an axe handle, while in the United States of America the cost is only 10-)d. ; he./c- the article costs us 4s. 6d., an exorbi tant charge that penalizes the primary producer and does no good to any section of the community. I suggest that those who control afforestation in Australia should take steps to ensure that timber suitable for axe handles is grown here. I should not complain so much about the local article if it were worth the price charged for it; but it is of inferior quality, and if not nearly so serviceable as the imported handle. There is a factory in my electorate making axe handles. Western Australia has as good timber as any other State; but, notwithstanding that fact, the local axe handles are .unsatisfactory. I am pleased that the Minister has recognized the fact that this duty was imposed haphazardly by the previous Government ; and I am sure that the Tariff Board, after making full inquiry into the industry, will recommend a reduction of duties.

Mr STACEY:
Adelaide

.-! realize that it is the intention of the Minister to refer this item to the Tariff Board. I agree with the remarks of the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) that we have in Australia notimber that is suitable for axe handles. My experience is similar to his. The local axe handles are unsuitable for the work that has to be undertaken in our forests, and are unsafe to use. In South Australia many timbers have been unsuccessfully tried for axe handles. Not many years ago an excellent handle could be purchased for a little over ls. To-day we are asked to pay 4s. for an article upon which no reliance can be placed; in fact, in South Australia many woodmen are using metal axe handles in preference to wooden handles. Although they jar the hands, they are not so unsatisfactory as the wooden handles. I hope that the Tariff Board will recommend some alteration of the duty to enable either suitable timber or the imported article to be imported, so that woodmen and others who use axes will be able to obtain satisfactory handles at a reasonable price.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

.- Again we hear’ the cry that we cannot produce in Australia articles suitable for our own requirements. As a matter of fact, a timber known as crowfoot ash, which is grown in Queensland, makes quite as good an axe handle as the imported article. Even axe handles of the heavier spotted gum are quite suitable for forest work, and are evidently much superior to the metal handles referred to by the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Stacey). For six years

I was engaged on axe work, and I know of no better handle than that made of crowfoot ash. The statement that we cannot produce a suitable axe handle in Australia is ridiculous. In Queensland I can buy axe handles at from ls. 9d. to 2s. each. I deprecate the statements of some honorable members that we cannot, produce suitable and useful articles for our own requirements. Queensland, although it has really no forests, has large tracts of timbered areas, and the men engaged in cutting scrub there are using Australian axe handles, which give every satisfaction. Queensland has timber suitable for axe handles, and is producing the finished article at a reasonable price.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

.- Reference has been made to the suitability of Australian timbers for the making of axe handles. In the northern portion of New South Wales there are large areas of real scrub. I know of no timbered areas in South Australia that can be called scrub. There are many timber mills in my electorate, and in sleepercutting and other such work the local axe handles give every satisfaction. Out of the first 50,000 axe handles produced by one firm in my electorate, and made of Australian wood, fewer than 30 were returned as unsatisfactory.

Mr Dennis:

– What timber is used in the making of the handles?

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– It is a whitish scrub timber which grows in Queensland and northern New South Wales. It is used for handles of the best quality. Spotted gum and other hardwoods are also used for axe handles.

Mr Gabb:

– What is the brand of axe handle ?

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I do not know, but the firm_manufacturing them is Bagot Brothers, of Ballina. The honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) and other Queensland representatives know a good deal about axemanship in the bush. The champion axeman of Australia is one of my constituents and he uses an Australian handle.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- When a man breaks an axe handle, he does not usually bother to return it to the factory.

Western Australia has the biggest timber export industry in the Commonwealth, and there is also much clearing of forest and scrub in newly-settled areas. Axemen in that State are very disappointed with Australian handles. It is regrettable that of the many fine Australian woods, none has been found quite satisfactory for handles. The axemen in the south-west have experimented with handles from all parts of Australia, including Queensland; but having found that the local article will not stand up to the work, they prefer to pay the extra price for the imported hickory.

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

.- The protest made by the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) is hardly a fair representation of the Australian industry. Before locally-made axe handles were available, I used the foreign article, and had experiences equally as unfortunate as the honorable member had with an Australian product. Some months ago I visited the factory at Ballina and saw there an efficient industry that is a credit to Australia. Both the material used and the workmanship were of the highest quality. A serious injustice will be done to a developing industry if the duties are lowered. It is now providing work for a large number of men, but its opportunities for expansion will be restricted if the admission of foreign tool handles is made easier. Moreover, many men now engaged in the industry may lose their employment. Satisfactory axe handles are being produced in the Commonwealth, and if honorable members had an Australian outlook, they would recognize the value of the local .product. Unfortunately, some persons have a foreign complex, and nothing is good in their eyes unless it bears au overseas label.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- This was one of the industries that claimed the attention of the Scullin Administration. Australia was at that time importing over 50,000 tool handles annually, principally from America, with which this country had an adverse trade balance. Ample evidence was furnished that these handles could be manufactured in Australia, and I was glad to hear the statement of the honorable member for

Richmond (Mr. R. Green) that the champion axeman of the Commonwealth uses an Australian handle. The railway departments of New South Wales and Victoria, the Broken Hill Proprietary Limited, and Vickers Commonwealth Steel Products also find that the local article is quite satisfactory. This industry has been developed considerably as a. result of the adequate protection given by the Scullin schedule, and I hope that nothing will be done now to throw the operatives out of employment. The production of tool handles entails the use of large quantities of local timbers, chiefly mountain ash, spotted gum, ironbark, red box, woolly butt, white beech and Australian hickory. In the getting and preparing of this timber, large numbers of men are engaged. There are now thirteen factories engaged in the production of tool handles, and employing approximately 300 hands. Prior to the operation of the 1930 tariff proposals, the Australian market was being more or less flooded with third-grade hickory handles from the United States of America. They were landed here cheaply and sold at low rates. Being of hickory they had a distinct selling advantage over the lessappreciated Australian timbers, especially o as advertising propaganda was freely employed. Generally speaking, manufacturers report that since the tariff rates were increased they have been able to keep their hands employed, whereas it is doubtful whether, without the additional protection, any of them would have survived. In regard to file and chisel handles, new plant has been installed and an increased demand is expected as stocks now held by merchants are reduced. New factories have been established i n all eastern States, including Tasmania, for the express purpose of making the various types of handles in demand. The Minister will be doing a great disservice to the Australian timber industry, to those who have invested largely in factories for the production of tool handles, and to the workers so engaged, if he whittles down the protection which has been operating for the last three years. Australia has some of the finest timbers in the world, which are quite suitable for the manufacture of handles for axes and other tools, and there is no justification for importing these goods extensively from a country that does not buy from us half as much as we buy from it.

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

– The honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) has exhibited an axe handle made from Australian timber, and claimed that it was of inferior quality. I am convinced that the handle he exhibited was not representative of the handles made from Australian timber. The timber from which that handle was made is what we call Moreton Bay ash, or flooded gum. I have done a fair amount of axe work in years gone by, and I know that in Queensland there is timber as good as any in the world for making axe handles, and handles for other tools. There is spotted gum and crow foot ash that will compare with any timber from which axe handles are made in any other part of the world. The spotted gum found in Queensland is similar to that which occurs in the northern part of New South Wales, but it is not found in any other part of Australia. It is tough and strong, and entirely suitable for making axe handles, and is also used in the making of motor truck bodies, which have to stand up to heavy work. The factory handling this timber is situated in the electorate of the Speaker (Hon.. G. H. Mackay). I believe that we should encourage and support this industry which is using Australian timber, and is turning out an article equal to anything which can be imported from abroad.

Mr PRICE:
Boothby

.- In South Australia, people are becoming very dissatisfied with the quality of Australian axe handles. If the handles made from timber grown in Queensland and northern New South Wales is as- good as we have been told, the manufacturers should advertise their wares so as to let the people of South Australia know about them. It is not so much the expert axemen for whom we should cater, but for the ordinary householder who uses an axe in his backyard. If the local industry can supply the goods, I am prepared to support it, but I want to know that it can be done.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- The production of a broken axe handle by the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) is not evidence against the suitability of Australian timber for the making of axe handles. I do not claim to be an expert axeman; I arn one of those who use an axe in the backyard, but I had au experience with a hickory axe handle. After buying one and fitting it. to the axe head, it broke at the first blow - no blame, perhaps, to the handle. Afterwards, when I returned the handle to the storekeeper from whom I bought, it, I complained of its quality. He told me that it was an American handle.” I then got an Australian handle, which is still in the axe after eight years. Perhaps I ought to add that, immediately after getting the new handle, I had gas laid on and have not used the axe, so that it has not run much risk. The axe handle produced by the honorable member for Riverina may have been faulty, but that does not condemn Australian axe handles in general. The right honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) told us that one factory’ had only 30 axe handles returned as unsatisfactory out of 50,000. The broken axe handle produced by the honorable member for Riverina may have been subjected to unfair treatment. A motor car would not last very long if driven by some one who was not competent to drive. We have in Australia, various timbers such as woolly butt, red ash, spotted gum, and many others suitable for making axe handles. In part of my electorate, there is dense scrub in which the scrub-cutters and farmers who clear the land make their own axe handles, not in a factory,, but right on the job. They are miles away from a railway, and when an axe handle breaks, they cannot afford to wait a week for a new one. On the Beatrice River, at. the back of the Atherton Tablelands, where there is only one mail a week, men must make their own axe handles, and they have no machinery with which to make them. Before the construction of a railway to the Atherton Tablelands, I earned a livelihood cutting wood for traction engines. I was not an expert axeman, and consequently I broke many axe handles. My first experience in the mines was the breaking of three hammer handles, not because of any fault in the tools, but because I “ did not know how to use them. Probably that is also the reason for the breaking of the axe handles exhibited by the honorable member for Riverina.

Mr STACEY:
Adelaide

.- If it is possible to buy axe handles, or other tool handles, of Australian wood which will give satisfactory results, I shall be only too willing to purchase them. The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) said that in Queensland there were many expert axemen, and he suggested that I did not know what I was talking about. When high duties were placed on imported axe handles, I had in my employ 400 men who were cutting timber in South Australia. I know something of the quality of the axe handles they used. The people of South Australia would welcome Australian-made axe handles if they could be assured of their good qualities. Apparently, Queensland and New South Wales manufacturers of such articles are not particularly enterprising, because their goods have not yet reached South Australia.

Mr Makin:

– I have bought an Australian axe handle in South Australia.

Mr STACEY:

– I have bought hundreds of Australian axe handles, hut only a few of them were satisfactory. In this connexion, my experience is similar to that of the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock). It may be, as the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) has suggested, that the axe handles broke, not because of their inferior quality, but because of inexpert axemanship. If Australian axe handles of good quality are available, I hope that they will find their way into South Australia, for I feel sure that the people there would readily purchase’ them.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

.- If given the opportunity, the Queensland manufacturers of axe handles will supply them to purchasers in South Australia. The axe handles exhibited to-night by the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) are made either of Moreton Bay ash or ti-tree; those timbers are not suitable for the purpose. As an example of the strength of spotted gum, I mention that a sapling 10 feet long and 2 inches thick will bear the weight of a 7-cwt. horse springing on it. Spotted gum, which is both strong and springy, is used extensively for the naves, spokes and shafts of sulkies and drays. If this timber is not known in South Australia, it would appear that there is a market for it there. Crow foot ash is an exceptionally good timber, and, being lighter than spotted gum, it is particularly useful where both lightness and strength are required. An imported axe handle costing 4s. 6d. will break almost as soon as it is used by an inexpert backyard wood-chopper. Some of the imported axe handles are made of the third grade hickory referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde).

Item agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 1326

ADJOURNMENT

Gold-mining Industry: Extension or Activities - Public Service : Recruitment of Juniors - Order of Business - Sales Tax on Chemicals and Medicines : Proposed Exemptions.

Motion (by Mr. Archdale Parkhill) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

– I desire to impress upon the Government the desirability of further stimulating the production of gold. For the twelve months ended the 30th June, 1932, the value of the production was £3,600,000, and for the year ending the 30th June of this year it is estimated to be £5,380,000, an increase of about 50 per cent. Gold is almost the only payable primary product to-day ; there is no other industry in sight which offers such a promising prospect of being able to lift Australia out of her difficulties.

Mr Maxwell:

– What has been the average price during the two years to which the honorable member has referred ?

Mr PATERSON:

– The price has varied little. It was first about £7 per oz., and now it is a little over £7 per oz. There are in Australia many abandoned mines which formerly produced quartz with a gold content that was unpayable at the old price of about £4 per oz. But it is a very different proposition to-day with gold realizing £7 per oz. in Australia - an increase of 75 per cent. on the former price. Some of the old mines have been re-started, but the very existence of others seems to have been forgotten. The people who knew about them have, perhaps, passed away. In most of the State departments, records are to be found as to the reasons for the abandonment of these mines, and the details of their production in the past can be ascertained. If information on this subject were widely disseminated, it is reasonable to suppose that many more of these old mines would be re-started under present conditions, owing to the high price ruling for gold. My suggestion is that the Premiers Conference, which is to be held shortly, will afford an opportunity for the right honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) to submit a proposal for a conference of representatives of the Mines departments of the various States, for the purpose of devising the best means of stimulating further interest in the winning of gold throughout Australia. The records of the Mines departments could be scanned, and a comprehensive catalogue could be published of the mines in operation today, and of those that are not being worked. If that information were made available to the world, and the widest publicity were given to it, it should result in an awakened interest on thepart of investors, and, no doubt, would stimulate the provision of the necessary capital to enable some of the old mines to be worked again. I believe that this would greatly add to our production figures, which have already grown considerably through the stimulus given to the industry by the increased price of gold.

Mr LATHAM:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– The point raised by the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) has been examined with some care by a committee set up by a recent conference of State Premiers to report to a subsequent conference upon the means adopted by the various States for dealing with the problem of unemployment. That committee has given particular attention to the possibilities in the direction mentioned by the honorable member.

Mr Gibson:

– Only in certain districts.

Mr LATHAM:

– No, throughout Australia as a whole. The report of the committee has been sent to the Premiers of the States, and this subject will be open for discussion at the forthcoming conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers. It is recognized by the Government that the development of goldmining in Australia has, perhaps, provided more new employment than has any other industry in the country, and the Government is fully seised of the opportunities afforded by the enhanced price of gold. Australia offers many openings for the useful employment of capital in gold-mining operations. The present price of gold makes it possible to work fields which, under ordinary circumstances, would be unpayable. It is also believed by many that some further adjustment of mining conditions in Australia would make payable properties which arc not payable to-day, and which, if situated elsewhere, would be profitable. On this aspect of the matter, I am speaking only personally. When recently discussing the subject with some eminent Australian mining authorities, my attention was called to the fact that a particular proposition in Kalgoorlie is identical in all respects with a certain mining property in Canada. The Canadian mine is worked for three shifts a day, all through the week, and the investors who put their capital into it have received their money back with good dividends in the space of between twelve and fifteen years - a highly profitable investment.

In Australia, the mines are closed down on Saturday morning until Monday morning. The furnaces have to be damped down on Saturday, and they are not started again until the following Monday, no work being done over the weekend. No work is done for several days at Easter, and the mines are idle for a considerable period at Christmas time. Any honorable member who has observed the figures relating to gold production in, say, October, November, December and January, will have noticed the tremendous drop in the output in December and

January. I suggest that those concerned in mining enterprises might well consider whether they should not give consideration to large-scale propositions, and reorganize the basis of their enterprise. The Kalgoorlie proposition to which I have referred is unworkable under Australian conditions, but in Canada a similar mine returns profit to a high degree. This is a matter for consideration, not by the Government, but by the mining fraternity generally. If the suggestion that I have offered were examined it might result in the development of some very profitable mining shows in this country, and lead to a great increase of employment.

Regarding the particular matter mentioned by the honorable member for Gippsland, I have said that it has been directly under the notice of the State Premiers. Attention has been called to the fact that Western Australia has already published a catalogue of leases that are now abandoned.

Mr Gregory:

– It published that over twenty years ago, when I was a member of a Western Australian Ministry.

Mr LATHAM:

– A fresh catalogue has been issued, and it is suggested that similar action be taken in all the States. As I have already indicated, it is proposed at the next conference of State and Commonwealth Ministers again to draw special attention to the need for increasing the production of gold as a means of dealing with the problem of unemployment. Gold is the one commodity that we can be sure of not overproducing; the greater the production, the better. I assure the honorable member for Gippsland and other honorable members, that the Government will be very keen indeed to see that, as the State Governments have the control of all mining laws, and of all mining activities that are controlled by legislation, the attention of the State Premiers is urgently directed to this matter.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.-The subject raised by the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) is certainly important; but his suggestion, as the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) has pointed out, is not a new one. I understood the Attorney-General to say that it was considered by a recent conference of Premiers. I point out to him that it was considered at a much earlier date than that. As a matter of fact, the question was discussed for a day and a half at the Premiers Conference which sat in August, 1931, after the big loan conversion operation was completed. Employment, as it was likely to be affected by mining development and the opening up of abandoned mines and leases, was one of the important subjects discussed at that conference. Mr. Gepp was present at its deliberations, and reported on the activities that were taking place. A good deal of work has already been done, but the field is not yet exhausted. The reports presented have, in many cases, been a re-compilation of old reports, but I was not aware that they went as far back as twenty years.

Mr Gregory:

– A book was published twenty years ago giving particulars of all the abandoned leases, and their returns.

Mr SCULLIN:

– Even though the reports are old, there is no reason why they should not be brought up to date, in view of the better prices that are now ruling for gold.

The Attorney-General gave the text of a conversation in regard to mining, and left the impression that practically all that requires to be done is to have some re-organization of labour conditions in Australia, so as to make them comparable with those that exist in Canada. I am not prepared to agree that our problems in the gold-mining industry are due to labour conditions. Shifts have been worked in mines; and, in my opinion, the hours have been too long for this class of occupation. It has never been properly recognized in this country that the number of hours worked in mining operations ought to be fewer than are worked in other occupations.

Mr Gregory:

– That difficulty was overcome where is was necessary to have a continuous process.

Mr SCULLIN:

– Where the companies have been prepared to recognize that mining is an occupation in which men ought not to be asked to work the same number of hours as in other industries, continuous processes have been pos sible, and the machinery has been kept going. I believe it will be found, upon examination, that many of the facts given in the comparison of the two classes of mines mentioned by the Attorney-General, need further scrutiny. I do not agree that any man can declare off-hand that one show in Western Australia and another in Canada would return identical results. A man who could do that would be a prophet. It is merely taking a good deal of latitude to say that in the case of two propositions, one pays dividends and returns the capital in fifteen years, while the other is unworkable. I should like to have a good deal more data before I should be prepared to accept such a statement.

Mr Latham:

– I quite agree with the right honorable member. I point out, however, that the working of shifts would not necessarily involve the working of a greater number of hours by the individual.

Mr SCULLIN:

– I consider that it should involve the working of a fewer number of hours.

Mr Paterson:

– It generally does, I believe.

Mr SCULLIN:

– Not always. I know something about mining conditions. Men have had to work under the most intolerable conditions for a period of eight hours, which is altogether too long, even in the average mine. In the case of day, afternoon, and night shifts, the night shift, commenced at midnight on Sunday. The conditions have improved within recent years. Big plants and modern methods demand a fairly, if not an absolutely, continuous operation. What I would say to those who are interested in the opening up of mines, is, that if they want continuous operations, they will have to make the hours of labour and the conditions generally suitable to such operations. At the price which gold is now fetching, I do not see why that could not be done. The matter was fully considered in 1931. A committee was appointed to go into it with the Mines Department in each State, and to bring up to date and make available to the public the whole of the reports in existence.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · Wilmot · UAP

– The Government has been giving consideration to the situation in the Public Service, particularly in the third division, which is arising from the suspension for a considerable period of the recruitment of youth to that division. The third division comprises employees of the Commonwealth who are engaged in duties of a professional or a clerical character, and from these are generally selected those officers who are required to exercise executive or professional functions in the more important offices of the Service. The future outlook for the filling of these higher positions is one that is causing the Government deep concern. In the course of necessary retrenchment during recent years, a large number of vacancies have not been filled, and, where it was essential that appointments should be made to vacant offices, the demand has been met by the utilization of officers who were surplus in other sections. The result has been an entire cessation of the supply of educated youths who were most suitable for the training and experience requisite for the filling of the higher positions in the Public Service.

The wastage by retirements, deaths, mid other causes, is now such that the Government feels that, for the proper meeting of requirements, and with due regard to the future efficiency of the Service, recruitment must shortly be resumed to secure the class of entrants into the Public Service most suitable for its needs. For this purpose, it is proposed to resume the holding of competitive examinations open to the youth of the community between the ages of 16 and 21 years, of such a standard as will ensure the possession of the desired educational qualifications.

The Public Service Board will shortly notify an examination that will be held towards the end of the present year in the capital cities and suitable country centres throughout the Commonwealth. Full particulars as to the character of the examination and the method of making application will be furnished in the notification. In making appointments to the vacancies to be filled, no departure will be made from the policy of preference to qualified returned soldiers, nor will the claims of officers within the Service with the requisite qualifications be overlooked. The Government has also under consideration the possibilities of setting aside for young university graduates, a limited number of positions to be filled from without the Service.

In view of the considerable volume of business that still remains to be transacted, with the tariff schedule and a number of bills that will have to be dealt with before the House can- adjourn prior to the meeting of the Premiers Conference, it is quite probable that honorable members will be asked to sit late tomorrow night. I am not suggesting an all-night sitting.

Mr Scullin:

– Can the right honorable gentleman indicate the bills that are to be brought forward?

Mr LYONS:

– I shall notify honorable members to-morrow of the measures that the Government has decided to bring down. One is the State Grants Commission Bill, and there are three or four others. Some of them, we hope, will not occupy a great deal of time; but it is important that they be dealt with before the House adjourns.

Mr PROWSE:

– Is it proposed to sit on Tuesdays?

Mr LYONS:

– No. By sitting late tomorrow night, and perhaps once or twice next week, it is hoped that we shall be able to avoid an extra sitting day.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– Some time ago I was asked by the friendly societies in my constituency, and in other industrial electorates, as well as by officers of hospital boards, to raise the question of the sales tax on chemicals and medicines generally. I did not raise it, because I knew that the Prime Minister was receiving a deputation on the subject. If the right honorable gentleman can tell me now what was the result, it may avoid further discussion. I should also like the Prime Minister to state the position with regard to recruiting for the Public Service. Are we to understand that adults employed in the Postal Department who, for some time, have been in receipt of salaries paid to juniors, will be appointed to positions carrying the adult wage?

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– I express pleasure at the announcement that the position of the gold-mining industry will be reviewed at the forthcoming Premiers Conference; and I take this opportunity to remind the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) that a great number of mining ventures, which were abandoned owing to the fall in the price of gold, could, in existing circumstances, be brought into production again. Information obtained over a number of years is in the mines departments of the various States but has not been collated, and I believe that a proposal that this be done will be submitted to the Premiers Conference. I, therefore, suggest that mining companies which, at the present time, are winning profitable returns, should pay on a sliding scale to a fund which could be used for the investigation of known mining fields that have not been worked for some time. It is thought that a contribution on a sliding scale, commencing at¼ dwt. per oz., would provide an ample sum. to allow of the employment of a trained geologist, with a draftsman and office staff to coordinate the information which is accessible, but not readily available. Thanks partly to a reduction of sales tax and primage duty, mining operations can he profitably carried on in most places for a return of considerably less than 1 oz. a ton. Many mines, I believe, are showing a profit on 6 dwt. or 7 dwt., and a considerable number of properties which have not been worked for over twenty years are known to have shown, when abandoned, a return of 1 oz. a ton. Mining is one of the few remaining industries which produce something that has a world value - something that is readily saleable overseas. It also provides a great deal of employment, directly to miners, and indirectly to persons whose business it is to supply props for underground work, to foundries that manufacture mining machinery, to metallurgical chemists, and others. I believe that, if a scheme could be agreed upon for the investigation of known mining areas, there would be a rapid increase of gold production in this country, and consequently a marked decrease of unemployment. In my own district, for example, the numbers of unemployed have dropped from 1,480 in September last to 977 on the 1st March of this year, and it is quite probable that owing to the revival of gold-mining, those who have secured employment - it is not labour of the casual type - will now have jobs for life. I commend the suggestion which I have made to the Prime Minister for his consideration, and I express the hope that the collection and collation of further information will lead to a revival of this important industry.

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

– I should like to know if it is the intention of the Government to introduce an amendment of the sales tax legislation, with a view to providing for further exemptions. I have received a number of representations on this subject, and, if the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) can give me an assurance that they will receive consideration, I shall refrain from taking up the time of the House in their discussion to-night.

Mr Lyons:

– If the honorable gentleman will send me particulars of the cases brought under his notice they will be considered in conjunction with the budget.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Postmaster-General · Warringah · UAP

. - The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) has asked for information with regard to the deputation that waited on the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) to urge the exemption of medicines and drugs from sales tax. The right honorable gentleman promised the deputation that the request would be considered when the budget was being prepared.

With reference to the honorable member’s inquiry about postal employees who were continued in the Service at salary rates payable to juniors, I can inform him that a number have been absorbed, and are now getting the adult wage. The remainder will receive appointments before others are brought in.

The extremely valuable suggestions made by the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. E. F. Harrison) will receive the earnest consideration of the Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House ad journed at 11.30 p.m.

page 1331

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Canberra Hotels : Sweating of Staffs

Mr Holloway:

y asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

In view of a growing feeling among honorable members that the staffs of the hotels owned and conducted by the Government in the Federal Capital Territory are working under low-wage and “ sweating “ conditions, will he inform the House of the regulations and conditions under which such staffs are engaged, and state the minimum wage paid to both male and female employees?

Mr Perkins:
UAP

– All of the employees at the hotel conducted by the Government in the Federal Capital Territory, with the exception of the manager, chef, hotel office staff and boiler attendants, are employed under an award of the Industrial Board, particulars of which were published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, No. S of 9th February, 1933, and are paid award rates. The manager, chef, and hotel office staff are employed under exemption from the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act. The lowest salary paid to any of the hotel office staff, all of whom, are females, is £3 ls. 3d. a week, less a deduction of 2s. 5d. a week under the Financial Emergency Act. The conditions of employment of boilermen were published in Gazette No. 75 of 10th September, 1931. The rates of pay are as prescribed by the Industrial Board award published in Gazette No. 75 of 20th October, 1932, and the boilermen employed receive those rates. All salaries and wages of persons employed at the hotel conducted by the Government in the Federal Capital Territory are subject to the deductions imposed by the Financial Emergency Act.

Fishing Industry

Mr Riley:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

y asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

With reference to the question of encouraging the establishment of the Australian fishing industry, what steps does the Government propose taking to assist this important industry, which is capable of absorbing many thousands of Australians at present unemployed?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

– The Government is at present giving consideration to means by which the development of the fisheries industry may be stimulated, and, with this object in view, expert advice has been and is still being obtained with a view to enabling future policy to be determined. In particular, further information is required in regard to the prospects of successfully developing an important byproducts industry for the production of fishmeal. It is anticipated that this information will be available in time for consideration of future policy in relation to the fisheries industry in conjunction with the budget, when the Government will be in a better position to determine what funds, if any, may be made available for the purpose.

Newnes Shale Oil Deposits

Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

son asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - 1. (a) What is the actual percentage which is being extracted or has been extracted by the retorts at Newnes of the assay value of shale; (ft) What proof is available to determine accurately this percentage; (c) What is the cost per ton of retorting shale by these particular retorts?

  1. What has been the cost of reconditioning such of the retorts now operating, or that have been operating, at Newnes? 3. (a) Is it necessary to crack the crude oil extract from shale at Newnes for the purpose of producing petrol; (6) Have inquiries and investigations been made with regard to other distillation methods; if so, with what results; (c) Is it a fact that with certain methods other than those employed at Newnes there is no necessity to crack the oil; (d) If so, is the Minister prepared to investigate these methods?
Mr Lyons:
UAP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : - 1. (a) and (5) At the instance of the Shale Oil Development Committee Limited, three ultimate analyses of representative samples of Newnes shale were carried out by the Mines Department of New South Wales and a chemist employed by Messrs. Babcock ‘and Wilcox. The results of these analyses were - 103 gallons, 101 gallons and OS gallons to the ton respectively. The Shale Oil Development Committee Limited reported that it obtained an average of approximately 98 gallons of oil per ton from shale retorted at Newnes, (c) An analysis of the figures furnished by the Shale Oil Development Committee Limited reveals that the cost of retorting was approximately 2d. per gallon, but owing to inadequacy of supplies of shale, and to the fact that the committee did not undertake large scale operations, this figure cannot be taken as a reliable guide in connexion with any future development on a commercial basis.

  1. The Shale Oil Development Committee Limited reconditioned about twenty retorts at a cost of approximately £2,000.
  2. (a), (6), (c) and (d) The present committee, which was appointed by the Governments of the Commonwealth and New South Wales to investigate certain aspects concerning the economics of the Newnes shale oil undertaking, is exploring all possible avenues for the production of oil from shale by the most economical methods. Indications up to date seem to point to the best economic results being secured if cracking methods are employed. Tests will be carried out in this regard. The committee is prepared to give full consideration to any alternative proposals that may be placed before it.

Public Service Examination.

Mr Lyons:
UAP

s. - On the 5th May, the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) asked me a. question, without notice, in regard to the Public Service examination for transfer as clerk.

I am advised by the Public Service Board that all details in connexion with the examination have just been completed, ami that it is proposed to publish the results in the Commonwealth Gazette of the 18th May.

Norfolk Island Interest Rates.

Mr Lyons:
UAP

s. - On the 6th April, the honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney) asked a question, without notice, regarding the application of moratorium and interest reduction legislation to Norfolk Island.

I now desire to inform the honorable member that Commonwealth legislation relates only to interest on Commonwealth loans, and that there is no Commonwealth legislation relating to a moratorium. If the honorable member refers to the reduction of interest on mortgages, &c, I desire to state that no ordinances in regard to the reduction of interest on. mortgages, &c, are in force in Norfolk Island.

British Loan to France.

Mr LyoNs:
UAP

s - On the 3rd May, the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Watson) asked the following question, without notice : -

Has the Prime Minister read the newspaper announcement that British bankers have undertaken to lend to the Bank of France £30,000,000 at 2J per cent. If this statement is correct, can the right honorable gentleman explain why the Commonwealth was obliged to pay 4 per cent, for a conversion loan recently floated in the United Kingdom?

The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

The view which T then expressed, namely, that the low rate of interest was duc to the short currency of the loan is, I lind, correct. Credit for £30,000,000 was arranged for the French Treasury by a group of London bankers for a period of three months with one renewal, the rate of interest being 2i per cent. The short term for which the credit has been arranged, and the definite date set for repayment, realty make this transaction equivalent to that of the issue of. treasury-bills The present rate of discount for British t ronsurybills is 8s. od. per cent, per annum. The demand for short-dated securities is such that they can be issued at a much lower interest, rate than those for longer terms. Thu maturity of the recent Australian loan to which the honorable member refers is set from 1955-1070. It will be seen, therefore, that an equitable comparison cannot be made between the ratu of interest payable on the issue of short-term credit ,for the French authorities and the rate paid on the recent conversion loan in London.

Commonwealth Bank

Mr Lyons:
UAP

s. - On the 4th May, the honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney) asked the following questions, upon notice : -

  1. In what year was the Commonwealth Bank established?
  2. What capital was provided by the Commonwealth Government to finance the inception of the bank’s business, and, if any other amounts were advanced -by the Government, what were such amounts, the dates on which they were provided, and how were they repaid ?
  3. What were the profits of the bank each year since its inception; and what were the separate purposes to which such profits were devoted and the totals, to date, of each purpose to which such profits were allocated?
  4. What were the separate profits of - (a) the banking business: (6) the note issue; aud (c) rural development; to what purposes have each of such profits been devoted?

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

  1. No capital was provided by the Commonwealth Government to finance operations at the inception of the bank’s business, but a small advance was made to meet the salaries and incidental expenses of the staff. This advance was subsequently repaid by the bank out of profits. 3 and 4. The profits of the bank and the allocation of these profits are shown in the following statement: -

Duty onconcentratedgrapemust.

Mr White:
UAP

– On the 4th May, the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Price) asked the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. Assoon as concentrated grape must, whether fortified or otherwise, became excisable, were all stocks of such must in South Australia taken under excise control ?
  2. Was the same procedure adopted in New South Wales, and at the same time?
  3. After concentrated grape must became excisable, was any such must used in New South Wales without payment of duty thereon; if so, approximately what quantity was so used, and, approximately, what was the amount of duty evaded by such use?

I am now able to furnish the honorable member with the following information : -

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The department is uot aware of any evasion of the duty.

Mother-of-Pearlshell.

Mr.White.- On the 28th April, the honorable memberfor Kalgoorlie (Mr. A. Green) asked the following questions, upon notice : -

What was the total production of motherofpearl shell for- (a) Thursday Island, Queensland (also output of trochus shell) ; (b) Darwin, Northern Territory; and (c) Broome, Western Australia; during the pearling season of the years 1928, 1929, 1930 and 1931, respectively?

During what year was the rationing of output applied to each centre referred to, and what was. the amount allocated for the first year, and each year since the application of rationing?

What is the proposed allocation for Darwin for this year, and what proposals, if any, have been made to conserve the continuation of the pearl shelling industry at Broome and Thursday Island?

Inow desire to advise him as follows : -

  1. The total production of mother-of-pearl shell (also trochus shell in Queensland) was as follows: -
  1. Rationing was legally applied at Darwin for the first time during 1931, but it is understood that a voluntary system of rationing was arranged by the pearlers at Broome and

Thursday Island during that year and subsequent years, with the exception that at Broome the voluntary system has this year been replaced by regulations restricting output. The quota allotted at Darwin for the year 1931 was 225 tons, and for 1932, 270 tons. The voluntary quotas agreed to by pearlers at Broome and Thursday Island for 1931-32 were reported to bo as follows: -

  1. For special reasons, the quota restrictions have not beenre-imposed at Darwin this year. It is reported that the State authorities had arranged to restrict the catch by Broome pearlers to534 tons, and that the pearlers at Thursday Island had arranged to catch 460 tons, subject to further review.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 10 May 1933, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1933/19330510_reps_13_139/>.