House of Representatives
27 March 1936

14th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon.G. J. Bell) took the chair at, 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 651

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL NAVAL AGREEMENT

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs any comment to make, or any information to give to the House, beyond what appears in the press, on the subject of an agreement recently arrived at in London regarding the limitation of naval armaments?

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

– The full text of this agreement has not yet reached Australia. I understand that it is being sent by air mail. No agreement was reachedon quantitative naval disarmament, but there was a considerable measure of agreement on what is described as qualitative disarmament - the sizes of ships in individual categories, and their tonnages have been limited below the figures fixed by the Washington Treaty. So far, the agreement has been signed by Great Britain, France and the United States of America. It is open to adherence by Japan, France, Italy and other naval powers. As soon as the full text arrives, it will bo made available to honorable members.

page 651

VOLUNTARY MILITARY TRAINING

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– This morning’s press publishes a statement attributed to the Minister for Defence regarding compulsory and voluntary military training. In view of that statement, and of a letter dated the 26th March, which I received from the honorable gentleman in answer to a letter I forwarded to him asking for full particulars regarding the formation of an infantry unit at Mur will umbah-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is not entitled to make a statement when asking a question,

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– In this letter, the Minister informed me that the voluntary system of training was at present under consideration. I now ask him if the Government has come to any decision in this regard, and whether it has yet decided what assistance can be given to t he formation of voluntary defence units in different parts of Australia?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The honorable member has read only portion of my letter, which does not give the full sense of my reply to him. The policy of the Government is that of voluntary enlistment. That policy is being pursued. Requests have been received from different parts of Australia, including Murwillumbah, for the formation of new units. Since I have been Minister for Defence, the Military Board has considered that the funds available for defence purposes should be utilized in connexion with what are regarded as more important matters, and that practice has been followed. It is now proposed to pay special attention to the matter of increasing the strength of the militia. The Military Board and I are convinced that that can be done by a well-directed and an organized effort, which will embrace the formation of new units. Consideration will be given to the formation of a unit at Murwillumbah.

page 651

QUESTION

RUSSIA AND JAPAN

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– The press to-day publishes the statement that outposts of the Japanese army have come into conflict with the Russian forces in Siberia. Can the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs say whether information has been received as to the extent of the conflict, or has he any other information that would tend to relieve the House, of any anxiety it might feel?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– No official information has been received on the subject from the Government of Great Britain. If a message that will enlighten the House should come to hand during the day I undertake to make it available.

page 651

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

-I rise to make a personal explanation. An extract from the Melbourne Herald of the 26th March headed: “Minister

Snubs Supporter “ ; “ Incident in the House of Representatives”, reads -

Whilst the honorable member for Perth was speaking yesterday, he had not been speaking for more than three minutes when Mr. Parkhill moved “ That the question be now put “, and Mr. Nairn’s surprise was marked.

The paragraph continues to animadvert in that strain. The simple fact is that the honorable member for Perth had finished his speech when I moved for the application of the gag. I am quite sure that he and other honorable members will exonerate me from any intention to be discourteous.

Mr NAIRN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– By way of personal explanation, I should like to express my appreciation of the action of the Minister for Defence, who was temporarily in charge of the business of the House, in giving me an opportunity to express my views on the subject before the chamber.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable member is not making a personal explanation.

Mr NAIRN:

– Although I have no grievance, I did expect the Minister to make a reply.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is disregarding the Standing Order governing the right of honorable members to make a personal explanation.

Mr NAIRN:

– I have no complaint whatever to make against the honorable member.

page 652

QUESTION

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · Warringah · UAP

. - by leave - I desire to make a correction of newspaper mis-statements. The Melbourne Herald of the 26th March publishes the statement that some of the new bombers on order are to cost £1,067,000. This figure was supplied in answer to a question asked last Friday by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), and represents the cost of all aeroplanes ordered during the last three years.

In yesterday’s Sydney Daily Telegraph the statement appeared that it is proposed to expend £7,000,000 upon defence before the end of December next. As a matter of fact that sum represents the expenditure for the whole of the present financial year.

page 652

QUESTION

VISIT OF MINISTER TO NEW ZEALAND

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Prime Minister whether there is any truth in the statement which appears in a section of the press that another of his Ministers is about to go abroad, on this occasion to New Zealand, to enter into negotiations with the Government of that dominion? If that be the case, will he say who the Minister is, and when he is to leave Australia?

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– It would appear that some one has made a bad guess on this occasion. I have no knowledge either as to who the Minister is, or when he is to go abroad.

page 652

PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

Papua - Annual Report for year 1934-35.

page 652

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT WORKS

Mr McEWEN:
ECHUCA, VICTORIA

– In preparing legislation with respect to the allocation of the £100,000 which is to be utilized in subsidizing interest on local government works, will the Treasurer make provision to enable those local government authorities which have commenced works within recent months in anticipation of this legislation to participate in the interest subsidy?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– I hope that it will be possible to introduce this legislation in the ensuing week. It will make provision for the initiation of the scheme as from the 1st July, 1935. State governments will have the option of saying whether works in their States which were commenced in the financial year 1935-36, and which would have been eligible for assistance if commenced after the passage of the legislation, shall qualify for participation in the proposed grant.

page 652

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1935

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Treasurer state whether, if the tariff debate is concluded either to-day or early in the coming week, it is intended to proceed immediately with the Income Tax Assessment Bill 1935, which is at the secondreading stage?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– From the Treasury viewpoint, there are two smaller measures which it is first desired to pass. I hope that the Prime Minister will then decide to allow the debate on the secondreading of the Income Tax Assessment Bill 1935 to proceed, and if possible to carry the measure to the committee stage before Easter. Whatever is done is dependent entirely upon the time available. The proposal is to press on with the bill as expeditiously as possible.

page 653

QUESTION

ANNUAL REPORTS OF TERRITORIES

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– In view of the fact that nine months have elapsed since the close of the financial year covered by the report on Papua tabled this morning, and that the presentation of other reports, particularly the report on the Mandated Territory of New Guinea,is ordinarily delayed unduly, will the Treasurer take whatever action is necessary to ensure that these reports are presented to Parliament within a reasonable time after the close of the financial year, in case action may have to be taken upon them ?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– I shall have the matter looked into.

page 653

FLOUR TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1936

Motion (by Mr. Casey) agreed to -

Thathe have leave tobring in a bill for an act to amend section 24 of the Flour Tax Assessment Act 1934-35.

page 653

QUESTION

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1935-36

Customs Tariff Amendments Nos. 3 and 4

In Committee of Ways and Means: Consideration resumed from the 26th March (vide page 648) on motion by Mr. White (vide page 2044, Volume 14.7)-

  1. That the schedule to the Customs Tariffs 1933-

    1. be amended by inserting in that schedule between the columns headed “ British Preferential Tariff” and “General Tariff a column headed “Intermediate Tariff”; and
    2. be further amended as set out in the schedule to this resolution. . . .

And on further motion by Mr.White (vide page 441) -

That the schedule to the Customs Tariffs 1933 … be further amended as hereunder set out .

Division 7. -Oils, Paints and Varnishes

Item 234. - By omitting the whole of subitem (a) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item : - “ (a) Portland cement, percwt., British free; intermediate.1s.; general tariff,1s. 4½d.

And in respect of sub-item (a) -

For each £1 by which the equivalent in Australian currency of £100 sterling is less than £125 at the date of exportation - an additional duty of, per cwt., British, . 36d.; intermediate, . 36d. ; general, . 36d.

Upon which Mr. Francis had moved by way of amendment -

That the item be postponed, toindicate “ that, in the opinion of this committee, the following rates should he substituted: - British, 6d. per cwt.; intermediate,1s. 3d. per cwt.; general, 1s. 6d. per cwt.; subject to existing exchange adjustments being maintained.”

Mr NOCK:
Riverina

.- The item now before the committee deals with a national industry which produces a commodity of national importance. Cement is used to the amount of thousands of tons a year by the various governments in Australia, and every householder, every shire council, and every municipal council is a user of this commodity. When we consider the protection proper for an industry producing a commodity of such importance, it is imperative that we should consider the interests of the users as well as those of the manufacturers. This is not only an industry supplying a national need; it is also an industry natural to Australia. Practically all the raw material required for the production of cement is available in Australia, and can be obtained at a reasonable price. We find, however, upon examining the industry, that those engaged in it have availed themselves of the high protection afforded to charge unreasonably high prices for their product. Three years ago, I suggested in this Parliament that the profits of cement manufacturers were too high, that there was a case for the examination of the industry by the Tariff Board with a view to an adjustment of duty, and that it was desirable to determine whether the industry was being con - ducted in an efficient and economic manner. Since then such an inquiry has been conducted, and the report of the Tariff Board has confirmed the suspicions which wore previously rife. The Government of New South Wales some time ago gave a large initial order to a newly-formed cement manufacturing firm to enable it to get on its feet, and to encourage competition that might result in a reduction of price. We find, however, that the competition has now faded away, and the very company which that Government went out of its way to assist, is now working in harmony with the other cement manufacturing firms in the maintenance of high prices so that they may obtain excessive profits.

Mr Rosevear:

– -That is the system for which the honorable member stands.

Mr NOCK:

– It is not. We stand for a system of fair treatment to the consumers, and reasonable protection to every industry, whether primary or secondary, provided the industry is economic and efficient ; or if an infant industry, if it has a prospect of being so. The report of the Tariff Board on the cement industry is very similar to its report on the match industry. I remember that when the proposed reduction of duty on matches was under discussion in this chamber, the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) spoke in a voice charged with righteous indignation in condemnation of the Government’s scandalous and merciless treatment of a promising industry which provided employment under such ideal conditions. He charged the Government with heartless behaviour in pursuing a policy which would result in throwing hundreds of men and girls on to the streets in the depth of a depression, when there was no possibility of their obtaining other employment. Experience has shown us, however, that the dismal prophecies of such Jeremiahs have not been fulfilled. As a matter of fact, very little opposition has been offered by the manufacturers to the proposed reduction of duties embodied in the present tariff schedule, the reason being, I believe, that manufacturers have learned to adjust their operations to such changes, which, after a year’s experience, have proved reasonable. Just before consideration of this tariff schedule began, members of Parliament were circularized by the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures protesting against any reduction of existing duties. I wrote to the chamber asking it to mention any specific industry which had been injured as the result of tariff reduction, but, so far, I have received no reply. It would seem that the chamber is unable to cite any instance of injustice. in regard to this item, where it has been demonstrated that exploitation has taken place, where production is uneconomic, and excessive overhead charges prevail, we should give effect to the recommendations of the Tariff Board. In spite of reduced wages, in spite of the reduced price of coal, in spite of the removal of the child endowment tax, and in spite of a general reduction of ordinary taxation, the manufacturers have declined to make any reduction. Even during the depression their profits were maintained, notwithstanding the small turnover. According to the Tariff Board report, the capacity of the Australian factories was nearly three limes greater than their output, and the board stated that it was not reasonable to continue affording tariff protection so that companies which were over-capitalized, and had excessive overhead costs, could continue to take out of the pockets of the users sufficient to pay interest on capital they were not using in the industry. It has further been shown that, during the depression, there was instituted a system of uneconomic rationing. Instead of the major companies continuing at full production, while the smaller ones closed down, the available orders were distributed over all the firms, and naturally overhead costs became excessive. Only under a system of monopoly-control which enabled the manufacturers to maintain fictitious prices could such a policy be pursued. The board states that the average profit of Australian companies is 22s. 6d. a ton, and yet we have been assured by those who support this amendment that the price of English cement exported to Australia is only 23s. a ton. I cannot understand why those who, three days ago, advocated that the interests of the consumers should be considered when the tariff was being framed should now be prepared to cast that principle to the winds, and support a restoration of duties which would permit the continuation of conditions so scathingly condemned by the Tariff Board.

Mention has been made of the natural protection which the cement manufacturing industry enjoys in Australia. It is admitted that, in some industries, natural protection is small, because the weight of the commodity concerned is small compared with the price. That, however, is not the case with cement, where in relation to price the weight is great, and the natural protection is consequently considerable. Even those who advocate the restoration of customs protection against British cement say that the London dumping price is only 23s. a ton. To that price must be added transport charges, including exchange, insurance, wharfage, &c, amounting to £2 7s. 3d., bringing the total price up to £3 10s. 3d. It will thus be seen that Australian cement enjoys natural protection to the extent of £2 7s. 3d. a ton, which is almost 100 per cent. on the production costs of cement in Australia, for it has been shown by the Tariff Board that in Queensland cement can be produced, without profit, at £2 8s. 2d. a ton; in New South Wales at £2 6s. 5d. ; in Victoria at £2 10s. 2d. ; in South Australia at £2 10s. 7d.; and in Tasmania at £2 6s. 5d. Yet the price for Australian cement has averaged £4 10s. a ton, and, in some instances, manufacturers have been making £2 a ton profit. I am not prepared to support duties which will enable the manufacturing companies to charge excessive prices. On the other hand, T do not want the Australian industry to be destroyed by the dumping of cement from overseas. It is not sufficient that the Minister should tell us that he has power to deal with dumping if it occurs; I want a definite assurance fromhim that he will take action to protect the Australian industry against dumping. If that assurance is given, I sholl be satisfied that no tariff protection is needed to defend the Australian industry against competition from Great Britain or elsewhere, and I shall support the Government’s proposal.

Mr McBRIDE:
Grey

.- In my desire to protect this national Australian industry against unfair competition, I yield place to no one, but I believe that we should pay due regard to the recommendations of the Tariff Board. In its report, the board makes it clear that its object in recommending the abolition of protective duties on cement is, not to encourage the importation of cement from Great Britain or any other country, but to ensure that the price of Australian cement shall be reduced to a. reasonable level. I have a similar object in desiring this committee to carry out the recommendations of the Tariff Board. A good deal has been said about natural protection afforded to this industry. Reference was made to it by the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock), but last night the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) questioned the reality of the protection of the exchange that the Tariff Board considers is enjoyed by the Australian cement industry. He quoted Professor Brigden in support of his case, but he would have been more convincing if he had produced figures as to actual cost increases during the time of the depreciated exchange. As a matter of fact, he generalized and merely expounded a theory expressed by Professor Brigden; and, to show that even he was not convinced by his own argument concerning the protective effect of exchange, he was so illogical as to ask that a duty should be imposed if the exchange rate fell. Surely if a depreciated exchange can have no protective effect, then the effect of an appreciative exchange cannot be destructive.

Regarding what might be considered a fair return by those engaged in the industry, it has been suggested by the mover of the amendment (Mr. Francis) that the profit made by cement manufacturers is only a fair profit after making allowance for income tax. If it were fair for the cement industry or any other secondary industry to deduct income tax from profit before assessing the rate of profit it would be fair that other industries should enjoy the same privilege. The result would be that none of these industrieswould be contributing taxes. The full taxation responsibility would be thrown on to the users of commodities.

It has been said that the rate of profit made by cement manufacturers is not unduly high and that people who invest their money in the industry are entitled to the return. In this connexion I direct attention to what the outside public considers is a fair return on money invested. I cite a few of the prices people have been prepared to pay for shares in cement companies even after the removal of the British preferential duty. I cite first the shares of the Swan Cement Company of Western Australia, because that is the company to which the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Curtin) referred last night. According to the West Australian, of the 21st March last, the market price for £1 shares in this company was 31s. Apparently, therefore, the reduction of the duty has not disheartened investors as far as that company is concerned. The Goliath Portland Cement Company’s shares M’ere last quoted at 29s. The shares of the Kandos Cement Company of New South Wales were issued originally at 16s., and a dividend of 10 per cent, is paid. The market price for these shares to-day is 23s. 9d. Honorable members will see that investors in this industry are not only not deterred by the removal of the duty, but are also prepared to invest their money in a concern which will yield a very much lower return than lias been suggested in this committee.

The results of that exploitation of the public by the Australian cement companies are shown by the huge capital reserves held by them. There is one instance of a company making a cash rebate to shareholders. Jobson’s Investment Digest of the 16th March, in referring to the Standard Portland Cement Company Limited, revealed that the company had decided to make a return of capital to the shareholders. The directors found the money coming in so rapidly and in such huge quantities that they were embarrassed to find adequate investment for their excess cash and decided to reduce the value of shares by returning £100,000 to holders. The Digest says-

The cash to be returned has been steadily accumulating and the directors have found it increasingly difficult to remuneratively invest it.

The Standard Portland Cement Company Limited is one of the companies which it has been claimed are endangered by the reduction of the duties.

The market price of the £1 shares of the Australian Cement Company is 33s. 6d., and the dividend paid by the company yields 6.2 per cent to the investor. This is another striking illustration of the willingness of investors to invest money in this industry, over which honorable members opposite say a grave danger is hanging. The average dividend paid by the company in the last three years was 6.8 per cent. Figures concerning the Adelaide Cement Company Limited are illuminating. That company is not advantageously placed, being far removed from important raw materials necessary in the manufacture of cement. Its operations are a striking example of how, with reasonable efficiency, a company, despite location disadvantages - it has to import its coal from Newcastle and to pay the interstate freights referred to last night by the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Price) - is able to operate and pay a 10 per cent, dividend as was paid last year. In January, 1934, the company made a special cash distribution of 12A per cent, out of cash reserves accumulated from profits made in the exploitation of users of cement. Even now, after these huge dividends have been paid and portion of the reserves have been distributed, the market price for £1 shares is 47s. 9d. The 10 per cent. dividend will yield to purchasers of shares at that price considerably less than 5 per cent. This company must be carrying on its business efficiently to be able to show these huge profits. There is another cement company in South Australia and its shares, too, are at a premium. The last quote I “was able to get was 27s. 9d. on the open market.

Assertions that the removal of the duty will jeopardize, hamper anc? probably destroy the cement industry in Australia are entirely unfounded. Support for that contention is given by the prices which the public are prepared to pay for shares. The directors, however, are holding these shares and refuse to part with them even at bolstered prices. Ordinary shares are not obtainable in the Queensland Cement Company, which is situated in the electorate of Moreton.

They are held so tightly that the buying public is not able to invest in them. The last sales of ordinary shares in the Queensland Cement Company were made twelve months ago, and the price was 27s. Since then there have been sales of preference shares. Some S per cent, first preference shares have changed hands at 348. and the dividend has been raised to 10 per cent., giving a yield at that price of per cent, to investors. Some 6 per cent, second preference shares have sold at 27s. 3d., with an increased dividend of 8 per cent, also yielding 5£ per cent.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– That company has £41,000 in reserves.

Mr McBRIDE:

– Yes.

Mr Francis:

– It shows good management.

Mr McBRIDE:

– Admittedly; but it also shows that the price of cement is too high. If the British preferential duty were reduced, or even abolished, the Austraiian companies could carry on. The natural protection would remain, and there has not yet been any contradiction of the Tariff Board’s statements in this regard.

After examination of the figures supplied to it by the cement companies, the Tariff Board made a supplementary report, which showed that it had overestimated costs of production mentioned in the first report. The board’s latest figures have not been disproved by any statement made in this committtee Examination of the new figures obtained from the manufacturers discloses that in six factories operating in three States actual costs were below these estimates by the following amounts: -

The Tariff Board has assessed the cost of production of cement in this country at about £2 a ton. The committee has already been informed that imported cement produced even under the most favorable conditions cannot be landed here at less than £3 10s. a ton, which allows 30s. profit to the Australian producers. Any industry that demands a higher rate of profit than that is exploiting the public. I await contradiction of those costs which are contained in the board’s report. Briefs given to honorable members by various manufacturers have been produced in this committee; but, if they were referred to the Tariff Board, they would have to be given on oath. Honorable members come here and make statements, but not one of them has disproved the findings of the Tariff Board. The Government’s action in this matter is entirely justified. It is significant that after the first report on cement was issued by the board the cement companies, which had been charging exorbitant prices to users of cement, immediately began to reduce their rates. The following reductions per ton were made: -

Although we have been told about .the difficulty of producing cement in certain districts of New South Wales, a reduction of 5s. a ton was made in the price of cement after the Tariff Board’s report was issued.

Sir Donald CAMERON:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · UAP

– A reduction was made in Brisbane before the first report of the board was issued.

Mr McBRIDE:

– That may be so, but. a further reduction was made after the report appeared. It should be borne in mind that no effort has been made to refute the figures relating to the cost of production stated in the board’s report. The following figures show the production costs and prices charged to the public in different State capitals: -

I regret that I cannot give the production cost in Perth, but the users of cement seem to have been treated more considerately in that city than in other capital cities. I hear an honorable member refer to dividends and paid-up capital. I remind the committee that the dividend is paid, on the capital and not on the output. It is unreasonable that these overcapitalized cement manufacturing concerns should pay dividends of 10 per cent, on a capital of £5,000,000, although their plants are working at only 44 per cent, of their capacity. In such circumstances a dividend of 10 per cent is entirely unwarranted. It has been suggested that the over-capitalization of the companies was due to their desire to meet the increasing demand for cement in Australia, but I disagree with that view. No prearranged plan was made by the companies. The fact is that investors saw in this industry a remunerative field for the use of their money, and they set to work to establish factories willy-nilly, without any regard for the general condition of the industry. Notwithstanding the nature of the report of the Tariff Board, certain financial interests of this country have intimated that projects for the establishment of two new cement factories will not be abandoned. It is realized, of course, that even under the altered conditions good profits can be made from the manufacture of cement. We could surely have no clearer indication that the proposal of the Government is reasonable. I hope that honorable members, in considering this subject, will pay some regard to the interests of the men engaged in industries dependent upon the cement industry. The Government has already shown its desire to stimulate building activity in the Commonwealth by granting building materials exemption from sales tax and primage duty. The cement companies should, in these circumstances, also be prepared to do their part to stimulate building operations. The new duties will not in any sense jeopardize the cement-making industry, but will rather have the effect of policing it in the interests of cement users. They will also tend to ensure that only a fair price will be charged for this necessary building material.

Mr MAHONEY:
Denison

.- I trust that the Government will not insist on the retention of the reduced duties on cement. If it does, the cementmaking industry of Tasmania will be dealt a severe blow and the employment of a large number of people will be jeopardized. The Tasmanian cement manufacturing industry has had a hard struggle. A great amount of capital was expended in establishing, at Railton, one of the finest cement-making plants of Australia. The company has had to readjust its capital in consequence of accumulated losses, and for many years the shareholders received no dividend whatever, although I admit that the statement of the Tariff Board that a dividend of 15 per cent, was paid recently is correct. The attempt that is being made to dump in this country cement manufactured overseas, should not be tolerated. The Tariff Board, in allowing only 14s. 5d. a ton for freight on Tasmanian cement sent to the mainland, was altogether too conservative. At least £1 a ron should have been allowed under this heading. It looks to me as though the Government intends to do all in its power to smash the Tasmanian cement industry. This will be another grave injustice to tho island State. The workers engaged in this industry in Tasmania deserve reasonable consideration, but if the present duties are retained they will undoubtedly be called upon to suffer severe hardship. About 150 men are engaged at the Railton cement works, and failure to increase the existing duty will undoubtedly result in many of them being forced to accept the dole. I have not heard any complaints from users of cement about the prevailing prices. Cement is principally used not in the construction of brick houses for working people, but in large water and sewerage works and other undertakings for which governmental and municipal authorities are responsible. It appears to me that “ go-getters “ from overseas have determined to exploit the local cement market, and that the Government is assisting them to do so. We all know very well that when any “ hand-out “ is likely to be made, the primary producers are all there to receive their share, but the representatives of the primary producers in this Parliament seem to have very little interest in the welfare of the working man.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– Does the honorable member justify the payment of a dividend of 15 per cent?

Mr MAHONEY:

– In the circumstances of tlie Tasmanian cement industry, I do. It must bo remembered that the shareholders in this enterprise received no dividend for a number of years. The Government seems determined to cause as much unemployment as possible in Tasmania, because it knows that the Tasmanian Labour Government -will provide as large a dole as it can for the people who are thrown out of work. The Tasmanian cement manufacturing industry should be encouraged in every possible way. We have in Tasmania at Railton, and along the slopes of Brown Mountain, tlie best deposits of limestone in the Southern Hemisphere, and nothing should lie done to cripple the industry that is being developed there. Certainly Tasmania should not be handicapped as against other parts of the Commonwealth simply because it is an island State. . It will be a scandal and a disgrace to Australia if the fine industry at Railton, which has been struggling for many years, is sacrificed to overseas interests by this Government. The “ cockies “ are not handicapped by the price of cement, for they use very little of it. I heartily support tho amendment moved by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis), and hope that honorable members will use their votes to prevent the Government, from destroying one of the finest industries in Australia, which provides employment for thousands of workers throughout the country, and does injury to nobody. Apparently, because some honorable members are unable to participate in the benefits which investment in the shares of the cement companies offer, they want to smash these companies.

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

– I have been very interested in listening to the speeches delivered by honorable members in regard to this item, and to the comments made in regard to the Tariff Board. The board was called upon in the first place to make a report on the cement industry, and, arising out of representations made by one firm which claimed that no opportunity was afforded it to give evidence in the first inquiry, a second inquiry was held and. a supplementary report presented. Honorable members generally who have paid any attention to tlie crystallized information set out in that supplementary report, cannot help but take notice of the advice tendered to them by the board. As honorable members are aware, a Tariff Board was set up to inquire, not only into the advisability of protecting the industries concerned, but also to safeguard the interests of the consumers; and in this connexion I ask why the position of the cement industry was not referred to the board at an earlier stage, seeing that it has evoked some drastic comments from the board. The first schedule granting protection to the cement industry was brought down in 1914. That was 22 years ago, and since then only one report, other than the reports now under consideration, has been furnished by the board on this industry, and it dealt only with the paper lining of casks and recommended that the then existing rates of duty should not be altered. Now, after a belated inquiry, the board comes to light with certain recommendations that have been accepted by the Government. But, if the Tariff Board and the Government were aware of” the conditions existing in the industry why have they permitted it to develop an unhealthy growth at the expense of the public? Why was this inquiry delayed? Rather than have this belated drastic proposal restrict the further advancement for a long period of the cement industry, I should have preferred steps to have been taken earlier to restrict the extortion of undue profits from users of cement, thereby teaching the industry a lesson, and compelling it to conduct its future operations on a more healthy basis. Protection is given to assist the development of an industry; but we find the cement industry has over-developed, and is, in the main, over-capitalized. Honorable members, when casting their votes on the amendment moved by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) cannot help but take into consideration that, in the process of its development, the cement industry has assumed national importance. Furthermore, as the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) has said, it. is also a natural industry. It uses entirely natural products’ in the production of cement, but its main value lies in the fact that it is a decentralized industry.

It is accepted that if the Tariff Board is to give protection or consideration to au industry, a duty devolves upon that industry to consider the interests of the users of its output, that is those who make possible the granting of the protection. In determining whether this industry has played its part in regard to the users of cement we are forced to rely on the only available evidence, which is contained in a very condensed form, in the Tariff Board’s report. An examination of that evidence forces us to the conclusion that it has not done so, and that, on the contrary, it has taken advantage of the protection granted to it to exploit the cement users in no uncertain way. Figures have been advanced to prove that, over the last five years, embracing the worst years of the depression, the price of cement has remained steady. The industry had ample opportunity to take, into consideration the effects of the depression on industry generally, bringing about, as they did, low costs of material and labour, and lifting many burdens previously bearing on industrial undertakings; but, with the exception of one or two other industries, the cement makers have been alone in their failure to pass on to the public the benefits of lowered production costs. The fact that they did not play the game to the public, I have no doubt, is the main reason why the Tariff Board was called upon at this late day to make its investigation. The first report of the board was so damning that the manufacturers felt that, if they were permitted to revise their figures, they could establish a better case. They were afforded the opportunity to do so. But what was the result? The supplementary report of the Tariff Board was even more damning than the first. Although the cement manufacturers were given ample opportunity to prepare and advance a convincing case, the later figures clearly indicated that the board’s original report was fair and just. To those who may have gathered the impression that the object of the board’s report was to smash the cement industry, and believe that, if the Government persists in its present intention, such a result is inevitable, I point out that the Tariff

Board realized the importance of this industry. lc prefaced its opinion in the supplementary report by saying that the cement industry represented a capital investment of £5,000,000. Any industry that represents a capital of approximately £5,,000,000 must be of immense importance to Australia, and could not be trifled with or tampered with by the Tariff Board without bringing down on the board the drastic comments of the trading community. But, outside a few interested parties, business interests generally have ignored the report. The Tariff Board also pointed out that the industry provided employment for 2,000 workmen. No board can ignore completely the policy of the Government under which it serves, and the Tariff Board must take into consideration the thousands of persons engaged in any industry under review. Consequently, it would not take action which would result in placing 2,000 men out of employment. It must have had very good grounds for its recommendation that the proposed alteration of duty would have very little effect on employment in the industry. The board also referred to the fact that, as the industry used 200,000 tons of coal and 10,000,000 paper bags annually, the indirect employment it provided in allied industries had to be considered. By revealing the importance of the industry, the board laid itself wide open to criticism. As I see it, no board worthy of its name would make a recommendation likely to jeopardize the interests of Australian workmen, either by direct or indirect interference with any industry.

In analysing the two reports of the board, we discover some extraordinary figures regarding the capitalization of the cement industry. The board shows that, in its search for the cause of high prices, it formed certain conclusions, one of which was that the industry was overcapitalized, and that plant had been installed far in excess of existing or immediately prospective needs. Only two things lead to over-capitalization of an industry, the most important being that it proves attractive to investors because of the possibility of excellent returns. Thus those desirous of sharing in extraordinary profits are brought into the industry. [Quorum formed.]

I pass on from the report of the Tariff Board to draw attention to a statement made by the chairman of directors of the Kandos company, in his address to the shareholders in June, 1931. Having pointed out that the company was capable of producing 1,000,000 tons of cement a year, and in the peak period did actually manufacture 76,000 tons, he indicated that, as the demand was increasing, additional plant would be required. He then added -

Tlie cement industry is in a worse position in New South Wales than in any other State. There are far too many companies operating in that State, and any one of the five large companies in New South Wales could supply an current requirements. Since 11)21, capital invested in cement companies has been increased by over 500 per cent., while productive capacity lias increased from 156,000 tons in 1921 to 570,000 tons in 1930. To make matters worse, it is understood that it is proposed to float a new company; a step which would make the industry very much overdeveloped.

Again, in the report of the company for the year ended the 30th June, 1933, the directors stated -

Although there has been a slight improvement in trading conditions during the year just closed, which is reflected in tlie accounts now presented, the position of the cement industry in this State, owing to its overdevelopment and over-capitalization, is faT from satisfactory.

There is no need for me to stress the figures in relation to over-capitalization which are contained in tlie report of the Tariff Board, but I submit that that statement of the managing director of the Kandos Cement Company destroys any future argument that the industry is not over-capitalized and over-developed. I shall now quote further evidence from within the industry, and give to the committee a statement by Mr. Symonds, general manager of the Commonwealth Portland Cement Company, in reply to a question submitted to him when giving evidence before the Tariff Board. When asked -

What I arn putting to you is not original, and my colleague raised it earlier in the day - the companies came into existence because the flowers were blooming too prolifically, so to speak. The thing appeared to be too attractive? he replied -

Yes, and some of my friends came into the thing quite blindly, without any consideration of the costs at all.

The general consensus of opinion within the industry was that it was a moneyspinner, that the flowers were blooming everywhere, and that every one was anxious to pick a bouquet for himself. The industry has been over-capitalized, and now those who have invested their rooney in it seek to obtain excessive profits, not on the value of the plant that is actually producing cement, but on the whole of the plant installed, whether used or not. That is an important point. The commercial world would show very few failures if businesses could return 10 per cent, on the whole of the capital invested, even when only 40 per cent, of the plant is being used.

As the action of the Tariff Board was taken on account of the profits of this industry, I desire now to deal with those profits. The Tariff Board places its finger on the sore point when, in expressing the opinion that the profits were unreasonably high, it adds in relation to its conclusion, “ (c) The profits made by the manufacturers as a whole were unreasonably high.”

The honorable member for Moreton said that the profit of 10s. a ton is not a reliable guide, because depreciation and income tax should be taken into account when arriving at a reasonable profit. By interjection, I drew attention to a further statement of the Tariff Board on page 4 of its report under the heading “ Profit “-

There is a universal complaint in the now representations received by the board that the profit margin of 10s. per ton was intended by the hoard to mean gross profit, and that selling and administrative expenses and taxation would be a charge against this amount. The board has already explained that selling and administrative expenses were included in the amount of 20s. per ton for “ Manufacturing “. With regard to taxation, the board considered this to he a legitimate charge against the profit of 10s. per ton.

The board took into consideration all administrative charges before making its computations, and, therefore, the contention that the margin of profits has been reduced, excessively cannot be maintained.

I desire now to draw the attention of honorable members to the profits made by certain companies which I will mention. The profits of the Kandos Cement Company varied from 16.7 per cent. in 1929 to 4.8 per cent. in 1934. I have selected the figures for this company in order to show that I am not endeavouring to give only those figures which support my case. In 1934, the capital of the company was reduced by a return to its shareholders of 4s. in respect of each paid-up share and 2s. on contributing shares. That proves conclusively that the company could not find any worth-while investment for the money. In 1932 its sales represented only 15.8 per cent of the capacity of the works, and in 1934 26.6 per cent, of its capacity. It is clear, therefore, that the user has been called upon to pay prices which would enable dividends to be paid on the full capital, notwithstanding that only about one-quarter of it was being used in the industry. Since the Tariff Board issued its report and the duty was reduced, the trading profit of thecompany increased from £40,000 in 1934 to £76,000 in 1935, and the dividend rate was increased to7½ per cent., the actual profit being 11.34 per cent. I have not given the present exchange figures in regard to shares, as the honorable member for Grey (Mr. McBride) has already done so. Indications are that the profit will be about 12.8 per cent. and the dividend 10 per cent. for 1936. As shareholders in manufacturing concerns generally were content to accept reduced returns during the depression, I submit that the figures which I have given show that this company has been in an extraordinarily favorable position.

The Standard Portland Cement Company is in a similar position. The net percentage of profits earned by it in 1933 was 8.57 per cent. ; in 1934 it was 11.35 per cent. That company, also, as the honorable member for Grey has pointed out, proposes to reduce its capital from £500,000 to £400,000. The honorable member stated that, the reason the directors gave was that funds were accumulating rapidly and there was no means of investing them on a remunerative basis. The fact that the company proposes to reduce its capital clearly indicates that it is a sound position and has accumulated sufficient reserves to meet any emergency.

Mr Francis:

– That will do.

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

– The honorable member’s interjection suggests that he anticipates that I intend to deal with the Queensland Cement and Lime Company Limited. I shall, however, give figures in relation to it. The company’s net profit for 1932 was £15,831; it paid a first-preference dividend of 8 per cent and a dividend of 6 per cent. on second preference and ordinary shares. I point out that that was in the depths of the depression when building activities throughout the Commonwealth had slumped, and the demand for cement had fallen off considerably. For 1934 the company’s net profit was £21,078, and it paid to the holders of first and second preference shares, as well as to its ordinary shareholders, an additional 1 per cent. dividend, notwithstanding, that the works were not fully employed.

Mr.Francis. - It reduced the price of cement voluntarily.

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

– Yes, in 1935, when the profit had increased to £25,963, and the dividends on all shares were 1 per cent. in excess of the rates for the previous year, and the company’s depreciation reserve had been augmented by £17,000- from £138,000, in 1933, to £.155,000, in 1935. These figures, I submit, indicate clearly what a moneyspinner this Queensland industry has been. It is true that, in 1935, the company voluntarily reduced the price of its products; for the last four months of the year it operated on a selling price of 5s. a ton below that for the first eight months. That meant a saving of £12,000 to the users of its product. Nevertheless, business was so much better that year that the company’s profits improved by over 20 per cent. The Goliath Portland Cement Company Limited of Tasmania, has a preference capital of £143,092, and an ordinary capital of £170,571. At present its reserves amount to £39,371. “While the company experienced a. fairly lean time in 1930, 1931,and 1932, earning only an average of 3 per cent. on the ordinary capital after providing for a preference dividend of 8 per cent. in each of those years, it experienced a decided improvement in 1933 when itpaid a preference dividend of 16 per cent., and also earned 7.3 per cent, on its ordinary capital. In 1934 its profits on ordinary capital were 1G.72 per cent., and in 1935, 21.38 per cent, In both those years it paid dividends of 7 per cent.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Nairn:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The honorable member his exhausted his time.

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

.- The debate hinges largely upon whether the duty of 9d. per cwt. on British cement should be removed. The duty of ls. appearing in the schedule does not actually exist as exchange adjustment represents approximately 3d. per cwt. Various opinions have been expressed in opposition to the reduced duty. At the outset I should say that the cementmaking industry is an example of what follows in the wake of excessive protection which in the end may lead to profiteering; and, as stated in the reports of the Tariff Board, it is difficult to clear up such situations when they arise. Tt would appear from, the argument* advanced in favour of the postponement of the item, that the policy of applying protective duties, instead of adopting prohibitory measures, is not in the best interests of the public; and if the amendment which provides that the item be deferred is agreed to, it must be regarded as an instruction to the Government that the old duty should operate.

Mr Francis:

– That is not desired. A 50 per cent, reduction should suffice.

Mr WHITE:

– From 9d. to 4½d. per cwt. As I have stated the net duty is not ls., but 9d. per cwt. If it is the contention of some honorable members that the duty should be 4£d. or 6d. per cwt. instead of the Tariff Board’s recommendation that it should be free, I state quite definitely that the adoption of such an amendment would transgress article 12 of the Ottawa agreement which reads -

Hia Majesty’s Government in. the Commonwealth of Australia undertake that no new protective duty shall bc imposed and no existing duty shall be increased on United Kingdom goods to an amount in excess of the recommendation of the Tariff Tribunal.

During the debate an honorable member said by interjection that the industry is well managed. There has also been good management in this chamber in view of the extensive lobbying that has been going on.

Mr Curtin:

– I rise to a point of order. The Minister for Trade and Customs has said that there has been good management in this chamber in view of the lobbying that has been going on. I submit that that is a gross reflection upon the probity of honorable members.

Mr White:

– It is a fact; but lobbying is legitimate.

Mr Curtin:

– The Minister said “ in the chamber “ and I submit that that is a reflection upon honorable members of Parliament.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– It is true all the same.

Mr Curtin:

– It is a gross reflection upon members of Parliament and suggests that considerations other than the merits of the subject are influencing the speeches of honorable members and the votes they will record. As I consider the Minister’s remarks a gross reflection upon the integrity of honorable members, they should be withdrawn.

Mr WHITE:

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) is too hasty. I did not say that lobbying is not permissible; we know that it goes on in connexion with almost every item in a. tariff schedule, and the representatives of practically every industry interested resort to lobbying in various forms. Deputations have waited, not only upon me, but also upon other Ministers and honorable members. The volume of literature on this subject from interested parties and direct representatives of the companies concerned has been enormous. A wealthy former member of this Parliament who once presented a petition to the House in connexion with what were termed excessive customs duties, and who is now a director of a cement manufacturing company, has been within the precincts of the House supporting the claims of certain companies which, under these excessive duties, have been profiteering. I did not intend my remarks to be regarded as a reflection upon any honorable member, but lobbying does occur. When excessive customs duties allow industries to develop in the way that this industry has developed, serious difficulties arise in placing them on a proper economic basis.

Mr Curtin:

– I rise to order. Did I understand the Minister for Trade and

Customs to say that his remarks were not intended as a reflection upon any member of this Parliament?

Mr White:

– I am not reflecting upon any individual member of Parliament; I merely stated that lobbying is done.

Mr Lane:

– Has not the Minister been influenced by representations made to him?

Mr White:

– I have not.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

A3 the explanation of the Minister for Trade and ‘Customs covers the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) I ask the Minister to proceed with the discussion of the item.

Mr WHITE:

– The amendment, if agreed to, would transgress article 12 of the Ottawa agreement, and I ask honorable members who have supported that agreement because of the great advantages it confers, to recall the benefits which that agreement confers, particularly upon Queensland in the matter of sugar, pineapples, and other commodities. Surely they do not expect to take advantage of the agreement when it suits them, and to decline to do so when they regard its provisions as detrimental to the interests which they are representing. They should consider that phase very carefully before recording their vote on this item. In this instance, as in others, the British rate of duty has been fixed in accordance with article 12 of the Ottawa agreement. Last night the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) quoted figures which, on investigation, he will find are inaccurate. For instance, he said that wages paid in the industry were £2,000,000 a year, whereas they are less than one-fifth of that amount. On the basis of production of 400,000 tons of cement, 2,000 hands are employed in quarrying and transport of raw materials for use in the manufacture of cement. The wages paid approximate £350,000 per annum. During the last tcn years local manufacturers have supplied more than 90 per cent, of the Australian requirements. Imports have been relatively small, and, in the last few years, have included coloured, white and quick-setting cements of types not made in Australia. The stimulus given to cement production and the protection afforded the local industry have led to the installation of plant far in excess of thi needs of Australia. The honorable men> ber for Wentworth (Mr. E. J. Harrison), who dealt with the subject of overcapitalization, said that over-production dates back to 1914, when many of tlie companies made excessive profits. If tie profiteering covers the war years also, that makes the position even worse. The Tariff Board has found that excessive profits have been made, and that, as the industry is so heavily overcapitalized, some reduction of duty should be made. Moreover, the companies should reduce their prices so that ether industries may have a reasonable chance to conduct their operations profitably. The absence of external competition permitted the establishment of, or acquiescence in, local prices that were unreasonably high. At the time of the board’s inquiry local manufacturers were selling cement at the following prices: - Queensland, £4 17s. 5d.; New South Wales, £4 10s. lid. ; Victoria, £4 6s. 8d. ; South Australia, £4 19s. 7d.; and Tasmania, £4 15s. 6d. a ton. Since the Tariff Board made its report there has been a considerable reduction, and, as the honorable member for Grey (Mr. McBride) stated, the company producing in Adelaide has reduced its price by 17s. 3d. a ton. Comparisons have been made with New Zealand, and it has been said that manufacturers in that dominion can sell cheaper than in Australia, because they ave not controlled by what in Australia is practically a combine. The prices in New Zealand range from £3 19s. 4d. to £4 6s. 5d. a ton. The prices in Australia at the date of the inquiry were higher than the board considered to be maximum reasonable prices by, in Queensland, £1 13s. 7d. ; New South Wales, 14s. 6d. ; Victoria, 18s. Id. ; South Australia, £1 13 s. 5d. ; and Tasmania, £1 4s. 8d. a ton. On the information supplied to the Tariff Board there is ample room for a reduction of selling prices. In the past Great Britain has been the principal overseas supplier. The board ascertained that the lowest price connected with a definite transaction was 55s. 6d. c.i.f. Australian ports for British cement, which would result in landed costs free on wharf and excluding duty of, Brisbane, £3 16s. Sd.; Sydney, £3 15s. 3d.; Melbourne, £3 16s.’; Adelaide, £3 16s. 10d., and Hobart, £3 16s. 2d. With the exception of New South Wales the landed cost of the lowest-priced British cement, with which a definite transaction could he connected is higher than the board’s maximum reasonable selling price of local cement by, Brisbane, 12s. lOd. ; Melbourne, 7s. 5d. ; Adelaide, 8s. 8d.; Hobart, 5s. 4d. a ton. In New South Wales the landed cost of lowest-priced British cement is ls. 2d. less than the maximum reasonable selling price of the local product. The Tariff Board makes an important commentary on the position as prevailing in New South Wales, to show that the industry is not in any way in jeopardy. This reference appears on page 9 ; I do not propose to read it; but I commend it to the attention of honorable members. In brief, the paragraph states that the companies have no necessity to fear that they will not be able to carry on their operations at a reasonable profit. What the board assesses as a reasonable selling price is set out in a table on page 8 of the report. The board points out that on’ly one company disclosed a profit of less than 10s. a ton, and that, in spite of the period of depression, which restricted the demand, the remaining companies showed profits of from 6 per cent, to 32 per cent. The board has made some stringent remarks on this position.

In the course of this debate some honorable members have endeavoured to lead the committee to believe that there was a depressed period when these companies had difficulty in carrying on their operations; and, in support of their contentions, they quoted the instance of the Goliath Company, Tasmania. I regret that the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Mahoney), who spoke on this matter, is not present at the moment, for I propose to state the true position. As a matter of fact, that particular company, more than any other, furnishes a special instance of excessive profit-making. I propose to cite excerpts from the Wild Cat Monthly, which sets out the profits made by all companies, together with other information in connexion with their capital, and other data. In 1935, the percentage profit on the paid-up capital of the company was 14.4 per cent.; in 1934, 12.4 per cent.; in 1933, 7.6 per cent.; in 1932, 5.5 per cent; in 1931, 3.5 per cent. ; in 1930, 4.2 per cent. ; and in 1929, 1.4 per cent.

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– Those figures are not correct.

Mr WHITE:

– The honorable member had better quarrel with the editor of the Wild Cat Monthly. If he doubts the authenticity of these figures, perhaps he will believe the Weekly Share Market Letter, No. 472, of J. B. Were and Son, and their opinion on investment in the cement industry. It states -

Goliath Cement operates in Tasmania, and is reported to .he the lowest cost producer in the Australian cement industry. The company earned substantial profits last year, equal to 22£ per cent, on ordinary capital, and paid 113 per cent, for the year. At 20s. Cd. the shares, 13s. 4d. fully paid, returned 6J per cent. The recent reduction of 5s. per ton in the selling price of cement in Australia is expected to check the increase in profits-

In other words, the profits will not go beyond 15 per cent. - that has been taking place, but it should not prevent this company from maintaining a rate of earning sufficient to cover the dividend distribution made last year.

Does the honorable member require any more emphatic proof than that statement? Even under the new tariff proposal, and in spite of the expressed fears of a redaction of price, the stock and share market considers that this company will be able to make a profit of 15 per cent. That company was formed in 1928 to take over the Tasmanian Cement Proprietary’s business and a shale deposit at Latrobe. It made a very commendable effort to develop the shale business, but encountered difficulties, and in 1931 the deposit was sold for £14,000 in Tasmanite Shale Oil scrip, the immediate loss on the deal being £28,534. To wipe out this loss and adjust the book value of assets, the sum of £85,286, equivalent to 6s. 8d. a share, was struck off the capital. I have a table showing the dividends that were subsequently paid -

I am glad to see that the honorable member for Denison has now returned. I regret that he was absent when I quoted from the Stock and Share Market report of J. B. Were and Son; but I consider these figures will correct the statements which he made in reference to the company’s profits.

Mr Barnard:

– Those figures are not correct.

Mr WHITE:

– I point out for the information of the honorable member that the percentage profit was8 per cent. on preferential shares. Hence that company can hardly be described as being on the border-line of penury when it could achieve those figures in lean years. Honorable members who profess to have the interests of the working man at heart, and are anxious to see that he secures employment, should realize that companies such as this were maintaining their profits for their shareholders at a time when other businesses were being wrecked, and many men’s employment was in jeopardy. I give an instance: Road-making was definitely retarded, because the high price of cement in Australia led to the importation of large quantities of bitumen and pitch forthis purpose.

Mr.Mahoney. - That is not correct.

Mr WHITE:

– The figures prove that I am right. They are as follows : -

Mr.Brennan. - Are not those materials used with cement in connexion with road-making ?

Mr WHITE:

– Yes, very often- for top-dressing purposes; they are laid on over a foundation of cement; but cement roads can be made, and many miles of them would have been constructed in Australia if the companies had reduced the price. Instead, they preferred to keep up the price, even though it involved a restriction of output. I emphasize that this occurred at a time when large sums of money might have been spent on road-making, to give widespread employment, and particularly was this so amongst the unskilled. As things happened, this work of construction was definitely retarded. Honorable members who are opposed to the proposal of the Government to put an end to these conditions shut their eyes to the fact that in the worst economic depression Australia has experienced, the high price of cement was a decided factor in keeping down employment.

With regard to the Queensland company, about which the honorable member for Moreton is so solicitous-

Mr Francis:

– I desire only to prevent the industry from going out of existence.

Mr WHITE:

– The honorable member has not heard what I was about to say. The Queensland company, at the Tariff Board inquiry, volunteered information that it might be in a position to reduce its costs by working coral in Moreton Bay instead of hauling limestone long distances, as it had been doing.

Mr Francis:

– The company is only being businesslike.

Mr WHITE:

– The Government desires to assist it in being businesslike in connexion with reducing prices. The Tariff Board has made an interesting comment on the comparative costs of limestone and’ clay, showing that these materials, which are so much easier to work than bluestone, are put in at a much higher cost. Nevertheless, the board accepts those figures, and bases its computations on the high estimates which were presented by the company at the time of the inquiry.

Mr Francis:

– The Queensland company reduced its prices voluntarily twelve months ago - before the Tariff Board made its request.

Mr WHITE:

– I admit that; but the Tariff Board inquiry was mooted at that time.

The fear has been expressed that the action of the Government in reducing the protection, will result in heavy importations of cement which will ruin the Australian industry, but I remind honorable members that the Customs Department can very easily weigh the position if there is any dumping.

Mr Nock:

-Will the Minister assure the committee that the Australian industries will be protected in the event of dumping?

Mr WHITE:

– Certainly. In addition to having the protection of the exchange rate, on which I propose to speak presently in reply to a matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition, the cement industry has also the advantage of a primage duty of 5 per cent. No honorable member who has spoken against the action of the Government has referred to that aspect of the matter. All entries must go through the Customs Department, and the department will be able to judge whether the invoice price is fair, or whether the article is being dumped.

Mr.R. Green. - Will the Minister say definitely that, if the necessity arises, the provisions of the Australian Industries Preservation Act will be applied?

Mr WHITE:

– Yes, but the Government is able to act more swiftly than it can under the Australian Industries Preservation Act, which provides that there must first be a Tariff Board inquiry; the department has authority to call for deposits where it suspects that dumping is being carried on. An importer can be called upon to pay the excess duty while the matter is being investigated. Honorable members will realize, therefore, that the Government is in a position to control the possibility of dumping. I hope that that assurance will remove the fear expressed by honorable members in regard to an influx of imported cement which, by the way, would be manufactured in Britain, because the duties remain on foreign cement.

The Leader of the Opposition contends that this industry is now operating on what is practically a freetrade basis. I emphatically deny it. The honorable member also endeavoured to introduce the subtle reasoning, that because of the depreciation of Australian currency, internal prices have risen to such an extent that the advantage to be gained from the exchange rate no longer exists.

Mr Curtin:

– I did not say that it had all disappeared.

Mr WHITE:

– The honorable member is aware that a wire-netting industry is being carried on in Western Australia, employing more highly skilled labour than is required in the cement industry. This wire-netting industry is able to carry on operations successfully against British importations without a duty. I am confident that the honorable member will not venture to assert that the firm is not carrying on successfully, and meeting the competition of a bigger company in the eastern States.

Mr Gregory:

– The Minister is aware that the British manufacturer will not quote the same rate for the Australian market as he does for the South African market. The fact is that a cartel has been established and an agreement has been entered into for the keeping up of p rices.

Mr WHITE:

– I am reminded that there was not a whisper of dissent when item 38, relating to biscuits, was considered by the committee. Even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), who manages to speak on the majority of the items, was silent on that occasion. The biscuit industry is on all fours with the cement industry. Although protests were made by the companies at the time, biscuits from the United Kingdom are admitted to the Commonwealth free of duty. However, this industry exists under a greater disadvantage than the cement industry by reason of the fact that some of its raw material - butter and sugar - have an established price in Australia which does not bear a true relation to the world parity price of those commodities. Yet the biscuit industry is being carried on successfully in Australia, and has not been overtaken by the dire results that members fear will affect the cement industry. Although such free admission has now operated for sixteen months, imports are only at the rate of £5,000 per annum, which is less than onefifth of 1 per cent. of the Commonwealth production.

If the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) thinks that “free British”, and 5 per cent. primage, will cause importations of cement on a large scale, his fears will not be realized. It comes strangely from the honora’ble gentleman, who recently announced in this chamber a socalled new tariff policy for his party, that, although it was part of Labour’s policy to have protection at any cost, it would support that policy in the future only “when those who benefited by it did their duty to the consumers, the employees and the nation as a whole. How much has the honorable member considered the consumers? On the first major item in which he has had an opportunity to put this tenet to the test, he falls down on the job. Nobody reading the two excellent reports submitted by the Tariff Board can fail to appreciate that cheaper cement will benefit the users. I fear that the so-called new policy is intended more for political reprisals, and resembles curiously the new protection policy advocated not more than two years ago by Mr. Lang, who said that very punitive powers were to be exercised by the government if his party was returned to office. The Leader of the Opposition, himself, speaking on the address-in-reply, on the 1st November, 1934, said -

I say this to my friends on my own side of the House: There is nothing to be gained in the general level of employment by protecting an industry which, at the most, can afford employment to only three or four hundred men when, by so doing, we imperil our market for goods in the production of which employment is provided for 10,000 or more of our population. “Why does he not apply those principles to this item of the tariff, and also the principles which he advocated when speaking on the recent censure motion.

I regret that the explanation submitted on this item on behalf of the Government has been so long. If honorable members have any doubt on the matter, I urge them to read again the reports of the Tariff Board. Let me reiterate that no injury will be done to this important industry if the manufacturers in it cease profiteering. If honorable members have any respect for the obligations of the Ottawa agreement, they cannot support the amendment. I contend that this alteration should have been made years ago. Regarding profitce ring in other industries, such as the manufacture of paper and glass bottles, the board has made some very scathing comments. These matters should he considered, not from a geographical point of view, or from that of the electorate or the party, but with an endeavour to see that the people of Australia as a whole - the users of cement are not of a different race from, that of the cementmakers - are protected as well as the manufacturers. I ask the committee to accept the recommendations of the Tariff Board. They are thoroughly reliable, particularly as the industry has had two opportunities to submit its case.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- Ths Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) has dealt with these duties from many aspects, and has liberally quoted figures in an attempt to justify the Government’s proposals. He referred to the operations of the Goliath Portland Cement Company, which carries on operations at Railton, Tasmania. Although this industry is not conducted in my own electorate, ‘ I have watched its progress since its establishment, and have had the pleasure of visiting the works within the last year or two. The industry was founded about twelve years ago, but has only recently become established on a. sound footing. It carried on during the depression period, and on several occasions was on the verge of closing down. Despite what the Minister has said, the profits of the company have not been exorbitant. Only in the last couple of years, since the use of cement has greatly increased, has it been able to produce at a reasonably high capacity, and enable dividends to be paid. The Minister quoted its dividend payments as published in the Wild Cat Monthly, but confined his observations to preference shares. I am informed that the first dividend on ordinary shares was 2-£ per cent. This was obtained in 1933, after which the dividend on ordinary capital was reduced from 20s. to 13s. 4d. In 1934, a 10 per cent, dividend was paid on a decreased capital, equivalent to 6^ per cent, on the original share value, whilst last year a special distribution was made to shareholders to compensate to some extent for the earlier years when no dividends were paid. Last year’s total dividend was 2s. a share, equalling 15 per cent, on the written-down value or 10 per cent, on the original value. It is not considered that these dividends are at all excessive, although the Tariff Board reported that the prices were unduly high, and that local manufacturers could compete with imported cement landed duty free. During the course of the Minister’s remarks he answered questions by honorable members opposite regarding the quantity of cement imported into various parts of Australia. I should like to know what quantity has been imported into Tasmania.

Mr White:

– I shall obtain that information for the honorable member.

Mr BARNARD:

– I happen to know that a certain quantity has been brought in from abroad, and has been sold at a lower price than that of the locally produced article. This suggests that it would be unwise to adopt the Government’s proposal. In the interests of those employed in the industry, and of the large number indirectly employed, I hope that the committee will accept the amendment. The fortnightly expenditure in wages and salaries at the works at Railton is over £1,000 whilst a similar sum is paid out each fortnight for Tasmanian coal, which is obtained partly from the east coast, and partly from small mines in the district in which the industry is conducted. In addition, a considerable sum is spent on electrical power, railage, wharfage, and wharf labour, and in many other directions. All this expenditure is distinctly beneficial to Tasmania. I desire to provide employment for Australians and I am seriously concerned about the attitude of the Government to these duties. The figureswhich I have submitted may not seem large in comparison with those relating to the industry in other States, but that fact does not detract from their comparative importance. Although the industry in Tasmania has now passed through the experimental stage, it lost a good deal of money at the outset in connexion with the shale andother subsidiary industries. The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) in his characteristic style asked how much cement has been exported from Tasmania. The shipments from Devonport exceeded 48,000 tons during the year ended the 31st December last, and were greater than the whole of the rest of Devonport’s export trade combined, with the exception of limestone shipments from the Melrose quarries. The income from the mainland sales helps materially to correct the adverse trade balance between Tasmania and the other States. The adverse trade balance between Tasmania and Victoria is about £2,000,000 a year.

Sitting suspended from12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr BARNARD:

– My main reason for speaking on this item was to show the importance of this industry to the State of Tasmania, and to the middle-class people in that State, who depend upon it. Because of the nature of the industry, it is in the interests of Australia as a whole that it should have reasonable tariff protection. I support the amendment.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; IND from 1931; UAP from 1934

– I feel constrained to discuss one or two important issues which have been raised in this debate. At the beginning and conclusion of his speech, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) stressed a point which, in the interests of this Parliament, I must question. He said that we must observe the Ottawa agreement.

Mr.McBride. - Does not the honorable gentleman agree with that remark?

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Yes ; but what is the Ottawa agreement? What does it require of us?TheMinister stated that the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) is contrary to the Ottawa agreement. That statement means we shall be committing a breach of the agreement if we adopt the amendment. If that is true, then not only is this National Parliament so fettered by the Ottawa agreement that, if it desires to increase any existing duties, it can do so only if there is a prior recommendation to that effect by the Tariff Board, but also out of the Minister’s statement arises the further proposition that it has no power to decrease an existing duty unless a decrease is recommended by the Tariff Board.

Mr White:

– Oh, no!

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– I shall examine that point further. Honorable members are invited to deal with certain resolutions for the adoption of a schedule of tariff items. Included in them is item 234, which proposes that, instead of the existing British preferential duty on portland cement, this commodity shall be admitted free. What is the existing duty on cement to-day? That is the point. The Tariff Act of 1933 fixes the British preferential duty on portland cement at ls. per cwt. Thus, to-day, the existing British preferential duty on cement is, by law, ls. per cwt. Article 10 of the Ottawa agreement provides- -

His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia undertake that, during the currency of this agreement, the tariff shall be based on the principle that protective duties shall nut exceed such a level as Will give United Kingdom producers full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of the relative cost of economical and efficient production, provided that in the application of

Mich principle special consideration may bo given to the case of industries not fully established.

We have undertaken, very definitely, that when we are dealing with a particular tariff item, notwithstanding that Australia, before this agreement was signed, was admitted to be a protectionist country, and is admitted by all parties to-day to be still a. protectionist country, we shall be guided by the principle expressed in article 10. Article 11 provides -

His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia undertake that a review shall be made us soon as practicable by the Australian Tariff Board of existing protective duties in accordance with the principles laid down in article 10 hereof, and that after the receipt of the report and recommendation of the Tariff Board the Commonwealth. Parliament shall l>c invited to vary, wherever necessary, the tariff on goods of United Kingdom origin in such manner as to give effect to such principles.

We agreed to a review of protected industries by the Tariff Board. But, after the board had made its investigations and presented its reports, the hands of the Parliament were not to be tied. The Parliament was to be “invited” to vary the duties wherever necessary in accordance with the article. That principle is quite right; it preserves the sovereignty of the National Parliament to vary duties as it thinks fit.

Mr White:

– Read article 12.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– Article 12 says -

His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia undertake that no new protective duty shall be imposed and no existing duty shall bc increased on United Kingdom goods to an amount in excess of the recommendation of the Tariff Board.

I ask honorable members to note very carefully the principle contained in this article. There were to be no new protective duties - that means that if a new industry were springing up in Australia and we desired to protect it, we could not give to it protection higher than that recommended by the Tariff Board.

Mr Nock:

– Does not the Ottawa agreement except undeveloped industries in that respect?

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– Article 10 allows that special consideration may be given to the case of industries not fully established. That applies only to existing industries, but article 12 limits our power to provide new protective duties Vor industries not. yet in being. It is a definite limitation of our powers to which 1 drew attention when the legislation which ratified the Ottawa agreement was before this House; I pointed out that a similar limitation of its powers had not been accepted by the Parliament of New Zealand or the Dominion Parliament of Canada. Australia was the only dominion that limited the sovereign powers of its National Parliament by agreeing not to increase existing British duties in the British preferential tariff in excess of the recommendation of the Tariff Board. I, for one, protested against this because. I felt strongly that the National Parliament could be relied upon to honour its agreement, and that it was a dangerous constitutional principle to make such a contract with an outside power.

Mr Paterson:

– Is Great Britain an outside power?

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– Honorable members know that Australia is a sovereign entity and enjoys autonomous powers within the Empire. My reference to Great Britain and the sister dominions as outside States was employed only in the constitutional sense. The full sovereign powers vested in this Parliament by the nation should be limited only in cases of the most serious emergency; certainly they should not be reduced in regard to the general power of tariff making. It is said that one National Parliament cannot bind its successors, but under this agreement it can, because we have made a treaty, and any government, of whatever political party, will stand by an honorable obligation. The Minister said that by virtue of the Ottawa agreementwe cannot legally agree to the amendment before the committee. The existing law to-day, as I think the Minister will agree, is the tariff of 1933. “What is the nature of the amendment moved by the honorable member for Moreton? Does it propose to increase the duty on cement above1s. per cwt. ? No. Under the Ottawa agreement we would be prevented from doing that.

Mr White:

– The Tariff Board did not recommend a duty of1s. per cwt. on cement.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– My only object in speaking on this aspect of the matter is to protect the rights of this Parliament. I think the Minister will concede that the 1933 tariff is the law to-day. The motion before the committee is “ that the schedule to the Customs Tariff, 1933, be further amended as set out in the schedule tothis resolution “. That is the invitation to the Parliament. The law will not be altered until these resolutions have been adopted by this House, and embodied in a bill, which must be approved by the Senate and assented to by the Governor-General as an act.

Mr White:

– That is a mere quibble - an evasion.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– Will the Minister say that this schedule in the resolution is legally in existence to-day? Nobody knows better than he that we are now dealing only with resolutions and that it is the present practice - but not because the schedule is actually law - for the courts to recognize these resolutions until they are enacted by legislation. The position is clearly as I have described it. Article 12 of the Ottawa agreement says that “His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia undertakes that no existing duty shall be increased, &c”. The existing duty on cement is1s. per cwt. The honorable member for Moreton does not propose to increase that duty; if carried, his amendment will have the effect of securing a reduction of the duty to 6d. per cwt. If the Minister’s contention that we cannot reduce duties without a recom mendation from the Tariff Board is correct, then we can neither increasenor decrease existing duties except within limitations.

Mr White:

– That is a legal quibble.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– I admire the Minister’s capacity for refusing to see. If he can convince honorable members that the National Parliament is so impotent that it cannot increase or decrease duties without a prior recommendation by the Tariff Board, then we are in a sorry position. I contend, therefore, that the committee is free to consider the amendment, but we should ask ourselves whether, in submitting its recommendations with regard to this commodity the Tariff Board did pay full regard to articles 10 and 11 of the Ottawa agreement. The Ministry is quite within its rights in reviewing the tariff, and also in asking the committee to pass the item ; but as regards the interpretation of the Ottawa agreement, we have, I think, to regard the view of the Tariff Board to be found in the annual report for the year ended the 30th June, 1933. The board, in my opinion, is to be highly commended for the way in which it has endeavoured to carry out the spirit of the agreement when submitting recommendations for duties, and at the same time to give effect to this country’s protection policy. But article 10 of the Ottawa agreement provides-

His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth, of Australia., undertake that during the currency of this agreement,the tariff shall be based on the principle that protective duties shall not exceed such a level as will give the United Kingdom producers full opportunity of reasonable competition–

That is the first principle - on the basis of the relative cost of economical and efficient production. . . .

That obviously implies that when the Tariff Board is inquiring into the claims of an industry for tariff protection it must pay regard to the question of economical and efficient production.

Mr Nock:

– The board did that.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– For the guidance of Parliament, the Tariff Board had to interpret that principle, and Parliament, as I have explained, has expressly limited its powers in this essential feature of fiscal policy. In this connexion I pay a tribute to the board for the manner in which it dealt with one of the most intricate problems that has confronted it. But. it is also the duty of the board to decide as to the relative costs of production of particular commodities in Great Britain and Australia, and in regard to the application of this rule the board made this statement -

The board considers that a reasonable duty to protect anefficient economic industry should be high enough to raise the landed cost of an overseas product to the level which will -

compensate the local manufacturer for the higher costs (if any) of Australian labour ; (b)offset the higher costs (if any) of raw material and overhead charges; and

provide a marginal advantage in favour of the Australian manufacturer.

Mr White:

– That is what the board has done.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– Those were the guiding principles upon which the board acted, and the Minister has said that the board has observed them. On this point I refer him to the following passage in the report of the board on cement -

One feature of the inquiry was an absence of evidence on behalf of the United Kingdom cement manufacturers, who did not avail themselves of article 13 of the United KingdomAustralia trade agreement, and secure representation before the board.

Mr Jennings:

– That has happened in connexion withmanyindustries.

Mr White:

– There was no importation of cement in that year.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– Title relative costs of production are important; but, so far as we have been able to learn, the board in this case did not obtain accurate information as to the actual costs of production in Great Britain. Selling quotations may be misleading. The board appears to have been satisfied with a statement of landed costs. But we know nothing of what lies behind - nothing of the actual costs of production. Therefore, we are not in a position to say how they compare with Australian costs of production.

Mr White:

– In what way would duties based on the landed cost injure Australian industry ?

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– The Minister is, of course, aware that labour costs are an essential factor in produc tion, and as regards this industry we have no evidence of the effect, on Australian costs, of higher charges for raw material. In this country the whole of the material has to be quarried and to be reduced to the requisite fineness prior to the final manufacturing process. Another point to be considered is the board’s interpretation of the Ottawa agreement authorizing it to give a marginal advantage in favour of Australian manufacturers. If the British duty on cement is repealed, where is that marginal advantage for Australian companies? The Ottawa agreement makes no reference to the effect of exchange. It deals solely with the imposition of duties. The Government may be justified in bringing down proposals to provide for the free introduction of certain classes of goods, but I am considering the application of the treaty to the particular item before the committee. It would be well for honorable members to realize the importance of this feature of government policy, because we are only in the early stages of tariff revision, and the principles to which I have directed attention may be applied, not only to cement, but also to other commodities in. respect of which action may be contem- plated. I call attention, in no party spirit, to what I believe to be the proper rule to be observed. As regards existing duties, it is perfectly clear that under the Ottawa agreement the committee has not the power to increase the tariff in excess of the recommendation of the Tariff Board.

I am satisfied that the cement industry is a proper one to be established in Australia, and it is an industry natural to this country. We have in the various States an ample supply of the raw materials. Therefore, the industry should, and does, invite the sympathy of this Parliament. I am quite sure that no honorable member wishes to do an injury to those engaged in this business. The duties under which it has been developed were imposed deliberately by Parliament and as part of the protective policy of the Commonwealth to encourage local industries to supply Australia’s requirements.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– When were these duties first imposed?

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– In 1914. The manufacture of cement is an undertaking that has taken a long time to develop because - this applies also to other local industries - it had first to overcome the prejudice commonly held that nothing good can come out of Australia. But this industry has established itself, and it produces an excellent article that meets Australian requirements.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– At a cost.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– This item, which was introduced some time ago, indicates that past governments believed that the industry could be carried on with effective protection. The industry has been established in every State of the Commonwealth. Because the article produced is heavy, transport charges are high, and, as a result, there has been decentralization of manufacturing. Now we are told that the industry is over-capitalized, and that it should be re-organized on the basis of an output of 750,000 tons a year. If this happens, the smaller manufacturers in outlying districts of the various States are liable to be put out of business and production will be confined to the larger concerns in metropolitan areas. We know how that will affect the users of this commodity. In Queensland, for example, at the present time the larger users of cement in the vicinity of Brisbane are able to obtain it at perhaps a reasonable price, but the charge to users in the far-north of that State, by reason of railway transport costs, is much higher. If the Queensland industry goes out of existence then the users of cement in that State will have to pay the added cost of transport from the south, and possibly higher prices in addition.

Mr.ArchdaleParkhill. - Imported cement has to be brought 12,000 miles incasks.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– At the present time heavy rail freight has to be paid to send cement from Brisbane to Cairns, a distance of 1,000 miles.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).The honorable gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Although the fate of the Government is not involved, so much interest has been taken in this discussion that I am disinclined to give a silent vote; therefore, with the indulgence of the committee, I shall make a few observations. As the revenues of the country are not affected to any extent, honorable members are free on this item, as indeed, on all other tariff items, to vote as they think fit. My only desire is to explain why I propose to vote for the recommendation of the Tariff Board.

It will be generally conceded that cement is an absolute necessity in our community life, and is used in connexion with a large number of industries. Consequently, it assumes an importance of which the committee must take cognizance. There is no commodity the price of which has been more widely canvassed within recent years. If there is one commodity, the cost of which is generally believed to be too high, it is cement. The Tariff Board, having inquired into the industry, arrived at certain conclusions. The policy of that tribunal has always been to do nothing that might damage Australian industry. In this particular case the board stated in its first report that its proposal would not damage the industry. In a supplementary report, having reconsidered all the relevant facts, it repeated that averment. As the board is accepted in Australia and Great Britain as a fair and an impartial body for the investigation of tariff matters, I am prepared to accept its view on the evidence placed before it, and shall not change my attitude unless proof is adduced that its conclusions are wrongly based. Nothing has been said during this debate which has shaken in any way the statements made and arguments advanced by the board. On the contrary, reliable and substantial statements have been made, and arguments adduced which have proved indubitably that the facts are as stated by the board, and that, the cost of cement to the Australian community is abnormally high. Not even those honorable members who may propose to vote for the amendment of the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) have denied that prices are unduly high ; on the contrary they have admitted that for years the people of Australia have paid too much for their requirements of cement. Every local government enterprise which has laid concrete roads has had its operations restricted by the excessive cost of this commodity. For the same reason, the cost of every building constructed of concrete is abnormally high. The burden does not rest solely on the manufacturer, who so far has been the only party referred to in this debate. I put it to honorable members that Parliament owes a duty to every user of cement. Consideration for the user can be shown only by the acceptance of the Tariff Board’s report. I direct attention to a press cablegram of yesterday’s date, which stated that Dr. Earle Page, speaking at a function in London, had appealed for an indication from Great Britain of its ability to take the whole of Australia’s output of certain products, in which case Australia would be prepared to assure absolutely regular supplies. Apparently, while asking Great Britain, through our ambassador, to take everything that we can export to that country, Great Britain must 11 Ot be permitted to export to Australia one pound of cement. Honorable members cannot have it both ways. It is incumbent upon this Parliament to take a fair and reasonable view of the matter. I listened carefully to the remarks of the honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom) in regard to the Ottawa agreement. This is the third year in which that agreementhas operated. So far there has been no breach of it; but if this amendment is carried, a clear and definite breach will he made in it. Honorable members may laugh at the suggestion that an honorable agreement is likely to be broken. I see nothing to laugh at. I om merely directing’ attention to the necessity for taking notice of the probability of that occurring. Article 10 of the Ottawa agreement stipulates that United Kingdom producers shall have full . opportunity of reasonable competition while article 11 provides for the review of the mountainous duties imposed toy the Scullin Government. The agreement clearly provides that the Tariff Board shall be the authority to determine whether or not duties are competitive, and, if Parliament varies the duties recommended by the Tariff Board in the direction of increasing them, it commits a breach of the Ottawa agreement. Thus, if the amendment now before the committee be agreed to, a breach of the Ottawa agreement will be committed. I place these facts before the committee, confident that time and the British Government will show that my interpretation is the correct one.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) was good enough to announce the other night, in grandiloquent terms, that his party proposes in the future, irrespective of what it has done in the past, to consider the interests of the consumers, as well as those of the manufacturers, when determining what duties it will support.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister will not be in order in proceeding along those lines.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– Throughout the whole of this discussion there has been shown a tenderness and solicitude for the interests of the manufacturers which provide inescapable proof that the public are being blackmailed into paying excessive prices. I defy any one to say that the interests of the users of cement have been adequately considered, and when the vote is taken wo. shall see the so-called champions of the working class sitting side by side with the representatives of monopoly and privilege.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- It seems to me that the Minister for Defence (Mr. Parkhill), in a despairing effort to bolster up a weak case, has, as usual, resorted to misrepresentation. The Minister said that the Tariff Board, when reviewing the tariff - and he was referring to this item, because it is the only one before the committee - was reviewing the mountainous duties imposed by the Scullin Government. The duty which has been reduced in this instance was not a Scullin duty; it was 22 years old.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– I was referring to duties in general, not to this specific one.

Mr SCULLIN:

– If the Minister was doing what he now says, he would have been out of order.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– Nevertheless, that is what I was doing.

Mr SCULLIN:

– The Minister left the impression, and he deliberately tried to do so, that the duty which has been reduced was one of the mountainous duties of the Scullin Government, which the Tariff Board was called upon to review in the terms of the Ottawa agreement.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– I did not intend it in that way.

Mr.SCULLIN.- The Minister would have been very glad to have had that interpretation of his words accepted without challenge. If, under the terms of the Ottawa agreement, we may not keep in operation duties which were imposed 22 years ago, then the sooner the agreement’ is terminated the better.

Mr PATERSON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

– The honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom) asked a few moments ago in what way a refusal to act upon the recommendation of the Tariff Board in this instance would constitute an infringement of the Ottawa agreement.It is with some trepidation that 1, as a mere layman, rise to answer a question propounded by a gentleman learned in the law, but it seems to me that the answer to his question is to be found in article 11 of the agreement. In article 10 these words occur -

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

In other words, we undertake that, during the currency of the agreement, the principle shall be maintained of a competitive, rather than a prohibitive, tariff. That provision is qualified to some extent by article 11, which apparently gives the Commonwealth the option to say whether or not the principle agreed to in article 10 is to be adhered to. Article 11 is as follows -

His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia undertake that a review shall be made as soon as practicable by the Australian Tariff Board of existing protective duties in accordance with the* principles laid down in article 10 hereof, and that after the receipt of the report and recommendation of the Tariff Board the Commonwealth Parliament shall be invited to vary, wherever necessary, the tariff on goods of United Kingdom origin in such manner as to give effect to such principles.

Are we to understand that, while in article 10 we deliberately accept the principle of a competitive rather than a prohibitive tariff, we shall so interpret article 11 as to decline when it suits us to give effect to that principle? It seems to me that if Parliament refuses to honour the principle embodied in article 10 it must necessarily commit a breach of the agreement.

The Tariff Board has stated that 10s. a ton is, in its opinion, a reasonable profit for the manufacturers of cement. Does any honorable member challenge that? The board has furthersaid that, after allowing 6s. a ton for depreciation on machinery, the present average profit, of ten of the companies engaged in the manufacture of cement is 24s.11d. a ton. Ten shillings a ton profit is said to be a fair thing, but a profit of 24s 11d. a ton was made last year. We have, on one hand, the users of cement; they may be regarded as interested parties. On the other hand are the manufacturers of cement. They, too, may be regarded as interested parties. In between we have an umpire, the Tariff Board, a body which has no axe to grind, and can be depended upon to speak with absolute impartiality. It has condemned wholeheartedly the manner in which this industry is taking excessive profits. The board has given ample reasons for removing the British preferential duty on cement. I fail to understand the mentality of honorable gentlemen who are unable to accept the Tariff Board’s report on this matter.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- In the manufacture of cement, we have first an industry entirely suited to Australia; secondly, an industry which makes profits which I am prepared to believe are excessive; and, thirdly, an industry which could make greater profits if it concentrated its energies in one or two places instead of decentralizing them. I do not think the profits of protected manufactures affect the question as to whether the protection should be continued or discontinued. I said recently that this Parliament has power to control wages, and I say now that it has power to control prices in protected industries. I consider that the cases upon which the new protection doctrine was rejected so long ago have been definitely over-ruled by later decisions of the High Court, and it is competent for this Parliament to regulate both wages and prices in protected industries. Apart from that, this Parliament has power to tax profits.

Mr White:

– Does the honorable member suggest that we should legislate to control wages?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– I believe that we can, by our own legislation, control wages. We can legislate without resort to the Arbitration Court at all, or we can prescribe general standards and leave it to the court or to some other tribunal to apply them to particular cases. We cannot prescribe standards under the arbitral power, but we can under other power. That disposes of the objections to a protective duty on the score of wages, profits and prices. The cement industry is suitable to this community. To refuse it protection is to make its future uncertain. Even honorable members who are supporting the Government have prayed almost on their bended knees for an assurance from the Government that it can take action quickly enough to protect the industry from overseas dumping.

Mr White:

– That assurance was given quickly enough.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– But I am not satisfied with the assurance. Excessive profits and excessive prices can be dealt with by legislation, but the most important consideration is that the people engaged in the industry, either as entrepreneurs or as employees, should feel that their future is fairly secure, and that duties on established industries should not be lightly reduced. If there is anything in the Ottawa agreement or in the Tariff Board’s report contrary to that doctrine I do not accept either. If the Ottawa agreement prevents us from protecting established industries it is time it was ended. Ifwe are to accept the Tariff Board’s recommendations, without using our own judgment, it is time that we went back to our own States and let officials do everything for us. If an industry has been proved by experience to be not suitable to this country, or parasitic on other industries, or an industry which does not use Australian raw materials in adequate quantities, or does not meet the needs of the community it should come to an end. But here we have no parasitic industry, but one which is entirely natural and suitable to Australian conditions. The only complaint is that entrepreneurs are making exorbitant profits. I assume that the companies are making excessive profits, but there are means of dealing with that evil. As I said recently, if the company is a pig, we can roast our pig without burning down our house.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
I think the position with regard to this industry is fairly well summed up in the supplementary report of the Tariff Board, in which the industry has been accused of being over-capitalized, of rationing its output, and of making unreasonably high profits. It has been shown that, on a 30 per cent, output, in the last five years, nine mills have made a profit of £2,250,000. The Tariff Board stated distinctly in its supplementary report that its recommendation was intended to force a drastic reduction of prices. We have heard about the fearful calamities that will happen if a little bit of cement is imported at lower prices than obtain in the United Kingdom, but I have not heard anything about the state of affairs in the United Kingdom to-day, where tens of thousands of tons of Australian sugar is put on the market at prices lower than the Australian prices; nothing about Australian butter, which is sold on the British market at a fraction of the price charged to the Australian consumer; and nothing about Australian wine, and dried fruits. If we are to take this dog-in-the-manger attitude, and declare that no country is to be allowed to send its goods here, except at prices which suit us, we can only expect that the producers in the United Kingdom will view with alarm the Australian exports of sugar, butter and other commodities, and will complain to the House of Commons of the position into which they are being forced by the attitude of the Commonwealth Parliament. I listened to the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

, who moved the amendment last night, when he referred to the calamitous effect which would be felt by the cement industry in Queensland if 6,000 tons of cement was brought into Queensland each year from the United Kingdom. Only a few months ago I listened to the same honorable member and his colleagues telling of the calamities which would come upon the Queensland banana industry if 40,000 centals of Fijian bananas were allowed into this country under the Ottawa agreement. Notwithstanding that staggering blow, the Queensland banana industry is still functioning, and from outward appearances it has suffered nothing calamitous.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– The industry has suffered.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– The honorable gentleman is always complaining. He is a perpetual Jeremiah. The worst case in regard to the cement industry is in Queensland. The Queensland cement interests want a duty high enough to enable them to pay a freight of 19s, a ton on limestone to be manufactured into cement. Queensland get3 a fair amount out of the Commonwealth under present conditions, and it is just about time that its people recognized that. In my electorate is situated one of the big cement works, and I say with all my knowledge of the situation, that the Government is doing the right thing, and I trust that it will stand to its guns. Honorable gentlemen who support this amendment have overlooked the fact that yearly we are spending thousands of pounds abroad on the purchase of bitumen for the making of roads which could be laid with cement produced in the Commonwealth. There is no need to use for road work the high-quality cement that is used in other forms of engineering, but the cement industry has shown no indication of a desire to achieve commercial production of a cheap cement for road-making. They are quite prepared to keep the limited market they at present have for the higher quality cement, and. to keep fastened on the community, the profits which they are at present enjoying on their inflated investment. The Tariff

Board in its review of the price charged by one factory stated that -

This price reduced by the whole costs of coal and limestone gives a figure which is more than twice tlie domestic price of cement in the United Kingdom; in fact, the profit per ton alone exceeded the domestic price of cement in the United Kingdom.

Luxuries of that description are a little too expensive for a country like Australia. We are in the habit of talking grandly about the great natural resources which we do not possess. It is about time that the members of the Commonwealth Parliament took serious stock of the natural resources of Australia. If they did so, they would realize that industries which require such high protection as the honorable member for Moreton desires to afford the cement manufacturing industry, are babies which are too expensive for us to have about the premises. The honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom) had something to say about the possible centralization of the cement manufacturing industry in Sydney and Melbourne, and the resultant increased cost of cement sent to Queensland from those centres. Apparently he overlooked the fact that the cement produced in Great Britain, the competition of which he fears, would have to be transported 12,000 miles. Locally-made cement enjoys several advantages over the British article which is brought to Australia in barrels and has to be measured or weighed carefully before it can be used on the job. Australian cement on the other hand is marketed in locallymanufactured bags. The making of concrete is a very fine art, and the materials have to be carefully weighed or measured. Contractors who use local cement know exactly how much they are getting in the containers in which it is delivered, whereas those who use cement imported in barrels have to measure all the cement they use, which is an added cost to their operations. That should be taken into consideration by honorable gentlemen who are opposing the Government’s “proposal for the free entry of cement from Great Britain. Another advantage that the local product has over the imported article is the exchange rate. The Government does not propose to take away this advantage which is in itself substantial. Even if it did intend to do this, I submit that the cost of bringing cement to Australia from overseas, plus the additional cost involved in the use of it after it gets here, would be sufficient to give the local article a reasonable marginal advantage. I ask honorable members to think for a few moments about the nature of the propaganda that has been indulged in during this discussion. 1 listened last night to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), and some other honorable members discussing this subject. We were told, at first, that the number of employees involved was 2,000, but very soon the figure had increased to 3,500. In fact, I had to look at the item of the schedule to make sure that we were talking about cement and not elastic!

Motion (by Mr. Rosevear) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr. Nairn.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 25

Majority . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the item be postponed (Mr. Francis’ amendment) put. The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr. Nairn.)

AYES: 31

NOES: 21

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Item postponed.

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

Item 239 agreed to.

Item 241 (Sanitary and lavatory articles).

Mr JENNINGS:
Watson

.- I suggest that this item should be referred back to the Tariff Board for further investigation and report. This is one of the oldest industries in Australia and it provides much employment. It cannot be urged against it that the Australian manufacturers have exploited the public or that its profits have been unduly large. During the seven year period from 1927 to 1934, one large company did not pay any dividends, and last year a small dividend of 3d. a share only was declared. Full consideration should be given by the Tariff Board not only to Australian production costs but also to those of the earthenware industry abroad. Overseas manufacturers, however, invariably refuse to supply the board with detailed figures of costs of production. This places Australian industries in a disadvantageous position. I am opposed to excessive profits, but when charges of profiteering are made in the interests of reputable industry they should be substantiated by authentic details. If we are to believe some of the charges made against Australian industries during the course of the tariff discussions, capital will be scared out of the country and much unemployment will result. During the last few years this industry has improved the national outlook by providing employment for a. number of workers. As long as the Tariff Board requires local manufacturers to supply figures relating to their production costs and does not insist on them in the case of overseas manufacturers, Australian industries will be at a disadvantage. If the board is to be a price-fixing authority, it should have before it. all the facts. Sooner or later, judging by the tariff discussions, the responsibilities of the Tariff Board will have to be defined. This industry has done everything possible to reduce the prices of its products, and I submit that a good case for a review of tho duties has been made out.

Progress reported.

page 679

ADJOURNMENT

Policing Arbitration Awards

Motion (by Mr. Archdale Parkhill; proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- In my constituency, as in most industrial constituencies, there are many workers who are paid less than the legal wage. In the district of Bourke there are a number of manufacturers of clothing, not all of whom are respondents to the federal award. Allegations of sweating in the clothing trade have been made, and I am convinced that they are well founded. Difficulty arises, however, because there are no Commonwealth inspectors to police federal awards.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– What about Mr. Blakeley?

Mr BLACKBURN:

Mr. Blakeley is fully occupied in connexion with awards covering journalists, bank and insurance clerks, and municipal employees. The matter has been complicated by the recent decision of the High Court in the metal trades case. The High Court held that an employer who is a respondent to an award is bound in respect not only of the unionists employed by him, but also of his non-unionist employees; but it is doubtful if an individual employee can recover his wages unless he is a member of a union. A curious position has arisen in Victoria where the Factories Department has found that employers against whom it proposes to institute proceedings for paying less than the minimum wage fixed by the .State do not deny paying less than the minimum award fixed by the State authorities or by the Arbitration Court, but claim that, as they are covered by the federal law, the State lawhas no hold over them. I urge the Commonwealth Government to exercise tlie powers vested in it by section 50a of the Arbitration Act, and confer on the factory inspectors of the State power to act as inspectors under the federal award. I also suggest that the Commonwealth should assist the States in meeting the expense of such appointments. The Victorian Government has complained that it cannot enforce its laws because it has not sufficient inspectors to police them and cannot afford to appoint the necessary officers. As the enforcement of industrial laws is a condominium of State and Federal authorities the two should combine to carry out the work and meet the expense. If that were done, I am convinced that there would soon be no grounds for allegations of sweating in Victoria.

The Government 1ms power to make regulations under the Arbitration Act to provide for the posting of awards in the factories of respondents. There are some respondent manufacturers in whose factories no unionists are employed. In those factories awards are not posted. I suggest that, for the information of employees generally, and particularly, of female employees in the clothing trade, the Government should issue a regulation compelling all respondent employers to post awards in their factories so that their employees may see them and learn their rights.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong

– Facts similar to those mentioned by the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) have been brought under my notice. As the honorable member has shown how the matter may be dealt with in a way which would prevent sweating, I shall not add to what he has said. If the Government could police other federal awards in the same way that employees in banks, insurance and newspaper offices are protected, it would do something to make the awards more effective and to prevent dissatisfaction among employees generally.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · Warringah · UAP

– I take no exception to the reasonable way in which the request for the policing of federal awards has been presented this afternoon. The Government is prepared not only to maintain the arbitration system, but also to see that it is made effective. I shall be glad to bring this matter under the notice of the Acting Attorney-General (Senator Brennan), and ask him to give it his immediate consideration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 3.44 p.m.

page 680

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Assistance for Mining Industry

Dr Maloney:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

y asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the Government considered the statement in The Economist of the 1st February, 1936, as to the policy of the South African Government as regards the gold-mining industry and its continued expansion; the policy including the opening of new areas with increase of employment, utilization of lowergrade ore and the continued assistance for the smaller mines in the outlying districts?
  2. Will the Government obtain from the Minister in charge of Development a report of the activities of the Government in conjunction with the States as to Australian mining policy, and publish it for general information as soon as possible?
  3. What has been done, and what ia proposed to be done.
  4. What amount of British capital has been introduced, and is likely to be introduced, in connexion with the development of Australian mines and minerals?
Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

  1. I have seen the statement in The Economist of the 1st February, 1930, in regard to the gold-mining industry of South Africa.
  2. Consideration will be given to the question of publishing a report of the activities of the Commonwealth Government in conjunction with the States in regard to Australian mining.
  3. The following action has been taken by the Commonwealth Government to assist the mining industry: -

    1. Assistance to Metalliferous Mining. - A sum of £543,750 has been made available - £493,750 for the States and £50,000for Commonwealth territories - to assist in the development of the meta.lliferous mining industry. The scheme will cover a period of a little more than three years, terminating on the 30th June, 1938. Assistance will be devoted to advances to companies or persons, provision of staff for State departments, prospecting, the provision of plants, metallurgical investigations, water supplies, roads and tracks, transport vehicles, and the education of minors. A conference of Ministers and technical officers, representing the Commonwealth and States, was hold in Melbourne towards the end of last year for the purpose of reviewing the results of the scheme, which had then only been in existence for a matter of some few months. Information furnished at the conference indicated that, as a result of Commonwealth assistance, employment of a fairly permanent nature had been provided in the industry for an additional 0,000 men. The early effects of Commonwealth assistance for metalliferous mining are also reflected in the gold-production figures of the fourth quarter of 1935, which were 281,130 oz. fine, valued at £A.2,462,474. The comparable figures for the fourth quarter of 1934 were 229,553 oz. fine, valued at £A.1,091,273.
    2. Northern Australia Survey. - A sum of £150,000 has been made available by the Governments of the Commonwealth, Queensland, and Western Australia - £75,000 by the Commonwealth and £37.500 by each of the States - to cover the cost of an aerial, geological and geophysical survey of selected areas north of approximately the 22nd parallel of south latitude. It is expected that this survey will occupy a. period of approximately three years. The objective of the three Governments is to endeavour to accelerate development of the north via mineral discoveries.
    3. Mineragraphic Investigations. - During 1934 the Commonwealth Government made available a sum of £5,000 per annum for a period of five years to enable the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research to carry out researches into metallurgical problems, ore dressing, and problems associated with complex ores. In making this provision the Government was influenced by the belief that deposits now unworked could be brought into profitable production, provided that adequate technical assistance was made available. The results so far obtained have demonstrated the value of this work.
    4. The Gold Bounty. - A sum of £178,232 has been made available by way of bounty on gold production. Although payment of the bounty has been suspended, an undertaking was given to the industry that if the price of fine gold falls below £5 sterling per oz. in London and £5 10s. in Australian currency, Melbourne Mint, the bounty will be restored. The act provided for the payment of a bounty until 1940.
    5. Exemption from Federal Income Taxation. - Unlike the gold-mining industry of South Africa, which is subject to excess profits duty, in addition to income taxation, the goldmining industry of Australia has enjoyed total exemption from federal income taxation since 1924.
    6. No authoritative information is available concerning the investment of British capital in Australian mining; but it is apparent that a considerable amount of capital from this source has been introduced into the industry during the past few years.

Treatment of Tuberculosis

Mr Beasley:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

y asked the Minister for Health, upon notice -

  1. Has his department yet investigated the methods of treating pulmonary tuberculosis which have been demonstrated by Mr. Cecil J. Barnes ?
  2. If so, with what result?
  3. If no report has been obtained by his department, will he take steps to obtain one, and request the Citizens’ Tuberculosis Association, of Balmain, New South Wales, to supply him with preliminary data?
Mr Hughes:
Minister for Repatriation · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

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

  1. I have had this matter under consideration, and have perused all the correspondence, including that which has reached the department since the honorable member brought this matter up in this House on the 28th November last. 2 and 3. There are difficulties in the way of the Commonwealth taking any direct action, and I have written to the State Minister for Health on the matter.

New Guinea : Execution of Natives

Mr Barnard:

d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What is the total number of natives executed in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea each year since it came under the control of the Commonwealth Government, and of what crimes were such natives convicted?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

– The number of natives executed in the Territory of New Guinea from the 1st. January, 1925, to date, is as follows : -

In each case the charge was murder. Information for the period from the 9th May, 1921, to the 31st December, 1924, is being obtained.

Sales Tax on Perambulators

Mr Nock:

k asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Will he give favorable consideration in the next budget to exempting from sales tax perambulators for infants?

Mr Casey:
UAP

– The matter will be given consideration.

Country Telephone Connexions

Mr Nock:

k asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. What are the general conditions concerning financial assistance required from settlers seeking telephone connexion at,say, 10 miles from a country telephone office?
  2. What charges (other than call fees) are made for the first and subsequent years for a service established under such conditions?
Mr Archdale Parkhill:
UAP

– The information is being obtained.

Governor-General: Employment of Chauffeurs : Residences

Mr Mulcahy:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

y asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Are two government drivers employed at Government House; if so, what wages dothey receive ?
  2. Were two drivers brought from England by His Excellency the Governor-General: if so, what are the conditions under which they work ?
Mr Lyons:
UAP

– These drivers are employed by His Excellency the GovernorGeneral personally. The Government has, therefore, no information as to their wages and conditions of employment.

Mr Nairn:

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Have stops been taken with a view to the establishment of residences in Sydney and Melbourne for His Excellency the GovernorGeneral?
  2. What expenditure has been incurred, or is contemplated, in(a) Sydney and(b) Melbourne?
  3. Has any authority been obtained from Parliament?
  4. In view of diversity of opinion as to the necessity for more than one residence for the Governor-General, will the Government consider the desirability of consulting Parliament before incurring the initial and continuing expense incidental to the establishment of three Government Houses?
Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

  1. Stops have been taken with a view to the establishment of a residence for His Excellency the Governor-General in Sydney. Admiralty House has been handed over by the State Government for this purpose. No residence hat been established for His Excellency in Melbourne.
  2. I am not in a -position to state at the present time what expenditure will be involved in the reconditioning of Admiralty House in order that it may be made suitable for occupation by His Excellency. This building has been unoccupied for some years, and a, considerable amount of renovation and reconditioning willbe required. 3 and 4. The expenditure incurred will be included in appropriation bills, which, as the honorable member is aware, must receive parliamentary approval. Honorable members will thus have an opportunity of expressing their viewsin regard to the matter.

Publication of Newspaper in Foreign Language.

Mr Nairn:

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What were the reasons for refusal of permission to publish in Australia a. newspaper in the Croatian language, to be entitled Napredak (Forward) ?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

– From information at the disposal of the Commonwealth Government, it was decided, after careful con sideration, that the best interests of the community would not be served by granting the permission sought. Requests for permission to publish newspapers in foreign languages have, on several occasions, been refused on similar grounds.

Amending Patents Legislation

Mr Blackburn:

n asked the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General, upon notice -

  1. Has the Government indicated its intention of introducing an amending Patents Bill?
  2. If so, when will the bill be introduced?
  3. Does the Government propose to reduce the fees for obtaining letters patent?
Mr Hughes:
UAP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. The Government is at present considering the amendment of the Patents Act. The date of the introduction of the amending bill depends on the exigencies of parliamentary business.

  1. It is not the practice to announce theGovernment’s intentions as to matters of policy in reply to questions.

Income Tax Board of Review

Mr Casey:
UAP

y. - On the 25th March, the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) asked the following questions, upon notice : -

  1. What is the amount per day per member allowed to the Income Tax Board of Review by way of travelling allowance?
  2. Are boat and train fares also allowed in addition to the above amount?

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

  1. 27s. a day while in capital cities, and 22s.6d. a day elsewhere.
  2. Yes.

Aerial Defence.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:
UAP

l. - On the 24th March, the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) referred to an article published in the Aeroplane of the 19th February, 1936, and asked whether the possibility of acquiring old but serviceable types of aircraft from the Royal Air Force for use by the Royal Australian Air Force was contemplated. I am now in a position to inform the honorable member that since 1919 the Air Ministry has offered the Commonwealth only one complete aircraft of obsolete type. The

Royal Air Force is at present expanding so rapidly thai it is testing the capacity of the .British aircraft industry to provision it, and for this reason it is ve.”;unlikely that any further complete aircraft will ‘bo available or offered to the Royal Australian Air Force for a considerable time. Owing to the comparatively small strength of the Royal Australian Air Force, it is considered to beessential that that service be equipped with the most efficient and up-to-date material, consequently, it is not proposed to acquire any obsolescent machines which may later become available as the result of the re-equipping of the Royal Air Force.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 March 1936, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1936/19360327_reps_14_149/>.