House of Representatives
22 May 1936

14th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 2189

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Nauru - Report to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of Nauru during the year 1935.

New Guinea - Report to the Council of the League of Nations . on the Administration of the Territory, of New Guinea for the year 1934-35.

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1936 -

No. 3 - Professional Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service.

No. 4-CommonweaIth Public Service Artisans’ Association.

Defence Act - Royal Military College - Report for 1935.

page 2189

QUESTION

UNIFORMITY OF INDUSTRIAL LAWS

Mr JENNINGS:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Prime Minister say whether the next Premiers Conference will discuss the question of uniformity of industrial laws throughout the Commonwealth, particularly in regard to the subjects of wages and hours?

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– I am unable to say at this juncture whether or not that will be so, but I shall look into the matter.

page 2189

QUESTION

PETROL TAX

Mr THOMPSON:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime

Minister seen reports of the Shires Conference held this week in. Sydney, at which resolutions were carried suggesting that the Commonwealth Government should not reduce the petrol tax but should apply a greater portion of the proceeds from it to grants to the States for road purposes? Will the right honorable gentleman take that proposal into consideration when the next budget is being prepared?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The matter will be -discussed with the representatives of the different States at the next Premiers Conference.

page 2190

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Radio Beacon at Canberra.

Sir Donald CAMERON:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · UAP

– In view of the fact that a few days ago the air mail plane from Sydney to Melbourne was delayed for an hour and threequarters flying round this capital city in an endeavour to penetrate the fog which hung over it, in order to effect a landing, and of the importance of maintaining air communications, will the Minister for Defence consider the erection of a radio beacon at Canberra at the earliest possible date?

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

– That matter is now under the consideration of the Air Board.

page 2190

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OIL REFINERIES LIMITED

Mr NOCK:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– .Will the Prime Minister state whether the Government has given any consideration to its right under the agreement with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company to take over the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited at the expiration of fifteen years from the date when the agreement was made?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– No consideration has been given to the matter.

page 2190

QUESTION

POSTAL FINANCE

Mr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In view of the fact that the annual report of tha Postal Department reveals marked profiteering, in that during the period under review a profit of £500,000 was made on the telephone service alone, will the Prime Minister ask the Tariff Board to ascertain whether the department is over-capitalized, is making excessive profits, and could provide a better service at a cheaper rate?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I am afraid that the operations of the Post Office cannot be regarded as a subject that may bo referred to the Tariff Board.

Mr NOCK:

– In view of the substantial profits made by the telephone branch of the Postal Department, will the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral request that gentleman to liberalize the conditions imposed in connexion with rural services instead of compelling potential subscribers to contribute largely to the cost of installation and to pay full rates for a period of years before even a partial refund is made to them?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– In view of the profit disclosed in the report of the Postal Department, I am sure that thorn will be a unanimous desire for the reduction of charges. I shall be very glad to bring to the notice of the PostmasterGeneral the honorable member’s proposition and the many others which doubtless will be submitted.

page 2190

QUESTION

FORESTRY

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Will the Minister for the Interior state whether it is a function of the Commonwealth Forestry Department to give advice to State Forestry Departments on forestry policy ?

Mr PATERSON:
Minister for the Interior · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

– 4 should” say that it would be, if the advice were sought.

Mr BLAIN:

– In view of the enormous amounts of Commonwealth money that have ‘been wasted by the Queensland Forestry Department in the past in seeking to solve re-afforestation problems -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must ask his question without including in it an expression of opinion.

Mr BLAIN:

– Will the Treasurer arrange for a senior Commonwealth forest officer to visit Queensland, to assist in placing the forest service of that State upon a proper basis and in directing Commonwealth advances into the right channels ?

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

– Should the Queensland Government make a request to the Commonwealth Government in those terms, serious consideration will bo given to it.

Mr BLAIN:

– In view of the fact that Commonwealth moneys have been made available to the States for Forestry purposes, will the Minister for the Interior find out what States have sought the advice of Commonwealth forestry experts in regard to their forestry operations, and will he extend to the States which have not done so a cordial invitation to take advantage of this assistance?

Mr PATERSON:

– The honorable member’s suggestion will be considered.

page 2191

QUESTION

CA N A DI A N- AUSTRALIAN TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Trade and Customs in a position to state when a conference will be held for the purpose of reconsidering the CanadianAustralian trade agreement?

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

– That is a matter of policy which, as the honorable member is aware, it is not usual to indicate in reply to questions.

page 2191

QUESTION

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

Supplies of Fuel Oil

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Pending the implementation of the Government’s policy with respect to measures to obtain adequate supplies of fuel oil from local sources in Australia, has the Department of Defence taken steps to store supplies of petrol which would meet its requirements for a period of at least twelve months in the event of supplies from outside sources being unobtainable in an emergency ?

Mr. ARCHDALE PARKHILL.This important aspect, of measures for the defence of Australia is always closely watched. The Department of Defence at present has supplies sufficient to last for a much longer period than the honorable member has mentioned. It is not advisable to give further details.

page 2191

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE-FREMANTLE RAILWAY

Standardization of Gauge

Mr NAIRN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Prime Minister note for consideration by the Cabinet and the next Premiers Conference, the advisability of an extension of the 4 ft. 8½ in. railway gauge from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– Yes.

page 2191

QUESTION

B-CLASS BROADCASTING LICENCES

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General state whether it is a fact that licences to establish B class broadcasting stations were issued some considerable time ago in respect of the towns of Bega and Griffith ? If so, will he have inquiry made as to the cause of the delay which has occurred in their establishment, and, if necessary, have the licences transferred to other applicants who are prepared to commence operations almost immediately?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

-I shall have inquiries made into the matter and, when the information is obtained, advise the honorable member by letter.

page 2191

QUESTION

VOLUNTARY ENLISTMENT

Mr PERKINS:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Defence been drawn to the Press report of a statement by MajorGeneral Brand, that the voluntary system of enlistment in the defence forces of the Commonwealth has been a complete failure? If so, are his views in agreement with it ?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– I read in the local newspaper the paragraph which attributed this statement to Senator Brand, and have no hesitation in saying that I am in total disagreement with him. I consider that he spoke without having sufficient knowledge of all the facts. I am led to this conclusion by the ill-balanced view upon national defence which has been given expression in the statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I remind honorable members that questions regarding statements made in the Senate are not in order.

Mr JENNINGS:

– Will the Minister for Defence state whether consideration has been given to the suggestion to increase the payments made to members of the Militia?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– The Government’s scheme for the encouragement of recruiting in the Militia will come before Parliament shortly. It will contain provisions which I am not now at liberty to disclose.

page 2191

QUESTION

NAZI-ISM IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr PRICE:

– Has the attention of the Minister for Defence been directed to the statement in last night’s Melbourne Herald that a Mr. Tracey, who claims tobe a leader of the Nazi party in

Western Australia, declares that he will meet force with force? Does the honorable gentleman intend to permit the formation of such an organization in Australia? If not, what steps does he propose to take to suppress Nazi-ism in Western Australia?

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

– My parliamentary duties having prevented me from keeping abreast of current affairs by a perusal of all the important journals, I have not seen the statement to which the honorable member has directed attention. Certain inquiries were made recently as to Nazi activity in the Commonwealth, and the information was obtained that the rumours were without foundation and that at present there was no organization of this nature in existence. I shall, however, institute further inquiries.

page 2192

QUESTION

CORONATION OF KING EDWARD VIII

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Will the Prime Minister state whether the Government has been officially advised of the date of the coronation of His Majesty, King Edward VIII., and whether an invitation has been extended to Australia to be officially represented at the ceremony?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The answer to each part of the honorable member’s question is “No.”

page 2192

QUESTION

COPYRIGHT CONVENTION

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister whether the Commonwealth will be represented at the Copyright Convention which is to be held towards the end of this year? If not. have instructions been given to the British delegate to express the views of the Commonwealth?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I can only say that the matter is being considered by the Government at the present time.

page 2192

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Educational Benefits

Mr BAKER:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– Under the Repatria tion Act, in order to obtain educational benefits for their children, returned soldiers must be totally and permanently incapacitated and be in receipt of a special form of war pension, while a tubercular soldier’s children do not receive educational benefits until he has been in receipt of a pension at the special rate of two guineas for at least three years. Will the Minister for Repatriation favorably consider the alteration of the act in the direction of providing greater and earlier educational assistance in the case of the children of these returned soldiers?

Mr HUNTER:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Repatriation · MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · CP

– In the absence of the Minister, I promise to have full inquiries made and to advise the honorable member at a later date.

page 2192

QUESTION

MANDATED TERRITORY

Burns Philp Shipping Services

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Have any adverse reports been received from planters or other interested parties regarding the shipping regulations recently approved by this House, which the Opposition at the time claimed would give a monopoly to the Burns Philp Company?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– I am not aware that any complaints of the kind have been received, but I shall make inquiries, and notify the honorable member by letter.

page 2192

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Mr PRICE:

– Some time ago, the

Minister in charge of War Service Homes promised that he would visit South Australia to inquire into matters relating to his department. Is he yet able to say when that visit is likely to be made?

Mr THORBY:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I propose to honour that promise, and will visit South Australia and Western Australia, probably during July next.

Mr THOMPSON:

– In common with other honorable members, I have forwarded to the department during the last twelve months a number of applications for new war service homes, but have always been informed that the applications must await their turn. I have heard nothing more about them, and, apparently, never will. Can the Minister say whether the accumulation of unconsidered applications is being reduced to any extent?

Mr HUNTER:
CP

– It is true that the department is about two years in arrears in dealing with applications for new homes, but it is hoped that sufficient funds will be allotted in next year’s Estimates to permit of those arrears being substantially reduced.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister take immediate and urgent steps to protect from victimization the unfortunate wife of a returned soldier living in the Nambour district, who has been threatened by the department with eviction unless she pays arrears extending over twelve months? The woman’s husband is an invalid, but he has been denied a pension because he cannot prove that his disability is due to his war service.

Mr HUNTER:

– This is the first I have heard of the case, but full inquiries will be made before any further action is taken.

Mr LANE:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Government place upon the Estimates sufficient money to enable the occupiers of war service homes to have their premises connected with sewerage mains, so that they may not have to continue paying sanitary dues to local municipalities?

Mr HUNTER:

– That is a matter for consideration by Cabinet, and it will receive attention in due course.

page 2193

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH LOANS

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Treasurer make public the number of subscribers to Commonwealth loans issued in Australia during the last three or four years, and will he from time to time make available information regarding the number of holders of Commonwealth securities in their various categories?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– I shall take steps to comply with the first portion of the honorable member’s request. As to the second part of his question, I am not aware that statistics are kept from which the information desired can be obtained, hut I shall make inquiries.

page 2193

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH MARKETING LEGISLATION

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– Does the Government propose to take any action to meet the unfortunate situation that would arise if the appeal now being argued before the Privy Council regarding the interpretation of section 92 of the Constitution is decided against the interests of the primary producers?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– The Government cannot anticipate a decision by the Privy Council, but, whatever happens, the Government will do the right thing.

page 2193

FARMERS DEBT ADJUSTMENT ACT

Mr THORBY:
CP

– Yesterday, the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) inquired regarding the distribution of funds under the provisions of the Farmers’ Debt Adjustment Act, and I supplied him with figures relating to distributions up to the 28th February. I have now been informed that the States have advised the Treasury that their estimated requirements up to the 30th June, 1936, will be as follows: -

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

– Is the Commonwealth Government satisfied with the rate at which the State Governments are proceeding with the distribution of funds under the Farmers’ Debt Adjustment Act?

Mr THORBY:

– Although the figures I have given are comparatively small compared with the total of £12,000,000 provided for in the act, honorable members must understand that some of the States were unable to operate under their own legislation, because it did not conform to the requirements of the federal act, and it was only during this session that the Commonwealth act was amended to enable the States to come into line. It is hoped that, during the next financial year, large sums will be distributed through the agency of the States.

page 2193

QUESTION

RESTORATION OF PENSIONS

Mr WARD:

– In view of the fact that the Government will have a substantial surplus at the end of this financial year, wilt the Prime Minister state whether any provision is being made in the next budget for the restoration of invalid and old-age pensions to the full amount of £1 a week?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– All matters concerning the budget will receive careful consideration by the Government.

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FLP; ALP from 1936

– Has the Prime Minister received from the Invalid and Old-age Pensioners Association a request that he shall meet representatives of the association to discuss the restoration of their pensions to the former level of fi a week?

Mr LYONS:

– I am not aware of any invitation, but perhaps it has been overlooked by .me. I shall make inquiries into the matter. I may add that I shall be only too glad to receive such a deputation at a suitable time.

page 2194

OVERDRAFT RATES

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– Yesterday, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) inquired regarding certain press reports dealing with the rates charged for advances by the trading banks. I have made inquiries, and find that no official statement has been made by the associated banks on this subject. I do not know the origin of the statement to which the honorable member referred, nor can I vouch for its truth.

page 2194

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

School Accommodation for “White Children.

Mr COLLINS:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for the Interior state whether provision has been made for separate accommodation in schools for white children at Darwin and other towns in the north, or are they still compelled to share the same classrooms with coloured children?

Mr PATERSON:
CP

– Separate accommodation has been provided at Pine Creek, but I do not know what the position is elsewhere.

page 2194

QUESTION

POST OFFICE AT SOUTH BRISBANE

Mr BAKER:

– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General state whether favorable consideration will be given to the request for the erection of a new post office in South Brisbane on the site purchased by the department many years ago?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– I assure the honorable member that the Postmaster-General will give full consideration to the request.

page 2194

QUESTION

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the inconvenience caused to country telephone subscribers by the fact that telephone direc tories supplied to them are published only once a year, will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General consider the suggestion that country directories be published twice a year as is done in the cities ?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– I shall ask the Postmaster-General to take the honorable member’s suggestion into consideration.

page 2194

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK AT BRISBANE

Mr MARTENS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– I ask if it is a fact that the Commonwealth Bank is desirous of obtaining^ for the purposes of erecting a banking premises, a portion of a property in Brisbane controlled by the Postal Department and that the Postal Department is holding the matter up and whether the Postmaster-General will go into the matter with a view to settling the trouble thus enabling the erection of the proposed new bank building to be proceeded with?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– I shall bc glad to have inquiries made respecting the matter raised.

page 2194

QUESTION

OIL TANKS AT DARWIN

Mr BLAIN:

– In view of the fact that the oil storage tanks at Darwin are on the surface and aerial photographs have been taken which are on sale in the town, will the Minister for Defence consider the advisability of decentralizing oil storage by having future tanks constructed 30 miles westward at Bynoe Harbour, which has been favorably reported on as a site for oil tanks?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– I informed the honorable member for Parkes (Sir Charles Marr) yesterday that full inquiries would be made into the location of oil tanks and the nature of their construction.

page 2194

QUESTION

NORFOLK ISLAND NEWSPAPER

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs when he anticipates that the Government will take action radically to. alter the newspaper ordinance at Norfolk Island as was promised some time ago? Is the Minister aware that the existing ordinance was responsible for closing down the only newspaper at Norfolk Island and that the advisory council of Norfolk Island unanimously agreed to ask the Minister to amend it?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– My information is not complete on the matter but, such as it is, it shows that there is a great deal more “behind the matter than might be inferred from the honorable gentleman’s question. However, I shall get in touch with the Minister for External Affairs and see what can be done in the direction of amending the ordinance.

page 2195

QUESTION

POST OFFICE AT MORTDALE

Mr LANE:

– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-<General endeavour to have placed on next year’s Estimates sufficient money to build a new post office on land already owned by the Commonwealth Government at Mortdale?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– The matter will have consideration.

page 2195

QUESTION

NATIONAL INSURANCE - FAMILY ENDOWMENT

Mr CURTIN:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In the preparation of the budget, will a review be made of the estimates of costs prepared by the Royal Commission on National Insurance 1928 and by the Royal Commission on Family Endowment somewhere about the same time of the two schemes? The various recommendations contained in those two reports should be reviewed so that we may have within our knowledge some approximate idea of what any schemes similar to those then proposed would cost.

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I shall be glad to endeavour to obtain the information sought by the honorable gentleman.

page 2195

QUESTION

MEMBERS’ DINING-ROOM

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the House Committee or officers of the House Committee refused certain officers of the departments to partake of lunch in a room set aside for parliamentary officers and the Press, and in view of your endorsement of that last week, when the matter was raised by the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy), will you explain why last “night Captain Bracegirdle was taken into the members’ dining-room and partook of supper with yourself and ministerial members ?

Mr SPEAKER (Hon G J Bell:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

The matter referred to was inquired into by myself last night immediately after supper because my attention had been directed to it. The official mentioned by the honorable gentleman is the Military Secretary to the Governor-General. I noticed his presence but he was not having supper with me. When I inquired as to which honorable member had invited him, I was told that the honorable member understood that Captain Bracegirdle had the permission of the President of the Senate to use the refreshment rooms.

Mr Thorby:

– He was here on official business with myself.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question of the gentleman being on official duty does not influence the case. The members’ diningroom is set apart for honorable members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, for members of the State Parliaments, and for former members of the Commonwealth Parliament. I shall consult the President of the Senate upon the matter and the objection made by the honorable member for Hunter. I think, however, honorable members will agree that the President of the Senate and the Speaker should have discretionary powers to give permission to any one on special occasions, if they think that it should be granted.

page 2195

QUESTION

MATERNITY ALLOWANCES

Mr WARD:

– I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Government finds itself in the position of having a considerable surplus, it is intended, in the preparation of the next budget, to make provision for the restoration of maternity allowances to their former level ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I can only reply, as I did to an earlier question asked by the honorable gentleman, that this matter also will be taken into serious consideration in the presentation of the budget.

page 2195

QUESTION

SHORTER WORKING WEEK

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · Wilmot · UAP

by leave - Subsequent to the debate in this House in regard to the question of the desirability of the introduction into Australia of reduced working hours, and to the decision of the G’Overnment not to proceed in the absence of representatives of labour with the convening of the proposed- conference, the matter has received the fullest consideration of the Government.

The subject is regarded as of such importance that some method alternative to the proposed conference must be adopted to enable the whole question to be fully considered.

A consultation has been held with His Honour Chief Judge Dethridge, Chief Fudge of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, as to the best method of having the matter investigated from the point of view of all interests concerned, and the conclusion has been reached that, if a plaint were filed in the Arbitration Court in which the claim, or one of the claims, was for a shorter working week, the whole question of the effect on Australian industry of the introduction of a shorter working week could be fully investigated.

In the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, provision is made for the full consideration by the court of any question of standard hours in industry where that question is the subject of a plaint filed in the court. In such cases the act permits any person or organization or association of employers or employees to apply to the court for liberty to be heard, and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. In order that, if any such hearing takes place, it should be thoroughly comprehensive, the Commonwealth Government would welcome the application to the court by all organizations interested.

Such a plaint, it is realized, could be filed only on the application by one or more organizations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. If such a plaint is filed, the Commonwealth Government will do everything in its power to facilitate the proceedings and the presentation to the court of all relevant evidence.

It is necessary that the Full Court Bench of the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration hear such a plaint. In the absence abroad of Mr. Justice Beeby, who is at present on leave, the case could not be dealt with until towards the end of the year. I am assured, however, by Chief Judge Dethridge that the hearing should not occupy a greater period than six weeks.

Mr CURTIN:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1934; ALP from 1936

.- by leave - The statement which the right honorable gentleman has just made to the House does not in any way advance the situation beyond action which the unions had a right to take without that statement being made. The Government has not in the statement intimated the essential contribution which it could make towards the settlement of this question ; that is, it has not said whether at the proceedings it will be represented and will intimate to the court that, as a matter of policy, the Government is in favour of a shorter working week.

Mr Casey:

– Would that be proper?

Mr CURTIN:

– Those who appear before the court are entitled to urge the court to grant the claims which they believe to be proper, and if the Government believes in a shorter working week it should bring before the court evidence justifying its belief. The unions, in this instance, will have the greater burden of the preparation of the case for a shorter working week. In view of the belief in the principle of a shorter working week, which has animated it from time to time, the Government should be prepared to assist the unions to compilerelevant evidence which would justify the court in reducing .standard hours. One further point - and I do not want tomake this too controversial - is that I feel the Commonwealth Court of Conciliationand Arbitration has very limited authority with respect to the fixing of standard hours for industry in general.’ Before the court is asked to make a-, decision, this Parliament should, therefore, indicate what it believes to be rightprinciples to apply in connexion with areduction of hours. I say this because this-. Parliament has been directly represented on what is practically an international parliament, by which a draft convention for a 40-hour week has been adopted. At the present moment Australia is. represented on a conference, the purposeof which is to decide whether or not draft conventions applying the shorter working- week to specific industries should be made. The Government is responsible in this matter to . a far greater extent than’ merely facilitating the hearing of the case in the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. As a matter of actual fact, the Government cannot resist the court hearing such a claim, and the course it has taken to-day, while it has the virtue of keeping the issue alive, does not in any way identify the Government in Australia with the principle with which it desired to he identified internationally.

page 2197

WOOL PUBLICITY AND RESEARCH BILL 1936

Message reported recommending appropriation.

In committee (Consideration of Governor-General’s message).

Motion (by Mr. Thorby) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for on act to make provision for improving the quality and increasing the production and use of wool.

Resolution reported and - by leave - adopted.

Second Reading

Mr THORBY:
Acting Minister for Commerce · Calare · CP

– I move - That the bill be now read a second time.

As this hill will be followed by two other measures which will fix the amount of the proposed tax and provide for the assessment and collection of it, I ask leave to discuss the three measures together.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).As this hill is one of three cognate measures, it will be permissible for honorable members to debate all three on the Minister’s motion.

Mr THORBY:

– This bill provides for the establishment of an Australian Wool Board which will control wool publicity and research in Australia and overseas. It will consist of six members nominated by the Australian Woolgrowers Council and one representative of the Commonwealth Government, and will be financed by a levy on all wool shorn in Australia after the 1st June, 1936. It has been suggested that the proposed date be amended to the 1st July, 1936, which is the beginning of the financial year.

It is unnecessary for me to emphasize the importance of the wool industry in Australia or the need to give woolgrowers the power provided in this bill to raise funds for a world-wide publicity campaign; to finance further scientific research to discover new uses for wool and improved methods of manufacture, to improve the quality of the wool grown in Australia. With more than 110,000,000 sheep in Australia the sheep-breeders provide in excess of half of Australia’s exports, in point of value, and although we produce the bulk of the fine wool of the world, considerable improvement may still be effected in the quality of our clip. It is also possible to increase considerably the carrying capacity of many of our pastures. In addition, many of the millions of sheep lost annually through drought and disease could he saved if proper control methods were thoroughly understood and applied by the stock-owners.

It is impossible to forecast what the scientists may be able to discover in the future by research activities, and it would be difficult to indicate what benefits may accrue to the wool industry from a carefully planned world-wide publicity scheme.

While I was abroad last year with the Prime Minister’s delegation, I was privileged to represent Australia at the International Wool Conference held in Berlin in June, 1935, and I had an opportunity to secure first-hand information respecting the development of the artificial fibre industry of Germany and to meet representatives of all the important wool manufacturing firms of Europe and the United Kingdom. Subsequently, I paid a visit to the Wool Research Station at Torridon, near Leeds in England, and the Woollen Textile Technical College at Bradford, and I had the opportunity to see and appreciate the valuable research work of the scientific officers at both centres. I was amazed to find that no satisfactory arrangements had been made to provide the necessary finance to enable the Torridon Research Station to continue its investigations for any length of time.

Upon my return to London the High Commissioner for Australia, Mr. Bruce, called a ‘conference of representatives of the British wool manufacturing interests, the New Zealand and South African Governments, and the expert officers attached to Australia House, at which many problems confronting the wool industry of the British Empire were fully discussed. The South African representatives pointed out that they already had a fund derived from a levy on wool which had been in operation for some years, and that they were prepared to cooperate with Australia and New Zealand in an extensive wool publicity campaign and to contribute to a fund to place the research work on a permanent and satisfactory footing. The New Zealand representatives indicated that they would be prepared to recommend to the Dominion Government the necessity for similar action, and we agreed, on behalf of Australia, to urge the Australian woolgrowers to agree to a levy to obtain the necessary funds to undertake the kind of work indicated in this bill. A strong committee, representative of the wool interests, was formed in England, first to secure the co-operation of the growers and, secondly, to urge the dominions to adopt an Empire-wide publicity plan to combat the ill-effects being suffered by the woollen industry through the development of artificial fibres in various parts of the world which were gradually robbing the wool-growers of part of their world market. I have in mind not only the artificial fibre being manufactured in Germany under the name of Vistra, but also many other fibres which are coming on the market and competing with our wool. Lord Barnby had several interviews with us in London oh this subject and subsequently visited New Zealand and Australia to urge the necessity for further publicity and research. Later the matter was taken up by the various graziers’ associations of the Commonwealth. The scheme was strongly supported by Mr. R. Wilson, a visitor from overseas, who, under the auspices of theAustralian Woolgrowers Council, and accompanied by its President, Mr. Dalziel Kelly, addressed meetings throughout the Commonwealth, with the result that the proposals now before the House obtained almost unanimous support.

The Australian Woolgrowers Council is a thoroughly representative body, consisting of delegates from the great majority of the woolgrowers’ organizations throughout the Commonwealth. Among the organizations represented on it are the following: -

The Pastoralists: Association of Western Australia;

The Primary Producers Association of Western Australia;

The Stockowners Association of South Australia ;

The United Graziers Association of Queensland ;

The Graziers Association of Victoria;

The Victorian Country Party which, absorbed the Victorian Farmers’ Union;

The Victorian Chamber of Agriculture ;

The Tasmanian Farmers Stockowners and Orchardists Association;

The Graziers Association of Southern River in a;

The Pastoralists Association of the West Darling of New South Wales;

The Graziers Association of New South Wales;

The Farmers and Settlers Association of New South Wales.

The last two mentioned associations represent the Primary Producers Central Council of New South Wales, which is an organization representative of all the sheep-breeders’ associations. Any organization associated with the wool-growing industry not already represented on thecouncil, may obtain representation by merely applying for it.

Mr Forde:

– But it does not follow that it would get direct representation on the wool board itself.

Mr THORBY:
CP

– Once an already organized or a newly organized association affiliates with the Australian Woolgrowers Council, it will have representation on the board, for six direct nominees of the council will sit on the board. Obviously it will not be possible for one person from every separate organization affiliated with the council to be a member of the board.

Mr Scullin:

– What are the conditions of affiliation with the council?

Mr THORBY:

– The body concerned must represent stockowners in some way. The graziers’ associations alone represent considerably more than 55,000,000 sheep, which is in excess of half the sheep of the Commonwealth.

Mr Clark:

– Is the Minister referring to stock or only sheep?

Mr THORBY:

– Only sheep. It is proposed to provide for a maximum levy of 6d. a bale, 3d. a butt, and Id. a bag. These will be the maximum amounts in each case. It is estimated that the levy will yield between £60,000 and £80,000 a year, according to the clip. The average will probably be £70,000 a year, but the exact amount will be subject to seasonal and price conditions. The levy will be collected through the wool-brokers’ and dealers’ organizations by deductions from, the woolgrowers’ returns, which will avoid the necessity for the wool-growers individually to furnish returns or pay the tax. I emphasize that only a limited number of persons will be required to furnish returns in connexion with this tax. Definitely, the wool-growers themselves will not be burdened with the necessity to furnish returns or pay the tax as individuals. This will be done through the wool-brokers, dealers or banks, as I have indicated.

I emphasize that while the three bills relating to this proposal will create a statutory board with power to receive the levy from the Commissioner for Taxation, they will in no way cause Government control or interference with the wool industry. Six of the seven members of the board will be direct representatives of the wool-growers’ own organizations, and they will completely control the work to be carried out in the interests of their own industry in close co-operation with the wool-growers of New Zealand and South Africa and all the wool interests of the United Kingdom. Later, the board will, in all probability, extend its activities and influence beyond the Empire, widening existing markets and seeking new avenues and uses for our wool.

Honorable members must surely agree that the passage of this legislation will give the wool-growers of Australia power to establish an organization with sufficient funds to confer untold benefits upon our greatest primary industry, and this, in turn, will react to the advantage of all sections of the community.

It should be remembered that the Australian wool-growers are almost the only large section of exporters who have not asked the Government for any form of bounty or financial assistance to enable them to maintain their exports, and in this instance they are merely asking the Commonwealth Government to provide them with the statutory powers to raise the necessary funds to help themselves to further organize and improve their industry.

I do not desire to go into unnecessary detail in connexion with these measures, but the scheme that is being implemented is very necessary in the best interests not only of the wool industry itself but also of the Commonwealth. Realizing the vast amount of wealth derived in Australia from the sale of wool and the dependence of the country on the absorption by the overseas market of our surplus wool clip, the Government feels that everything possible should be done to promote scientific research into the industry. Research workers will undoubtedly plan operations for years ahead when they know that sufficient funds will be forthcoming to give continuity of operations.

The assessment bill which will follow this one is merely a machinery measure.

I intend to move several amendments to this measure at the committee stage. One amendment will provide for the deletion of the words “ the quality “ from the title of the bill. Another will provide that after the fourth year of the operation of the scheme the Minister for Commerce may, on the presentation of a petition, authorize the taking of a ballot of wool-growers of the Commonwealth to determine whether the Wool Board shall continue in operation after the end of the fifth year.

Mr Clark:

– Why not give the growers that privilege before the scheme is put into operation?

Mr THORBY:

– Because, in the first place, I am satisfied that the request is almost unanimously supported by the wool-growers of Australia. In addition, this measure is in the interests of every woolgrower as well as in the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole. In the circumstances, we are justified in passing the bill without taking a poll to authorize the inauguration of the scheme. Such a poll would cause great delay; it would require the creation of a complete set of special electoral machinery throughout Australia. At a low estimate, it would cost £10,000 or £12,000 for the compilation of the rolls alone. In all, about a year’s revenue - £70,000 - would be absorbed. Rolls would have to be compiled showing every wool-grower in Australia. There would have to be a postal ballot, and the rolls would have to be exhibited throughout the Commonwealth for a certain period. They would then have to be revised, and the necessary machinery would have to be provided to enable objections to be lodged. Review courts would have to be established to consider objections, and to enable the names of growers who had not been enrolled to be included. We should lose the benefit of the proposed organization for at least a year.

No poll was taken as to whether the Australian Meat Board should be established, yet the meat producers have raised no protest against the constitution of that body.

Mr RIORDAN:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1931

– They have had no chance.

Mr THORBY:

– They had every opportunity to do so. That board has statutory powers, and collects levies. In a number of other instances, no preliminary ballot was taken. I propose to submit an amendment to give the woolgrowers of Australia an opportunity, by presenting a petition supported by the necessary number of growers, and representing the necessary number of sheep, to demand a poll to be taken throughout the Commonwealth during the first five years of the operation of the scheme; and, if the growers so desire, they can terminate the scheme within five years. Although provision will be made for the collection of a certain levy, a maximum amount only is specified in the bill. Until the Wool Board has been established, its recommendations have been received, and the regulations prescribing the amount of the levy have been gazetted.- no money will be collected. It will be in the power of the woolgrowers’ own representative on the board to make recommendations to the Minister to reduce the levy to any figure desired, or to eliminate it entirely.

Mr Lane:

– This body will represent 9,000 growers, but 40,000 will have no opportunity to say whether they agree to it or not.

Mr THORBY:

– That statement is entirely inaccurate.

Mr Lane:

– The small growers will not be represented.

Mr THORBY:

– Yes, they will.

Mr Lane:

– It is necessary to check up all the Minister’s statements in regard to both wool and wheat.

Mr THORBY:

– In reply to that impudent interjection, all I have to say is that any observations by the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane) are more likely to mislead those who read my speech than assist them to understand it. The matter will be entirely in the hands of the Wool Board, which can reduce or eliminate the levy at any time. It will not be necessary for it to wait five years, so long as the levy does not exceed the maximum amount mentioned in the bill.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- I move -

That all the words after “ That “ be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “ the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for a ballot of all Australian wool-growers as to whether they favour the proposed levy on wool, and the proposed method of administration of the fund.”

I do not wish it to be considered that the Opposition is hostile to any organization calculated to benefit such an important industry as the wool industry of Australia; but I hope to be able to show that there is a very substantial number of growers who are opposed to this measure being put into operation, if they are to be deprived of an opportunity to express their view upon it. The Minister in charge of the bill (Mr. Thorby) said that the Australian meat growers had not protested against the establishment of the Australian Meat Board. He endeavoured to lead honorable members to believe that he was anxious to provide in legislation of this kind for the taking of a ballot of the producers in the industry. I refer him to the Dairy Produce Export Control Act 1924, section 2 of which reads -

Provided that a proclamation under this section shall not issue unless’ and until, at a poll of producers taken in the prescribed manner throughout the Commonwealth, a majority of votes have been given in favour of the act being brought into operation.

Section 4 of the Dairy Produce Export Control Act 1935 shows how the members of the board appointed under that measure are to be elected. I draw attention to the following paragraphs of that section : -

  1. two representatives elected by the owners of proprietary butter and cheese factories and privately-owned butter and cheese factories;
  2. one representative of each of the States of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, elected by the producers in each of those States; and
  3. one representative of the States of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania elected by the producers of those States.

I could give further instances in which primary producers have been given an opportunity to cast a vote as to whether they favour a levy of the kind contemplated under this bill.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) has received the following telegram from Mr. W. G. Mott of the Quilpie branch of the Selectors Association of Queensland: -

We emphatically protest against legislation in its present form to collect wool levy. Suggest you move amendment to take postal ballot of all Australian wool growers on levy awl administration thereof. This should fall in with the views expressed by primary producers’ association in your own State.

Mr McBride:

– How many members has that association?

Mr FORDE:

– It has more than the Pastoralists Association in South Australia. The Selectors Association of Queensland telegraphed to me as follows : -

On behalf ofgrazing selectors, Queensland, we beg to protest strongly againstsemisectional wool levy without taking postal ballot of Australian wool growers. Letter following.

Numerous graziers have been writing on this subject to the daily press in the capital cities. Mr. John Grills, writing from Moree, has contributed the following letter to the Sydney Morning Herald: -

Sir, - In the Sydney Morning Herald to-day, the statement is made that legislation is to be introduced into the Federal Parliament covering a levy for sales tax on every bale of wool for the purpose of publicity and research. As a wool-grower of this State. I would advise the Federal Government to delay action in this matter. The request for legislation has been made by the Graziers Association, but that body cannot speak for the majority of sheep-owners, as its membership does not represent half the number of sheep-owners in. New South Wales.

Many individual members of the Graziers Association, as well as non-members, are opposed to the levy. In justice to the opinions of those men, a referendum should be taken to definitely settle whether the majority of sheep-owners are in favour of the proposed campaign. My experience, by conversation with many men interested, is that they are opposed to the proposal. No substantial evidence has yet been produced that wool consumption is decreasing. The evidence available is rather to the contrary.

Mr. A. S. Wheatley, of Ootha, wrote as follows : -

The proposal certainly requires somewhat more examination than was given to it at the Graziers Association Conference, where discussion was limited by the standing orders. In thefirst place, as the Graziers Association does not represent by any means all the woolgrowers of the State, the Government can scarcely assume that a vote by an association properly represents the views of the woolgrowers in such an important matter as the imposition of a levy of this character.

The Selectors Association of Queensland, . in a letter dated the 11th May, dealing with pastoral research, said -

With reference to the application of portion of the levy to . scientific research, we feel that this may not bo objected to if the fund were placed directly within the control of those who will be asked to contribute. We think that pastoral research should be conducted in each State under a State authority, preferably the Minister for Agriculture of each State.

I have received a communication from the General Secretary of the United Graziers Association of Queensland, dated the 8th May, which reads as follows -

There is one phase of the proposal which I wish to bring before your attention, that is, that so far as we are concerned, we are adamant that whatever is done by the Federal Government in providing legislation for the collection of this levy, the control of the fund must be in the hands of the growers themselves; otherwise we would be opposed to legislative action if it is to be taken out of the control of those who are providing the funds.

Fear is expressed by the woolgrowers of Australia that persons may be selected to serve on the Wool Board who may represent the interests of the big concerns, and that the smaller woolgrowers may not be given adequate representation. It is feared by the small woolgrowers that the directors of big companies such as Mooreheads Limited, the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Limited, and Dalgety’s, or large pastoralists whose interests are interwoven with those of such companies, may be appointed to the board.

Mr Nock:

– They are not members of the Wool Council.

Mr FORDE:

– That is so, but there is nothing in the bill to prevent the inclusion of certain wool-growers who would be the nominees of those big interests. The small producers contend that there is a vast difference between the farmer who conducts his own business on the land as a family asset, and the man who invests money in the pastoral industry whose main concern is the profits which he can derive from that investment. Why should Pitt-street, Sydney have greater representation on the board than wool-growers? I ask that the bill be withdrawn until such time as a poll of the wool-growers has been taken to ascertain their wishes, as was done in the case of the dairy-farmers before the Dairy Export Control Board was appointed.

Mr Thorby:

– This is not an export control board.

Mr FORDE:

– Nevertheless, I consider that the same opportunity to express their views should be extended to woolgrowers as was given to dairy-farmers under other legislation. What reason can the Government advance for its refusal to consider the request of the small selectors that no action be taken to appoint the board until a poll of woolgrowers has been held? The Acting Minister for Commerce (Mr. Thorby) has admitted that he is willing to agree to the taking of a poll, after this legislation has been in operation for four years ; but why should the taking of the poll be delayed? What is the reason for this undue haste to place this legislation on the statute-book? This Government has been in office- for nearly five years, and now in the dying hours of this session it asks honorable members to agree to the speedy passage of this bill on the ground that it is extremely urgent and must be put into operation at once. The opposition of the Queensland Selectors Association to this bill is, briefly, that the grazing selectors of Queensland object to the collection of a levy until all wool producers have had an opportunity to vote on the matter, and they consider that the fund should be placed under grower control. The Labour party is not at all unfriendly to the woolgrowers of Australia; on the contrary it is, and always has been, most sympathetic with them. We realize that the primary and exporting industries are the very basis of Australia’s existence, and that the wool industry is the chief export industry. With the trade balance constantly drifting to the bad, we realize the necessity for encouraging our export industries so that credits overseas may be built up to meet our heavy commitments for interest, and to pay for necessary imports. Our wool exports comprise about 40 per cent, of the total exports from Australia, and anything that will tend towards popularizing the use of wool will be of immense advantage to Australia. We agree with the majority of the woolgrowers, particularly the smaller growers, that, before they are subjected to this levy, they should have some say as to whether they approve of it, and of the proposed method of administration of the fund.

There is, I think, an unduly optimistic view as to the benefits that may accrue from the proposed advertising campaign. Australia’s wool cheque for last season amounted to £52,000,000. The average price was 14d. per lb., or £17 10s. a bale, which represented an increase of 4d. per lb., or £4 17s. a bale over the figures for the previous season. This additional money has brought about increased employment, increased spending and taxation buoyancy. No doubt this Government claims credit for these increased prices, and the increased buoyancy of the revenue, but we know that they are due, not to the Government’s legislation or administration, but rather to world conditions. All wool produced last year was saleable, not only at a good price, but also in the right quarters. Britain was our best customer, and took over 1,000,000 bales of wool and 6,000,000 carcasses of mutton and lamb. Japan bought over 600,000 bales of wool, and I believe the time will come when it will increase its purchases to over 1,000,000 bales. The lines of wool purchased by the Japanese manufacturers are the staple of Australia’s world trade, for which there is strong competition; and their operations in the Australian market have a substantial effect upon prices. Every now and then freetrade interests in this country dangle the spectre of artificial fibres before the graziers, as if it threatened their existence; as a matter of fact it does nothing of the kind. Australia’s wool production is 50 per cent, higher-than before the war. That is something of which we may be justifiably proud. In the last pre-war year the average price of wool was 4£d. per lb. less than in the season which has just closed, and the total value of our exports in that year was only £26,277,000. Local purchases in that year were very small. Rayon and other artificial fibres were then practically unheard of. The production of artificial fibres on a large scale did not commence until 1924-25, and the output increased every season. Nevertheless, Australia is selling 1,000,000 bales of wool more to-day than in 1924-25. The fact that Japan’s rayon output increased by nearly 50 per cent, last year did not prevent Japan from buying more wool. The expansion of the use of western clothing in that country has increased to such an extent that, at the present time, eight out of every ten Japanese wear western attire. Japanese manufacturers buy our wool’ because it suits their purpose, and we appreciate their patronage.

Our own Australian wool manufacturing and treating industry is growing by leaps and bounds, and the purchases by the local factories have a considerable effect in bringing about an increase of the pr;ce of wool. During last season the mills in the Commonwealth were the best buyers of fair to good length spinning wools, their purchases amounting to over 300,000 bales. Notwithstanding the facts which I have set out, the Australian “Wool Council has become panicky with the result that the Government has decided to indulge in an expensive advertising campaign costing £100,000 per annum for five years at the expense of the wool-grower. This campaign has the approval of the British manufacturers who will gain an indirect benefit from it. The money is to be expended in advertising in. various ways. The advertising campaign will he conducted per medium of the newspapers, posters,, films, and exhibitions in an effort to make people wool-minded. A representative of British manufacturers told the graziers recently that the industry refused to be beaten by the chemists, and pleaded with his hearers to make the wool campaign, a reality. There is, however, much work that could with greater profit be done within Australia. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research is starved for funds. During 1934-35, out of a total Commonwealth revenue of £76,000,000 only £94,915 was spent on scientific and industrial research. The Government should be more generousin that respect. Research is necessary to prevent the extension of the ravages of blowflies, and to inquire into the diminishing of bore water supplies and the preventing of soil erosion. Immense losses of sheep and wool, which are surely preventable, are sorry features of every drought. I hope the board to be constituted under this bill will give consideration to these suggestions.

In asking that a poll be taken, I am merely asking for a privilege which was granted to the dairyfarmersof Australia when legislation was. introduced to benefit them, not after a precipitated campaign but, as the Minister has stated, as the result of concerted action extending over a period of ten years. Before that legislation wasbrought into operation, they were given the opportunity to say whether they were in favour of it or opposed to it.

Mr Thorby:

– That was because control was taken of the marketing of their butter.

Mr FORDE:

– The wool-growers are to be asked to pay a levy, and to support a board in the election of which, according to a big section of them, they will have no voice. They say that they should not be subjected to taxation without having representation. If the Minister will agree to the taking of a ballot, not after four years, but immediately, the Opposition will allow the measure to pass on the voices.

Mr FISKEN:
Ballarat

.- With a certain amount, but only a very little, of what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) has said, 1 can agree.

The purport of this measure is the institution of a wool board, which will administer a fund for advertising purposes, biological research, and research into the manufacturing side of the industry. I am particularly pleased that its introduction affords an opportunity to discuss, in this national Parliament, Australia’s greatest national industry.

I was glad to hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he realizes that the prosperity of Australia depends very largely upon the prosperity of the Australian wool industry. “Wool hat. been the foundation of the prosperity of many nations, almost since the dawn of history. The progress of Great Britain itself in the middle ages was associated with wool. In the past, the governments of other countries have done all that they could to popularize the use of wool and to promote the advancement of the industry. In the middle ages, burial in a shroud of wool was compulsory in Great Britain. Until the beginning of this century, Australia was almost entirely dependent upon wool for its prosperity, and even since then it has exercised a tremendous influence upon our financial stability. It is an amazing fact that during the last 35 years the sale of wool has brought into Australia the enormous sum of over £1,4130,000,000, an amount greater than the whole of the national debt. That this House should do everything in its power to assist this industry, which is of such vital importance to the nation, is therefore evident. Within the last few days the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) has expressed the opinion that borrowing has had a great deal to do with the increase of prosperity during the last few years. I maintain that the wool industry has had a much greater effect.

More widespread biological research seems essential. In spite of the enormous increase of the area devoted to dairying, wheat-growing and fat lamb production during the last few years, the Australian wool clip has increased remarkably, even though it has been grown on an area considerably less than was formerly utilized. That means that a larger number of sheep to the acre has been carried. As a matter of fact, due to the skill of our stud masters, Australian sheep have given a bigger clip to each unit. But additional problems have arisen for solution. A strain has been imposed upon our pastures and upon the constitution of our sheep, which have developed in more marked degree diseases which are making the existence of the graziers more difficult than it was a few years ago. I speak with particular knowledge of the State of Victoria. The number of parasites, particularly worms, among stock, makes well nigh impossible the rearing of sheep on certain of the. areas of that State. There is also the problem of fluke, and the disease which ensues - black disease. The disease, foot-rot, also has developed very considerably, brought about to a certain extent by additional top dressing and better pastures. We have always had with us, of course, the blow-fly pest, one of the worst with which the industry has had to contend. The State Departments of Agriculture are most efficient, and to the best of their ability assist the stock producers to cope with their problems. I was rather disappointed at the statement of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that some of his advisers in this matter had suggested to him that the departments of the States could best administer any research fund. If he will give further consideration to the matter I believe he will come to the conclusion that that would be a wrong principle to adopt.

Mr Forde:

– I quoted the opinions of representative associations to illustrate the diversity of the views that are held.

Mr FISKEN:

– There would be divided effort, and money would be spent by the different governments in an attack upon the same problem. That would be a waste of both money and effort. Concentration under one central administration would be very much better both for Australia and for the industry. I am quite prepared to admit that problems may arise in one State which are not encountered in another. I maintain, however, that there should he a central coordinating authority. The trouble is, that the State departments are starved for funds and have not sufficiently large staffs to enable officers to visit and advise producers who need their assistance. Upon more than one occasion’ sheep have died from a certain disease in my district, and the producer has endeavoured to have animals examined before death, but lias failed to do so, and, consequently, has not been able to obtain necessary advice. A central co-ordinating authority would enable us to do on a large scale what is now done in Victoria on a small scale. In that State, an officer is subsidized by the Pastoral Research Trust. If action along these lines were taken, the industry would be able to cope with its veterinary troubles much more easily.

I am prepared to admit that, in Australian currency, wool prices are now good. After the return to Australia last year of the Acting Minister for Commerce (Mr. Thorby) and the Minister directing negotiations for Trade Treaties (Sir Henry Gullett), these gentlemen said in this House, in reply to questions, that in their opinion artificial fibres did not constitute a very grave danger to the Australian wool clip. Those who, because of the nature of their work over a number of years, have come into close contact with the industry, disagree with them, and rightly maintain that artificial substitutes are a very grave danger to wool. The production of substitutes has increased enormously during the last few years. It must be obvious that, if they were not used, there would be a better market for the natural product. In 1922 the manufacture of artificial fibres totalled 78,000,000 lb. In 1934 that figure had increased to 795,000,000 lb., and last year it amounted to 943,000,000 lb. That must have a marked effect on the use and, consequently, on the price, of wool. So worried have been the graziers of Australia, that the Federal Graziers Council invited a representative of the British wool manufacturers to visit Australia to inform the wool-growers generally of the steps he considered necessary to counter this growth of the manufacture of artificial fibres, and also theenormous advertising campaign of the manufacturers of the fibres. Mr. Wilson, who was sent in response to that invitation, is the representative of a manufacturing firm in Scotland, which has a tremendous connexion throughout the world in woollen manufactures.

In an address to graziers, Mr. Wilson said that summer sales of woollen underwear in Scotland had practically disappeared. In Leicester, he said, the manufacturers at one time had manufactured 90 per cent, of woollen goods, but were now producing 90 per cent, of their goods from anything but wool. Mr. Wilson had the greatest trouble in getting the National Hosiery Association to endorse his coming to Australia, so little interested in wool was it. He pointed out that in the summer months in the biggest stores in London, women’s underwear departments, so far as wool was concerned, did not exist. Any woollen underwear in the store was sold in another department. Underwear for summer use is made from artificial fibres. Mr. Wilson declares that the British public is no longer as wool-minded as it used to be, but I think that is only natural when one considers that artificial fibres are being manufactured on such an enormous scale. In Mr. Wilson’s own district, Hawick, in Scotland, in recent years, woollen underwear shops have had to be shut. The manufacturers fortunately have been able to exist by the making of woollen pullovers and outer gar ments. Mr. Wilson pointed out, however, that, on the vessel on which he came to Australia, most of the women wore outer garments made from artificial fibres. He. says that we have to fight these substitutes from the point of view of health. It is most important that his advice should be followed. Artificial fibre manufacturers have concentrated on a very intense advertising campaign, and not only have they advertised the claims of their own goods, but also they have attacked wool. I do not propose to be an advertiser myself for these fibres by reading out all the things that the manufacturers say, but it is necessary for me to cite one or two examples. Regarding linen mesh underwear, the artificial wool manufacturers say, “ This is a vegetable product made from a clean, sweet flax “. Regarding woollen underwear, they say, “ This is> a product of animals very susceptible to diseases - tuberculosis, rheumatism, &c”. That sort of advertising would possibly appeal to ignorant people, but not to members of this House. It is inconceivable that tuberculosis and rheumatism could be transferred, from a sheep to its wool, yet, that is the type of advertising we have to put up with. Mr. Wilson points out that, in America, an advertising campaign in favour of wool was carried out, and that, as the result, the use of wool was increased in that country in one year by more than 20 per cent. Advertising and biological research are necessary, but it is all-essential to have research, made into the technical end of manufacture. It is necessary to make woollen articles more attractive in appearance and handling to compete with the artificial substitute. Some of the money which will be made available by this levy will undoubtedly bc used for this purpose.

As a wool-grower, and as a representative of wool-growers, I regret that it has been necessary to come to this Parliament for authority to carry out this scheme. The industry attempted, by voluntary means, to get finances to carry it on. We attempted years ago, through the Pastoral Research Trust, to get funds, and then, more recently, we attempted to induce the wool-selling brokers to collect a levy for us. Any grower could have objected that he did not want to pay it. I do not believe that any grower would have been short-sighted enough to refuse, but, unfortunately, two brokers in Sydney refused to come in with their colleagues and help to collect this money. Therefore, it has been necessary for the industry to come to this House to ask for statutory authority to levy upon themselves. It is generally admitted, I think,, that the wool industry is the best organized primary industry in Australia. Its organization is the envy of every other wool-growing country.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), speaking in favour of a poll to be taken to show whether all the graziers were in favour of the levy, said that the organizations mentioned by the Minister as being represented on the Woolgrowers Council did not represent more than 55,000,000 sheep. I should like to correct him. I feel that his statement was either a clerical error or a slip of the tongue. The Graziers Association alone represents 55,000,000 .sheep, and the other organizations represented on the Wool- growers Council, added to the Graziers Association probably represent S5 per cent, or 90 per. cent, of all the sheep .in Australia. However, I believe that it would be a good thing, for a poll to bc taken in four years’ time. It is essential that the scheme be enforced for at least five years, because it would be impossible to tell in one, two or three years, what the result would be. After rive . years, we should have some idea whether advertising or research is of benefit or not. I have shown the increase of the manufacture of artificial fibres, and I have tried to show the lack of interest in Great Britain in the sale of wool. The problem should be tackled now while- prices are good and not be delayed until prices recede. If there is some small opposition to this, what a trivial thing it is ! The growers are asked to contribute one-seventh of 1 per cent, of the wool cheque, that is £1 in every £700. If they are not prepared to do that, to help themselves, this industry and Australia, I do not think they are very much consequence in Australia. In the interests of the industry and Australia generally, this levy should, he made before it is too late, as it will contribute to. the graziers’ retaining prosperity for themselves and for Australia.

Mr NOCK:
Riverina

.- I support this bill because it is necessary and equitable. Its object as has been pointed out is to provide’ finances for publicity, technical research and biological research - publicity to increase the popularity of wool, technical research to improve the treatment of wool, and biological research to improve the work already carried out in connexion with the prevention and curing of disease. The care and health of sheep are important to Australia. It is expected that the result of the expenditure of the money which this Government has been asked to collect from the growers will bring advantages, not only to Australia in the increase of the wool cheque which will, with the velocity of money, circulate t11 rough the community, but also directly to the growers themselves. If every grower is to get the advantage of sustained demand for wool and increased prices, then it is equitable that every grower should contribute in a small way towards the cost of producing such results and the proposed levy is the simplest way to secure it. It was pointed out by the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Fisken) that efforts have been made previously to obtain funds from the growers on a voluntary basis, when the Pastoral Research Trust was instituted and the graziers were asked to contribute 2s. a bale. The scheme resulted in the collection of less than £30,000, and there were thousands of graziers who would receive equal advantage from the work who did not contribute one penny. There were many very generous donations from brokers and other persons interested in the industry, but after a period of nine years, it is realized that it is futile to expect to be able to collect the finances necessary for these purposes on a voluntary basis. A request was made to the brokers that they should deduct from the sales returns of graziers a trifling amount on each bale sold to be contributed to this fund, but that also failed. The graziers and the brokers are conservative, and they object to coming to the Government. Most of them were prepared to agree to the proposal, but two or three brokers stood, out. Consequently, as it would prejudice the business of those who proposed to collect the levy against those who did not, the whole scheme fell through. Since then we have had a visit to Australia by Mr. Wilson, the representative of British manufacturers, who are indirectly concerned with the position of the wool industry. It is all very well for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) to say that more wool is being used to-day than ever before. That is not correct; the fact is that the production of wool is at a stand-still.

Mr Forde:

– I have had made available to me an international publication which shows that Australia is increasing its production of wool.

Mr NOCK:

– Notwithstanding the statement of the honorable gentleman, I repeat that the world production of wool is declining. It must, therefore, follow that the use of wool is also declining for its use cannot exceed its production.

The following figures showing the world production of wool are enlightening: -

And there has been a decrease in the current yea]”. One result of this decline of production has been an increase of the price of wool. Although the world’s population has increased there has not been a corresponding increased use of wool. These figures cannot bis disputed. The decline in the use of wool is due to the enormous increase in the use of the wool substitutes which have been put on the market, in recent years. Having realized the futility of the voluntary efforts that have been made to increase the use of wool, mainly because a few brokers have refused to co-operate in it, graziers are now seeking the co-operation of the Government to enable them to collect the levy and put into force a plan to achieve the desired ends. They are prepared to tax themselves to provide the money necessary. The levy proposed will amount to only 6d. in every £17 worth of wool. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the position of small woolgrowers, but I point out- to him that a mau who markets ten bales of wool a year will be required to contribute only 5s. annually by means of this levy. That is surely a trifling amount.

Mr Thorby:

– The rates which I mentioned are the maximum.

Mr NOCK:

– That is so. I should also like to remind honorable gentlemen that the wool manufacturers of Great Britain regard the position so seriously that th;;y too are prepared to co-operate in the scheme. Their heavy overhead charges and huge capitalizations have made them realize that their decreased output makes it essential for them to do something to attempt to regain their business, so they have voluntarily agreed to co-operate with the graziers of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and contribute on a £1 for £1 basis to an amount of £50,000 to implement this campaign of publicity and research. This shows f their bona fides. There is a. general recognition of the fact that if our wool industry is to he stabilized, the use of wool must be popularized. It would, of course, be quite inequitable for the South African graziers to have to bear the cost of a wide publicity campaign to popularize the use of wool, when a considerable proportion of the improved trade would inevitably come to Australia, but organizations have already been established in South Africa and New Zealand to assist in financing a scheme of this kind, and it is only reasonable that the graziers of Australia and those interested in the wool industry in Great Britain should co-operate in an Empire-wide campaign.

Certain figures were submitted by the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Fisken) to show that in mills in Leicester, where 90 per cent, of the goods handled were once woollen, only 10 per cent, of them now consist of wool. The National Federation of Hosiery Makers of Great Britain has converted many big plants to rayon, linen fibre and cotton production. A special inquiry made recently in the drapery departments of many London stores to ascertain the position in regard to woollens, showed that summer woollen underwear simply did not exist. In fact, seven-eighths of the fixtures previously occupied by woollen fabrics now hold goods manufactured from synthetic fibres. The high price of wool which followed the war and also the subsequent depression of world trade had a serious effect on the wool industry. Woollen goods were expensive, and cotton and artificial silk products took their place. The people of Great Britain are now no longer WOO minded, and shop assistants know practically nothing of the history of wool and its virtues. There is no sentiment, in business. Manufacturers will make the goods required by retailers, and retailers do not care two hoots what they sell as long as they make a “rake-off” or at least a satisfactory profit. They will supply the goods that the people want. It is vitally important, therefore, to the wool industry and to Australia that an education campaign shall be set on foot to recover the trade previously done in woollen goods. We must, if possible, recover the ground that has been lo3t in the last ten years.

I have already referred to the excessive overhead costs of woollen manufacturers resulting from reduced output compared with the high amount of capital invested in their industries. I now propose to refer to the great strides that have been made during late years by the rayon and artificial silk manufacturing industries. Last years’ production of wool represented about 2,000,000,000 lb. of scoured wool. The output of rayon and artificial silk in 1922 was 7,800,000 lb., in 1934 it, was 700,000,000 lb., and it is forecast that the output for 1936 will be 1,000,000,000.’ When it is realized that the average weight of garments made of artificial silk and rayon is only half that of garments made of wool, it will be appreciated that the 1,000,000,000 lb. of rayon and artificial silk fabric will make the same number of garments as 2,000,000,000 lb. of scoured wool. The amazing demand for rayon and artificial silk has been caused by widespread publicity and advertising campaigns. In the last five years, two firms alone have spent £336,441 in press publicity. Undoubtedly advertising pays.

Mr Forde:

– Has the honorable member any figures to indicate the aggregate quantity of cotton material sold ?

Mr NOCK:

– I have not. What I have said reveals beyond question that while the production of wool has remained almost stationary, the production of rayon and substitutes for wool has increased enormously. Every extra £1 received from our wool as the result of the proposed campaign multiplies the purchasing power of the people of Australia, and every section of the community will reap the advantage if the output of wool or’ its price can be increased. We must advertise the virtues of wool. We must tell the world to “ wear wool for warmth “. We must emphasize the elasticity and softness, the strength and durability of wool. We must advocate the use of wool, because it. absorbs moisture, and reduces risks from burning. Every one who has seen a child dressed in a muslin frock, and another child dressed in a woollen garment play=ing near the fire must have realized that the child in the muslin frock is in much more danger from a flying spark than the child in the woollen dress. ‘We must advocate the use of wool for long-term economy, and as the natural and ideal textile for human clothing. The woollen manufacturers of Great Britain, as I have already said, have been thoroughly convinced of the need for the campaign now proposed, and have promised their £1 for £1 subsidy to an amount of £50,000 for five years. The levy of ls. a bale being imposed in New Zealand and South Africa will allow them to contribute £15,000 annually, and it is expected that into the jointly controlled fund for use in Britain, Australia will put £35,000 a year. Some people may ask why the imposition of this levy is necessary, but we must be guided by experience. In the United States of America, the trade in summer wool suits gradually slipped until it fell to only 40 per cent, of the normal figure. An advertising campaign was set on foot throughout the United States of America and, in less than three years, the trade increased to 81 per cent, of the normal output. One result has been that American competition is again noticeable in the Australian wool market. This is what we want.

The value of advertising has been demonstrated in connexion with many other commodities, particularly in Great Britain. Take gas as an example. In the eleven years before 1914, the average increased annual consumption of gas in the United Kingdom was 800,000,000 cubic feet. I do not, suppose that it would be contended that one gas company could be expected to set out on an advertising campaign to increase the use of gas, but, in view of the largely increased use of electricty, the gas companies of Great Britain cooperated in a. national advertising campaign to boost their product. The result was that in the subsequent 21 years the average increased consumption of gas in the United Kingdom advanced by 5,967,000,000 cubic feet per annum. The cost of this advertising campaign worked out at. 2-Jd. for each extra 1,000 cubicfeet of gas sold - a huge increase of business at a cost of less than 5 per cent. This- was a remarkable result to achieve in a period when the use of electricitywas advancing so rapidly. The advertising campaign inaugurated by the Fruit Federation in 1923 to increase the sale of fruit in Great. Britain was also most successful. For six years, £30,000 a year was spent to advertise imported fruit, and in that period sales increased by £17,000,000. In the first, year, the increase was £1,000,000; in the second and third year.-; it was £3,000,000 a year, and in the sixyears the aggregate was £17,000,000. The cost of the campaign was £180,000, which represented about 1 per cent, of the increased sales.

Mr Garden:

– What about beer?

Mr NOCK:

– Yes, I have the figures about beer.. The sales in Great Britain in 1925 amounted to 20,863,000 barrels. The demand annually decreased, until, in 1932, the sales had dropped to 13,228,401 barrels. For seven years the average decrease was at the rate of 1,000,000 barrels a year; but, after an advertising campaign had been carried on for two years, the business recovered and the sales have since increased at the rate of over 1,000,000 barrels a year. Tea and telephones were also advertised to great advantage. The campaign was so effective in regard to telephones that the department was unable to cope with the demand for instruments, and, for a time, the advertising had. to be suspended.

The proposal put before the House to-day provides also for research. In Great Britain technical research is being carried on at Torridon, and there is a Wool Industry Research Association at Leeds, which deals, not only with the improved methods of growing wool, but also with its weaving and manufacturing. In the past, a prejudice against woollen garments has arisen, because of their susceptibility to shrinkage. We now find that a process has been perfected, whereby woollen garments can be made totally unshrinkable. This represents a big step forward, and will tend materially to popularize their use. Serious difficulties were formerly experienced in connexion with the dyeing. of woollen cloth. It was not possible to print patterns on wool in such a way that they would last, hut that difficulty has now been overcome. Another trouble complained of is the tendency of woollen clothing to cause itching or tickling in the case of the wearer with a particularly sensitive skin. This aspect is being seriously studied, and, it is hoped, that a remedy will be discovered. Many people have suggested that all our wool should bc scoured before it is sent abroad. Some say it would cost too much, but this is only part of the reason. Serious mistakes can be made in the treatment of wool through the scour, and, after it has been scoured in Australia and pressed into bales for shipment, it has been found liable to felting, which is a serious disadvantage for many manufacturing purposes. The Research Association is trying to solve these problems, and any improvements which increase the sale and demand for wool must react to the advantage of the Australian growers. These associations have and use both chemical and biological laboratories. The cause of unsatisfactory cloth has been traced to its being woven in too damp a condition, or to the use of machinery of the wrong type. It is certain that many mistakes of this kind can be avoided by scientific research.

The honorable member for Ballarat also referred to the need for biological work in connexion with the wool industry. The grasshopper and blowfly problems, and the foot-rot trouble, have not yet been solved’. Hoven, resulti ng . from putting sheep on frost-covered green oat.s, has caused serious losses, the cause of which owners are only now realizing and can avoid. Pulpy kidney iri lambs, and worm and parasitic troubles in sheep, are still demanding research. Much has been done by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research to find a remedy for these troubles, and finance has been provided by the Pastoral Research Trust; but, more is needed, so that these problems may bc solved as quickly as possible, and the continuous heavy losses avoided.

A levy of 6d. a bale, 6d. on every £17 worth of wool, is such a trifle, and so many associations representing a huge majority of the woolgrowers have approved of it. that a preliminary ballot of the woolgrowers is quite unnecessary. and unjustified.. Another objection to the ballot is its cost.’ We object to wasting on ballots ifr. Nock, money which could be used to. much better purpose. More than that, the matter is urgent., A ballot would delay things for twelve months. An offer of a subsidy of £1 for £1 has been made by the British manufacturers. Let us take it, and get on with the job. Why wait, and let staple fibre and artificial silks further supplant wool? Let us boost it, and increase .the demand. We can increase the supply. From the roof of this building can be seen thousands of acres, the sheep-carrying capacity of which could be doubled by superphosphates, and the introduction of subterranean clover and other grasses. Between Canberra and Sydney are . to be seen millions of acres of scrub that has never felt the axe. That land could carry large numbers of sheep. There are thousands of miles of good rainfall- country along the Queensland coast awaiting improvement and stocking. Australia could, if the price warranted it, increase its wool clip by 50 per cent., bringing an extra £25,000,000 per annum into this country’ from overseas. This sum, multiplied by five - by the velocity of money - would, mean- an extra £125)000,000 of purchasing . power annually permeating, the community. With this we could carry many more settlers, or have a higher living standard for the present population.

The only objection which the Opposition has to this ‘hill, is that it does not provide for a ballot before the schema comes into operation. I point out that the Wool Board will represent from 75 per cent, to 80 per cent, of the growers, and SO per cent, of the sheep in Australia, and also that growers’ representatives will control the expenditure of the money collected. The honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane) suggested that only 9,000 growers would be represented by the Wool Board, but. that is absurd. The members of the Fanners and Settlers Association of New South’ Wales alone number 9,000. and there are S,000 members of- the Graziers Association of New South Wah;s. The Farmers and Settlers-Association has agreed to the levy of 6d. They represent small growers, and there should be no objection- to the scheme being put into operation as soon as possible. The trifling levy, which, to many, will amount to but a few shillings a year, is not sufficient to justify opposition to the measure. The need for action and the prospective advantages are so great that I commend the proposal to the House.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

– I support the bill, and oppose the amendment which has been submitted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde). Ordinarily, it would be advantageous and wise to take a ballot of the growers before imposing a levy upon them; but, as has been pointed out, the woolgrowers have expressed opinions, which show that immediate action is necessary, and, therefore, I fail to see any justification for a preliminary ballot, which would be a costly process. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition read a commnunication for the purpose of suggesting that the small growers in Western Australia had expressed similar views to those held in Queensland. The Primary Producers Association of Western Australia has expressed its approval of the scheme. [Quorum formed.] There should be no objection to this bill. The Government is not asked to provide the necessary funds. The woolgrowers of Australia seek legislative power to put a levy upon themselves. The scheme will be controlled by the growers, of whom 95 per cent. produce 50 per cent. of the wool and 5 per cent, grow the other half of it, but the representation on the Wool Board will be such that it will embrace both small and large growers. I have received the following telegram from the Primary Producers Association of Western Australia : -

Wool executive agreed to levy for research publicity and collection statistics all matters pertaining advancement wool consumption and production. Also believe assurance should he obtained from all Status for legislation abolition draft allowance.

The Government, . 1. think, should take separate action to remove the draft allowance. All growers in Western Australia support the bill, and feel that they ought to have the right to control their own affairs, particularly as they will provide the money necessary to give effect to the scheme.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 1 . 45 p.m..

Debate (on motion by Mr. Clark) adjourned.

page 2211

QUESTION

TRADE DIVERSION

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties · Hen ty · UAP

by leave - I wish to-day to advise the House of certain important decisions which have been made by the Government, with the object of increasing our exports of primary produce, expanding secondary industry, and bringing about a considerable increase of rural and industrial employment.

TheGovernment proposes to proceed towards these desirable national developments by a series of steps intended to bring about a diversion of carefully selected portions of our overseas trade. The effect of these diversions will be, in the first place, to widen and strengthen Australian secondary industries by halting some imports of commodities with a view to their manufacture in the Commonwealth. The chief of these commodities is the motor chassis, which we hope will be manufactured in Australiaon a large scale within a very few years. In the case of other imports, which we intend to divert from their present source of origin, we are aiming in future to draw our supplies from countries which are already great customers of ours, and which we may confidently expect will become greater customers if we increase our purchases from them. In this way we expect substantially to increase our export trade, and so clear the way for increased production over a wide range of people employed in country industry. The decisions arrived at will mark the first step of a considered trading policy to place our overseas financial affairs in a sound and enduring position. They will give great impetus to engineering and to the iron and steel industries; they will make a significant indirect contribution to defence; and, by reducing unemployment, they will hasten the day when immigration can be resumed on a basis not harmful, but helpful, to every industry and worker in this country. Finally, they aim to maintain the Australian standard of living, and keep the way clear for its steady advancement. In view of these claims I need scarcely say that, before arriving at its conclusions, the ‘ Government has given long and detailed consideration to the general condition of the Commonwealth, which, as we see .it, is both satisfactory and unsatisfactory. Compared with our position during the depth of the depression, and with the position in which most other countries still find themselves, we must consider ourselves in happy circumstances. In the mind of the Government, lion/ever, and, J. am sure, in the minds of all members of this House, and of the people of this country, we have still to make up a good deal of leeway before we shall find ourselves in a condition which we can contemplate with complete satisfaction.

This is the third administration led by the Right Honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons). The aim of these three administrations has been, without ceasing”, to rehabilitate national finance, and to restore tolerable prosperity to primary and secondary industry, and by that means to bring employment back to normal. The achievement of that aim so far has been, by common consent, considerable. The steps we are now proposing are in direct succession to the steps already taken. In some respects they may appear somewhat unusual, but if wc are departing from the beaten track in our resolution to show a lead in industrial, trading, and financial problems, in these days of unprecedented difficulty, we are only following in the footsteps of most of the other governments of the world. While the Government fully subscribes to the pringle that, in Australia, primary and secondary industries are each essential to the welfare of the other, it clearly recognizes that general prosperity and development must, in this, young country, for a long time to come, have their origin in the prosperity of the man on the land. If the farmer, to use the term comprehensively, and tb( pastoralist, enjoy fair seasons, and sufficient profitable export trade to ensure a sound local price level, then in a material sense all is well with the nation. As our rural industries are, in the main, producing more than Australia can consume, overseas markets for the surplus arc vital to our welfare. Recognizing this fact, the Government entered wholeheartedly into the Ottawa agreement, which keeps open to us, on preferential terms, the only great market in the world for our primary produce, with the exception of wool, and the market, which is still the largest individual buyer of wool.

Owing to causes upon which I need not dwell, our dependence upon the market of the United Kingdom has increased in the four years since the Ottawa agreement was made. With the exception of wool, speaking broadly, agricultural products during those years have been increasingly excluded from all, or nearly all, foreign countries, and in some countries even the sale of our wool has been severely restricted. The British market has served us greatly in clearing the surplus of many of our great primary products, as well as those of less importance, and in providing profitable price levels for that surplus. Those price levels have ‘been reflected in higher prices in our home markets, and have played a great part indeed in our general national recovery. At the moment there is no immediate prospect of recapturing our old position for primary produce in foreign markets. If we are not to come to a national standstill, primary production must be increased, and the only way it can be increased is by selling more of our rural output in the British market. Happily that market, although perhaps approaching a state of surfeit in some primary commodities, has still room for further supplies from the dominions. These additional supplies, however, can only ‘be furnished by the displacement of foreign supplies.

It is desirable that we should clearly recognize the position of the British Government in its policy of external trade. The very strength of Britain depends upon its widely diverse secondary industries and its export of manufactured goods. Roughly speaking, one-half of the total exports from the United Kingdom find their market within the Empire, and the other half in foreign countries. In the main, Britain’s capacity to sell to the Empire and to foreign countries, depends upon her capacity to purchase the exports of those countries. Putting it plainly, there is room for a substantial increase of Australian exports of primary produce to Britain provided we arc able to- give to Britain an increased share in the Australian market. If we would sell to the United Kingdom more of those things which we can sell nowhere else, we must buy more from the United Kingdom. A disproportionate share of our imports is obtained from countries which take relatively small quantities of our exporta.ble surplus. Obviously it would brighten our trading position with our good customers if a larger share of our imports were purchased from them instead of from countries which have very little capacity for the absorption of Australian products.

The Government has had these simple facts in mind in its recent deliberations. lt is aiming simultaneously to increase our exports, to expand industry and employment, and also to guard and enhance our financial credit abroad. From the survey we have made we have decided that circumstance compels us, however, reluctantly, to follow the policy adopted by a large number of countries throughout the world, and divert a certain amount of our import trade from countries which are very indifferent purchasers of Australian exports, first as far as practicable with respect to Australian secondary industry, and next to countries which are, or recently have been, heavy purchasers of our exports. In other words, we have resolved to give more room in this market to those who are our great buyers, and somewhat less room to those who are indifferent buyers. To achieve this object the Government has decided to proceed in two ways, first, by the adoption of a licensing system over a limited range of imports, and secondly, by the imposition of higher duties where this course appears more desirable. With the exception of motor chassis, all goods of British Empire origin will be excepted from the licensing proposals. The restriction, however, will not apply to motor chassis from the United Kingdom. Under the licensing scheme, with the exceptions mentioned, the importation of specified commodities will be prohibited except with the consent of the Minister for Trade and Customs, and from the date of its operation, importers of those commodities must receive a licence before the goods will be permitted importation. These licences, however, will be freely granted upon application, in respect of the imports of all countries with which we have a favorable balance of trade, and all other countries in regard to which, although the balance may be adverse to the Commonwealth, the Government is satisfied with the position.

The Government has decided at once to enter into conversations with the Canadian Government to endeavour to bring about a friendly arrangement by which the supply of imports of the goods subject to licence control will not he diverted from their present source of supply to Canada. In view of our large adverse balance of trade with Canada, if this occurred, it would completely defeat the Government’s object of diversion. If friendly arrangements cannot be reached upon the matter with the Government of Canada, the Commonwealth Government will give the matter further consideration. I wish to emphasize that the Government is not adopting the principle of bilateral balances with individual countries as its trade policy, but is seeking to divert imports into channels which will confer most benefit upon the national economy. We have perforce to look to our exports to pay for our imports, and in the national interest we cannot allow our market for imports to be absorbed by countries which fail to extend a fair measure of reciprocity to the products of our export industries. With respect to those countries against which licences to import may bc refused, such refusal will apply not to the whole of the imports from such countries, but only to the commodities named in a selected and limited list. Commodities not included in the selected list will be freely admitted without restriction as at present. The Customs Department is satisfied that such a licensing scheme can bo administered without difficulty, and with but slight, if any, work or embarrassment to Australian importers.

Mr Beasley:

– By what means was the discrimination fixed ?

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– By a most thorough and painstaking examination of the whole position. In the case of countries from which imports will be restricted under the licensing system, the Government will be prepared to consider a modification of the restrictions in proportion to increased purchases from Australia, which such countries may make from this time forward.

The total value of our import trade, which we anticipate will be diverted almost immediately by both the licensing system and the increased duties, will be £2,290,000. Of the goods represented by this amount, it is estimated, after a very thorough investigation, that Australian manufacturers will benefit by an increased output to the value of £S45,000 sterling, the manufacturers of the United Kingdom by £1,310,000, and good-customer foreign countries by £135,000. The aim throughout was to give the benefit to Australian industry. Details of the diversion to be brought about under duty proposals will be disclosed by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) at a later stage of the sitting.

The figures I have just mentioned do not take into account the larger diversion to Australia of motor chassis manufacture to the value of over £4,000,000 stterling

While the licensing system will reduce by a substantial amount, our adverse balance of trade with some countries, it will nevertheless still leave to those countries a very heavy favorable balance. In giving consideration to the adoption of this licensing system by Australia, we must beaT in mind that a similar scheme is in operation against practically all of our exports, not excepting wool in some cases, in many parts of the world. We are in actual fact compelled to take this action because it has been so generally adopted against us. Where actual licensing is not in practice against us, we have been more or less completely excluded^ by tariff and other barriers equally hostile to our exports. I need scarcely say that, despite all the circumstances, which I think the House will agree make the restrictive measures decided upon unavoidable, the Government takes these steps with the deepest regret. We could have wished that, although Australia has suffered so much from restrictions by other countries upon its exports, we might have escaped the necessity for this action, which, at first sight, may be regarded with disfavour by the governments of the countries affected. We feel confident, however, that when the problem, which we have had to face is fairly and fully pondered, it will be recognized that we are acting in no spirit of retaliation, but are unwillingly driven by very pressing national interest.

I now come to the matter of certain textiles, and to the great depreciation which has taken place in this, the most important item of the trade of the United Kingdom with this country, owing to the extraordinary growth of imports from foreign sources at prices which defy all competition. These low prices necessitate some action to preserve a reasonable proportion of the trade for the United Kingdom.

Honorable members are already aware of the prominent position which textiles assume in the total exports from the United Kingdom to the Australian market. At Ottawa, we found that the Government of the United Kingdom attached the greatest possible importance to the preferences which we proposed to accord on cottons and artificial silk piece goods. The real significance of these textiles to the trade of the United Kingdom with Australia is discernible from the following figures : In 1931-32, the Ottawa year, imports into Australia of cottons and artificial silk piece goods from the United Kingdom amounted to £4,098,000, or 23 per cent, of the total ‘ imports from the United Kingdom. In 1934-35, notwith-standing the improved position in Australia and tlie general upward movement of trade, this figure only slightly increased to £4,284,000, representing 13 per cent, of the total imports from the United Kingdom. Values do not truly reflect the trend of the trade. I, therefore, place before honorable members a picture of the trade in terms of quantities. In 1932, Australia’s imports of cotton piece goods from the United Kingdom were 167,000,000 square yards, .and in 1935, they were 118,000,000 square yards - a falling off of 49,000,000 square yards. Imports from foreign sources were 40,000,000 square yards in 1932, and 90,000,000 square yards in 1935, an increase of 50,000,000 square yards. In artificial silk, the United Kingdom supplied approximately 8,000,000 square yards in 1932, and 7,250,000 square yards in 1935, while foreign countries supplied 13,000,000 square yards in 1932, and 68,500,000 square yards in 1935, a gain of 58,000,000 square yards. The imports of artificial silk from foreign sources in 1935 represented almost 90 per cent. of our total imports of artificial silk piece goods. Due to the extraordinary price reductions for foreign textiles, the position is not far distant when the cotton trade of the United Kingdom, with Australia, will become practically insignificant, and foreign suppliers will demonstrate their capacity to absorb that trade as they have already absorbed the trade in artificial silk. Under the existing duties, foreign artificial silk can be purchased in Australia to-day at prices lower than those of cotton textiles.

The Government, after many months of deep and close consideration of the development of these low-priced foreign textiles, and after very thorough investigations by the Customs Department, has decided that it can no longer look with indifference to the effect upon the Australian interest of these swollen and still swelling arrivals of cotton piece and artificial silk piece goods. It has reluctantly come to the conclusion, based solely upon the necessity to grant protection to British industry, and our complete reliance on the market of the United Kingdom for the absorption of our exportable surplus of all difficult selling commodities, that the imports of these low-priced foreign textiles cannot continue unchecked.

Mr Forde:

– What guarantee has the Minister that Australia will have an expanding share of the market in the United Kingdom?

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– We have always obtained it so far, and have every reason to believe that we shall continue to obtain it.

As the principal foreign supplier of these textiles is Japan, exhaustive attempts were made by the Government to make a friendly arrangement with the Japanese Government, whereby the exports to Australia would be curtailed to a basis agreed upon. After many weeks of negotiations, agreement between the two governments could not be achieved.

The Government is, therefore, compelled to move by means of duty impositions. The present duties on artificial silk piece goods are 20 per cent. British, and 40 per cent. general tariff, plus 10 per cent. primage in both cases. It is now proposed that new specific duties in place of the old ad valorem duties on these textiles should be fixed as follows : -

with provision for by-law admission at the rates of -

Primage duty will be removed under the British preferential tariff and reduced from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent on foreign supplies. The by-law admission at the lower rates will be applied to artificial silk ordered before the 15th March last, and entered by the 30th November next in respect of goods the value for duty of which is not more than 7d. a square yard.

It is scarcely necessary to mention that under the existing duties the British preference on artificial silk has long since disappeared. The average duty a square yard now being paid on the product from the principal foreign supplier is considerably less than that being paid on British goods.

The effect of the existing ad valorem duties is readily discernible in the following average weighted f.o.b. value of artificial silk imported during the month of February last from various countries -

I should mention that these imports, other than those from Japan and the United Kingdom, were nominal in quantity.

The action now proposed against lowpriced foreign textiles is in no sense exceptional. As far as I am able to discover, practically all countries of any importance have been compelled to control these imports either by quota restrictions, exchange control, or high specific duties. It is interesting to observe that in Japan the duty on artificial silk is 100 per cent. In the case of the weighted average price of 14d. a square yard of the United Kingdom just given, the Japanese duty would be equivalent to 14d. sterling a square yard.

On cotton piece goods, the present duties are ad valorem 5 per cent. British, and 25 per cent, foreign, together with a primage duty of 5 per cent, and 10 per cent, respectively. The Government is under an obligation to remove primage on British goods as the finances permit. The proposed new duties will be -

Primage duty on British cottons will be abolished, and the foreign rate will be reduced from 10 per cent, to 5 per cent.

It is not possible to give a sound estimate of the effects of the new duties upon the imports of rayons and cotton piece goods. Japan, even under the new duties, will continue to be the principal supplier of our market in rayon. In cottons, there should be a considerable increase of imports from the United Kingdom, but Japan will still continue to supply a substantial portion of our imports.

It must be admitted that for a time these new duties will cause some dislocation of the soft-goods trade. It should be remembered, however, that the enjoyment of the present great flood of low-priced foreign artificial silk and cottons has prevailed only for the last year or two.

I wish to dissipate any apprehension which may exist in the minds of honorable members that the duties which will be introduced by my honorable colleague, the Minister for Trade and Customs, will in any way be discriminatory. They will apply equally to all foreign countries. Most-favoured-nation principles will be observed in their application. Lower rates have been established under the intermediate tariff, and these have been inserted for the specific purpose of enabling us to carry on treaty negotiations with the many good customer countries which are interested in supplying the Australian market with these textiles.

A supplementary factor, which weighed with the Government, was that we did not consider we could stand aside and see any great section of this Australian market entirely absorbed by goods of relatively low and completely non-competitive levels. Only with the greatest reluctance has the Government felt compelled to take this action. But irrespective of country of origin, we could not observe these import levels without serious thoughts of ourAustralian standards. If such shattering price levels in a competitive sense can be adopted for any one industry, they may he at any time adopted in others. It appeared to us that the stand we are making had to be taken sooner or later, and we would be lacking in courage and in our duty if we failed to take it now.

I come now to the manufacture of the motor chassis. The magnitude of the value of the trade to be diverted to the Commonwealth in this particular industry will be gathered from the fact that, the imports of chassis for the year ended December, 1935, reached a value of £4,500,000 sterling. The determination of the Government to give strong, and as we intend, decisive encouragement to the establishment of this industry in the Commonwealth is in our mind separate from, and independent of, the general scheme of trade diversion which I have outlined. In our view, the time has arrived - indeed it may be overdue - when this great industry should be established locally as a contribution to our existing protected industries. We have the market; we have the raw materials; we have engineering direction and artisans second to none in the world. Honorable members, who may have doubts as to our engineering capacity to make economically and efficiently our varied requirements in motor car and truck engines, may be reminded that already Australia, is manufacturing upwards of 80 per cent, of many types of the complete car now on the Australian market. Four-fifths of almost every car on the Australian roads to-day is already the product of Australian material and Australian labour. Indeed, it may confidently be laid down that in the manufacture of motor car bodies and the wide range of parts and accessories already being produced in the Commonwealth, we have overcome the larger part of the task of complete motor car achievement. We have every reason to believe that the engine and the chassis frame, together with accessories such as radiator cores, gear boxes, and petrol tanks, which arc now imported as part of the chassis, can be fashioned in the Commonwealth at least as efficiently and as economically as the 80 per cent, which our specialized industrialists are now contributing to the complete car. I would go further, and say that there is sound evidence to lead to the conclusion that the motor vehicle engine can he produced within Australia on a basis fully as economic as that of our other Australian products of engineering. Other countries with a lower motor vehicle registration than Australia have successfully engaged in complete motor car manufacture, a notable example beingItaly. Italy to-day has a number of world-famous cars on the market, despite the fact that its output is small in comparison with the number of motor vehicles registered in this country.

Mr McBride:

– What will be the position in regard to prices?

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– The only increase of prices that can take place is limited to the 20 per cent, of the finished car, which is not now being made in the Commonwealth, and, to my mind, any increase would he small.

The Government anticipates that satisfactory engine production can be commenced within two years, and that within five or six years Australia should be producing 80 per cent, of its engine requirements. At this stage, I do not propose to exhaust the House with excessive details, as these can be announced from time to time as progress is made.

Mr Beasley:

– Does the Government propose to follow a policy similar to this in the development of the shipbuilding industry in this country?

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– Within the course of time it may be possible to do so; I hope so. We intend to offer a bounty to local manufacturers of motor engines, and to give the undertaking that, with respect to the accessories now being imported as part of the chassis, the Tariff Board will be asked, as soon as it becomes necessary, to investigate the position with a view to the imposition of protective duties to encourage their manufacture within the Commonwealth. This will place these accessories upon the same protective basis as the wide range of accessories now being made here.

To provide the funds needed to encourage the Australian manufacture of engines, steps will be taken forthwith. It is proposed to impose an additional duty of .7d. per lb. upon all imported motor chassis and parts. Generally speaking, this additional impost will average over the range of imported chassis at approximately £5 each.

Mr McBride:

– Will the duty apply to imports of British motor chassis?

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– Yes, it will apply to all imports of motor chassis. The Minister for Trade and Customs will cover the matter of preferential duties to the United Kingdom subsequently. Simultaneously, the Government commits itself to the undertaking to submit to Parliament a bounty proposal for local engine production. The scale of bounty which will be proposed is as follows : - 1938 (or 1st year of production) - £30. 1939 (or 2nd year of production) - £26. 1940 (or 3rd vear of production) - £8. 1941 (or 4th year of production) - £3 15s.

It is not possible with any close degree of accuracy to lay down the rate of progress which will be brought about in the manufacture of the Australian engine, but we estimate that production will commence with, say, 5,000 units in 1938, increasing; to 15,000 in 1939, 30,000 in 1.940, and 40,000 in 1941.

The collection from the additional impost of .7d. per lb. will for this period exceed the estimated payment of bounty, but in our view we should play on the safe side. Moreover, the question of the exact bounty required will be submitted at an early date to the Tariff Board, but the Government will not hesitate in an industrial development of such magnitude and significance to Australia to submit to Parliament that the bounty shall not be less than £30 for the first year, and £26 for the second year of- manufacture. The additional duty imposed to pay bounty will serve as a further measure of encouragement upon overseas manufacturers of chassis to enter into production within the Commonwealth. Moreover, the determination to proceed by bounty rather than by duty with respect to the new industry will enable this Parliament to impose the condition that a proper and very substantial measure of the capital required shall be of Australian or United Kingdom origin. The Government welcomes the intervention of foreign industry and capital into the development of Australian industry, but wc do not think it desirable that the absolute control of a great industry, such as this is surely destined to become, should fall into foreign hands, or that the profits arising from it should in the main be derived by foreign countries.

In the opinion of the Government, reached after considerable investigation, there is room in the Commonwealth for the profitable working of at least three separate units of motor car manufacture. It is intended, however, not to limit the number of units, but rather to invite engine manufacturers who are now supplying the Australian trade to participate in this great new venture in secondary industry.

Honorable members need scarcely be reminded that the value of this industry to Australia is not to be measured merely by the capital and employment given by the direct making of engines and of additional accessories.’ As this great modern industry is increasingly transferred to Australia, it will call for increased activity and employment in the iron and steel industry, and the coalmining industry, and in many other directions.

A further decision by the Government is that, in order to treat the motor car industry of the United Kingdom as fairly as possible, and at the same time to expedite engine manufacture in Australia, the imports of chassis from the principal suppliers other than the United Kingdom, will be restricted to the same level of imports of chassis as for the year ended the 30th April, 1936. About 60,000 chassis a year are imported into thi3 country at present.

Mr Beasley:

– Does the Ministry regard the 1936 importations as the peak?

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– No; my view, for what it is worth, is that imports would probably rise substantially over the next few years.

British manufacturers will be particularly invited to participate in the new manufacture within the Commonwealth, and during the period of progressive diversion to Australian manufacture existing British interests will be preferentially considered. The plans outlined are not, of course, of a cast-iron nature, and will be open to reconsideration and re-adjustment as circumstances arise. This must not be taken to mean, however, that the Government will depart from its determination to use all the means within its power to bring about upon an economic basis the early manufacture in the Commonwealth of by far the greater part of its requirements in the complete motor car.

I assure honorable members that these proposals are submitted in complete sincerity, and that they have been devised entirely free of any party political outlook. I ask honorable members to consider them in the same spirit. Their aim is to promote the general welfare of the nation.

I express my deepest appreciation of the remarkably able assistance, and the complete co-operation, I have had from my honorable friend the Minister for Trade and Customs, from the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs, and from his tariff and treaty-making staff. In mentioning the staff, I make special reference to Mr. Arthur Moore.

page 2220

BILLS RETURNED FROM SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate without requests or amendment -

Supplementary Appropriation (Works and

Buildings) Bill 1934-35.

War Pensions Appropriation Bill 1936. Appropriation (Unemployment Relief) Bill

page 2220

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1935-36

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 6); Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Amendment (No. 6); Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 4)

In Committee of Ways and Means -

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

– I move -

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 6)

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariffs 1933 as proposed to be amended by Tariff Proposals be further amended as hereunder set out, and that on and after the twenty-third day of May, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-six, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Territory for the Seat of Government, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariffs 1933 as so amended. That in this Resolution " Tariff Proposals " means the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced in the House of Representatives on the following dates, namely : - 20th March, 1936 ; and 1st April, 1936. {:#subdebate-37-3} #### Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 4) That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934 as proposed to be amended by the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-eighth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-five, and on the first day of April, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-six, be further amended as hereunder set out, and that on and after the twenty-third day of May, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-six, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Territory for the Seat of Government, Duties of Customs be collected in accordance with the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934 as so amended. These motions are designed to give effect to the Government's decisions with respect to cotton and artificial silk textiles, and that portion of the import trade diversion policy dependent upon the customs tariff for implementation, to which my colleague the Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties **(Sir** Henry Gullett) has just referred in his informative speech. Briefly, the duty changes are - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. An increased duty of1s. 6d. per lb. on tobacco leaf used in the manufacture of tobacco made solely from imported leaf and on tobacco leaf used in the manufacture of tobacco containing less than 13 per cent. of Australian leaf. 1. An increased duty of1s. 5d. per lb. on tobacco leaf used for the manufacture of cigarettes made solely from imported leaf and on tobacco leaf used in the manufacture of cigarettes containing less than21/2 per cent. Australian leaf. 2. Consequential increases to the import duties on other tobacco products which vary from1s. 3d. per lb. to1s. 6d. per lb. on the goods covered by tariff items 18, 20, 21 and 22. 3. Changes of duties on cotton piece goods and artificial silk piece goods from an ad valorem basis to a specific rate, with the exception that on cottons under the British preferential tariff an alternative ad valorem rate of 5 per cent. is chargeable if that rate is less than the specific rate proposed. The rates of duty at present operating are 5 per cent. British, and 25 per cent. general. The following rates are being substituted: - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Cottons - {: type="i" start="i"} 0. Unbleached per sq. yd., British, 1/2d. or 5 per cent., whichever lower ; intermediate, 21/2d. ; general, 23/4d. 1. Bleached, per sq. yd., British1/2d. or 5 per cent., whichever lower; intermediate, 23/4d. ; general, 3d. 2. Printed, dyed or coloured, per sq. yd., British,1/2d. or 5 per cent. whichever lower; intermediate, 31/4d.; general; 31/2d. {: #subdebate-37-3-s0 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
UAP -- No ; revenue duties do not come within the scope of the board's operations. {: .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr Curtin: -- But is this not part of the trade diversion policy referred to by the Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties? {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- It is, but such matters are not submitted to the Tariff Board. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- Would the honorable gentleman suggest that these duties are being imposed only for revenue purposes ? {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- Of course the new duties will have some protective effect, but they are also intended to divert to Great Britain trade in Australia which is not at present going in that direction. The present primage rates on cotton piece goods are 5 per cent. British, and 10 per cent. general. A notice in the *Gazette,* to be issued to-morrow, will abolish the primage duty on cottons entered under the British preferential tariff and reduce the primage duty from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent. under both the intermediate and general rates. The existing duties on artificial silk piece goods are 20 per cent. British, and 40 per cent. general with a primage rate against all imports of 10 per cent. The rates now introduced are: per sq. yd., l1/2d. British, 8d. intermediate, and 9d. general. A by-law item has been included in the new schedule under which artificial silk piece *goods ordered* before the 15th March, 1936, and entered not later than the 30th November, 1936, which do not exceed a value for duty of 7d. per sq. yd., will be dutiable at rates of per sq. yd.,1/2d. British, 3d. intermediate, and 3d. general. Apart from satisfying the two foregoing requirements, importers will also need to give an undertaking that the artificial silk piece goods admitted under the by-law item will be sold to purchasers and the public at a price based on the rates of duty proposed under the by-law item. Primage duty will also be abolished on artificial silk piece goods entered under the British preferential rates, and a reduction from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent. is being made on foreign artificial silk piece goods. The British preferential duty on mineral lubricating oil is being reduced by1/2d. per gallon; the new intermediate rate will be the same as the existing general rate, and the general rate is being increased by 11/2d. per gallon. The new rates will be - per gallon 31/2d. British, 41/2d. intermediate, and 6d. general. The increase of the general rate will give the Government scope for trade treaty making. The ad valorem rates of duty on oregon logs and spars are being changed to specific rates. The effective rates at present operating are 20 per cent. against Canadian imports, and 30 per cent. on general imports, plus, in both cases, primage of 10 per cent. The new rates will be - per 100 superficial feet *is.* 6d. Canada, and 5s. 3d. general. The primage rates will not be altered. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- I take it that these are definite increases of duty ? {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- Yes. I shall explain later how the trade is drifting to logs to the detriment of the local hardwood industry, and how these proposals will rectify the position somewhat, and ensure fairer conditions for the local industry. The new duties on unassembled car chassis will be specific, the rates being - per lb., free British. 5d. intermediate, and 51/2d. general. The rate against Canada will be 21/2d. On commercial vehicle types the rates will be - free, 41/4d. and 43/4d., with a rate against Canada of 21/4d. The rates on assembled chassis will be somewhat higher. An additional duty of 7d. per lb. on all chassis is also imposed, and collections from this source will provide funds to pay the bounty on chassis manufactured in Australia. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- Can the Minister give us any information as to the probable increase these duties will cause in the price of American motor cars? {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- I cannot do so; that is a. matter for the sellers of the cars to determine. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- I presume that the new duties will apply to trucks as well as cars. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- Yes. I wish to state briefly to the committee the reasons for the Government's decisions respecting tobacco and oregon log timber. As honorable members are aware, Australia is producing excellent quality tobacco leaf. A great improvement has occurred in the quality of our production during the last four years. Up to the present all usable leaf has been pur chased, and prudent tobacco manufacturers have purchased stocks for maturation purposes, these being available for progressive use. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- We have told the Minister frequently that the Australian product is of high quality. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- This Government may take a good deal of credit for the improvement that has occurred in the quality of Australian tobacco leaf. If we had adhered to the rather reckless policy of the Scullin Government, which protected Australian tobacco leaf irrespective of its quality, we should nor. now be able to take pride in the high quality of our products. About 50 per cent. of the Australian leaf now being marketed is of good quality. Three years ago only 30 per cent. of the crop was of good quality. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- I am glad that the Government is taking a leaf out of our book. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may console himself with a remark of that kind, but I do not think that it will have much meaning for other people. The Government has decided that the existing protective rates of duty shall apply to tobacco blended with a. given percentage of Australian leaf, and it is imposing increased duties on tobaccoes which have a lower Australian content than that prescribed in the tariff item. In effect, the Government will ensure that the tobacco is produced for consumption, and not only for purchase. During the last debate on this item,I intimated that the Government would take steps to ensure the utilization of all usable tobacco leaf grown in Australia and the present action is an implementation of that policy. The proposed action will be of some satisfaction to those manufacturers who remained loyal to the tobacco growing industry in the past and purchased large supplies of the Australian leaf. On good quality Australian leaf the growerreceived the whole of the protection, but manufacturers were unable by price inducement to persuade many smokers to purchase blends of tobacco containing Australian leaf. The present duties will offer that inducement. The research work which is being carried out every year should result in the adoption of improved cultural methods, and, in view of the value of the benzol treatment of seedlings for the prevention of blue mould, there should be better prospects for the industry in the future, with a minimum loss of revenue to the department. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr Thompson: -- -.Will the manufacturer bc exempt from the increased duty if he uses more than 13 per cent, of Australian leaf? {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- It has been found that where a higher percentage than 13 per cent, of Australian leaf is embodied in tho mixture, the sales fall off. The department is attempting to popularise the Australian leaf. {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen: -- What proportion of pipe tobacco is sold to-day with an Australian leaf content of less than 13 per cent? {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- I shall obtain that information. A preferential excise duty would have meant a considerable loss of revenue, and would not have had the same result as the present proposal. As regards Oregon timber, honorable members are well aware that this Parlia ment approved some years ago of the grant of protective duties to the hardwood industry in Australia. A development in recent years has to a large extent defeated these protective duties. By reason of the low duties on Oregon logs, many importers have adopted the practice of importing the logs and having thom sawn in Australia. Innumerable complaints have been received from hardwood sawmillers concerning this practice. The magnitude of this trade will be realized from the following figures. In 1931-1932 the footage of imported Oregon log was 3.8 million super feet. In 1934-1935 it. had risen to 106.5 million super feet. The present proposal is to increase the selling costs of Oregon timber milled from the imported log in order to afford protection to the Australian hardwood milling industry. **Mr. - CURTIN** - What was the proportion of the total log importations landed at Port Adelaide, where hardwood supplies are difficult to get? {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The proportion would be higher there than in other States, but the practice was general. The duty on the log was low, and the rates were higher on the trimmed timber, so it was almost entirely a log importation. {: .speaker-F4O} ##### Mr LYONS:
WILMOT, TASMANIA · ALP; UAP from 1931 -- Is this alteration being made on the recommendation of the Tariff Board {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- No. This is a matter of trade diversion. {: .speaker-KOC} ##### Mr Hawker: -- Has the Government considered whether the effect of these duties will influence the demand for Oregon for essential purposes from imports in the log to imports in flitches and junks which have been sawn in Canada, and tho United States of America ? {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- Yes. There are logs of two types, dependent largely on the quality. I understand that, in the future, the log imports will show a falling off, and that there will be an increase of imports of the junk and sawn sizes. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr Rosevear: -- Does the Minister know that architects, builders and timber merchants in Australia have suffered in the past through having had to take second-class material at first-class prices? {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- That may bc so. Oregon timber for mining purposes is still admitted free under by-law, and this provision covers a large range of the imports. Much difference of opinion exists as to the desirability of using Oregon for building purposes in preference to our own timbers. The amendment proposed to tin. Exchange Adjustment Act limits deduction on account of exchange to logs and spars, other than Oregon, where previously this deduction applied to all logs and spars. My colleague, the Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties, has dealt completely with the subject of pressed panels for motor car bodies, and honorable members will have an opportunity to discuss that item again when we re-assemble. If honorable members carefully study the Minister's speech, they will realize, I think, that the Government has done something substantial for the good of the Commonwealth. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 2230 {:#debate-38} ### WOOL PUBLICITY AND RESEARCH BILL 1936 {:#subdebate-38-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from page 2211, on motion by **Mr. Thorby** - >That the hill be now read a second time, and upon the amendment by **Mr. Forde** - > >That all words after " That " be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - " the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for a ballot of all Australian woolgrowers as to whether they favour the proposed levy on wool, and the pro>posed method of administration of the fund." {: #subdebate-38-0-s0 .speaker-JUQ} ##### Mr CLARK:
Darling .- In considering the necessity for this measure, the House should first inquire whether the industry would receive good value for the money to be expended, and whether the necessary funds are to he raised on an equitable basis. A difference of opinion exists among those directly interested in the industry as to whether they will get the service to which they are entitled under such a scheme as that provided for in the bill. There" is also a conflict of opinion as- to whether the proposed representation will be satisfactory to all interests. I have received a communication from the secretary of the Australian Farmers and Graziers Stabilization Association, with which, are associated the Australian Woolgrowers Association, the Selectors Association of Queensland, and the Southern Woolgrowers Association of Western Australia, pointing out that it opposes the bill cas being entirely unnecessary. It stresses the fact that, if the Government decides to proceed with this legislation, a ballot should be taken among all woolgrowers to determine whether the scheme should be launched, and, if so, to select the representatives on the board. This principle has been observed in connexion with other legislation on similar lines. In May, 192S, a Primary Products Marketing Bil] was submitted to the New South Wales Parliament by the present Acting Minister for Commerce **(Mr. Thorby),** and provision was made for the taking of a ballot by those affected. There was to be a compulsory ballot so that all sections of the industry might have a voice in the matter. I understand that an amendment is to bc submitted to this bill providing that, after four years, the growers shall be given an opportunity by ballot to say whether they desire the proposed board to continue to function. Under the New South Wales measure, the growers had the right to say whether the scheme should be established, as well as whether it should be continued. Similar provision should be made in the bill before us. Although a ballot may be costly, if the growers are to be given the right to take a ballot as to whether the scheme should be continued, I suggest that the appropriate time to do that is before the scheme is put into operation. The honorable member for Ballarat **(Mr. Fisken)** states that this matter is urgent, and that the scheme should be proceeded with at once, but I do not believe it to be nearly so urgent as has been suggested. I am now referring not to the necessity for advertising the value' of wool, but to the need for immediate legislation by the Government. I understand that a gentleman named Wilson, who represents a section of the British manufacturers, is now lecturing throughout Australia to induce the graziers to establish a fund for the purpose of advertising wool. According to a communication which I have received from **Mr. Humphreys,** secretary of the Selectors Association of Queensland, **Mr. Wilson** definitely stated that he could give no assurance that contributions would be made by the manufacturers. In a speech delivered by **Mr. Wilson,** he is reported to have said : " If we can get the manufacturers on the other side to subscribe ever so little, it will come to a great amount of money," It will be seen, therefore, that **Mr. Wilson** was by no means certain that he could get the manufacturers to subscribe. At no time has he said that they are prepared to do so. If Australia were the sole country to benefit from any world-wide advertising campaign to bring about an increase of the use of wool, my objections to this proposal would not be so great, but that is not so. Other large wool-producing countries would share in the benefits which mightresult from the expenditure of money provided by only one section of Australian primary producers. The honorable member for Riverina **(Mr. Nock)** said that other industries have advertised on a collective basis, and that it would not be fair to impose a levy on one section for the benefit of others not called upon to contribute. That is a quite fair summing-up of the position as it applies to the wool industry. If it is decided by the graziers that the scheme now proposed will promote the sale of wool, all sections should contribute to the fund and should be given some say in the selection of the personnel of the 'board. The manufacturers, selling brokers and others who would benefit largely by an increase of the price of wool should be compelled to contribute. The turnover of the manufacturers would be considerably enhanced by an increased use of wool and their profits would be proportionately larger; therefore it is only just that they should be asked to contribute a considerable portion of the total amount to be levied. Statistics relating to the importation of wool into Great Britain over a period of years show that 30 per cent, is imported from Australia and the remainder from other parts of the world. Of the wool imported about 382,000,000 lb. is merino and 535,000,000 lb. crossbred and other sorts. Argentina and other South American countries are large growers of wool, and will benefit from this scheme. Therefore efforts should be made to get the growers in those countries to join in a world-wide campaign for the promotion of the use of wool and to contribute on an equitable basis. It is an old axiom that there should be no taxation without representstation. The growers should have some say as to the constitution of the board. In this case a special levy, which, after all, is only another form of taxation, is being imposed on one particular section of the community, yet that section is to be denied the right to have some say in the expenditure of the money so levied. It has been stressed by speakers on the Government side that the members of the board are to be selected by the Woolgrowers Council. I point out that that council is not fully representative of all pastoral sections in Australia. In New South Wales, the main graziers' organization is the Graziers Association. In December, 1934, that association had a member.ship of 8,289 graziers, representing about 30,000,000 sheep ; in December, 1935, the membership dropped to 7,537, representing about 29,000,000 sheep. It will thus be seen that even within the last twelve months there has been a falling off of no less than 752 members, each representing an average of about 1,400 sheep. Many of the small graziers are falling out of this association. But of the 31,708 graziers in New South Wales, only 7,537 are members of the Graziers' Association! Many graziers, for their own particular reasons, are not members of that body, and they should not be forced into an organization which they have no desire to join. The Government should be prepared to accept an amendment to the bill providing for a poll to be taken of all the wool-growers before any levy is imposed. The stated object of the scheme is to improve the standard and quality of wool. We hear all too often loose talk about the deterioration of the quality of Australian wool. I do not believe that there is any ground for such statements. Australian wool is recognized as the best in the world, and it is grown on a sound business basis. If finer wool is demanded in the markets of the world, buyers must be prepared to pay a higher price for it than for wool of the stronger types. Growers of the finer type wools cannot get the same clip from their flocks. Many graziers are to-day finding that it is a profitable proposition to breed cross-bred sheep, because the carcases yield a better return. It is purely a business proposition, and, if there is a sufficient margin between the prices of stronger and finer types of wool, Australian graziers will be quite prepared to supply the latter. In 1931, the Graziers' Association of New South Wales carried a resolution favouring the establishment of a pool for the marketing of wool, but the executive of that organization was not prepared to accept it. There is a strong urge among pastoralists, all over Australia, that some controlled marketing scheme for wool should be adopted. During the war, when Bawra was in operation, growers were granted within fourteen days of valuation an advance of 90 per cent. At present growers have to wait a long time for their wool cheques, and many of them, because the banks are pressing them for liquidation of their overdrafts, are forced to sell their wool at a low price. Because of this unfortunate state of affairs, growers are not able to hold their wool for the best market. Mention has been made during this debate of the competition afforded to the wool industry by rayon and synthetic fibres. Since the Acting Minister for Commerce **(Mr. Thorby)** returned from abroad, he has repeatedly stated that competition offered by wool substitutes i3 not very serious and is not worth worrying about. {: .speaker-KWC} ##### Mr Thorby: -- I have never said that. {: .speaker-JUQ} ##### Mr CLARK: -- That, at any rate, was what we gathered from the honorable gentleman's remarks ; and, although other honorable members have said that a very substantial increase has taken place in the sale of rayon during recent years, the statistics, I think, to some extent, confirm the Minister's statement. According to the chairman of Courtauld's Limited, the world production of staple fibre rose from 54,000,000 lb. in 1934 to 162,000,000 lb. in 1935. Yet, last year Australian growers were able to sell more wool at a better price than in 1934, when the production of staple fibre was so much lower. The position in regard to the carry-over of wool this year, compared with last year, shows a substantial improvement. The sales by auction totalled 2,351,000 bales in 1934-35 and 2,540,000 in 1935-36. Only 106,000 bales remained unsold in 1935-36, as against 348,000 in 1934-35. In other words, in spite of the considerable increase of the sales of woolsubstitutes, the Australian woolgrowers have been able to clear the greater part of their surplus production. I see no reason for haste in regard to this hill. The Government should be prepared to go carefully into the question whether contributions should not be demanded from all sections of the industry which will benefit from the increased use of wool. The benefit of the draft on wool amounting to about £350,000 per annum, is derived entirely by the wool-buyers. They derive a further advantage by reason of the deduction made in respect of the weight of the packs and hoops. It is estimated that these amount to about £500,000 a year. If an allowance were made for these items, there would be a substantial fund for the conduct of research and of an advertising scheme to improve the sales . of wool. As the buyers of this product are actually the manufacturers and the sellers of it, and as they reap the greatest measure of profit, they should he prepared to make this small sacrifice for the benefit of the industry generally. **Mr. "Wilson** lias pointed out that the advertising campaign is to be inaugurated in England. That country purchases only about 30 per cent, of Australia's wool clip. Therefore, publicity will not be subsidized in the different countries in which the bum of the wool is sold. {: .speaker-KWC} ##### Mr Thorby: -- It is intended that only a portion of the fund shall be spent in that direction. {: .speaker-JUQ} ##### Mr CLARK: -- According to **Mr. Wilson,** " the idea is to start selling it in Great Britain. You can feel the pulse there, and later spread to other countries ". Probably great advantages are derivable from an advertising scheme. That it pays to advertise, is a wellrecognized business axiom. We on this side are not opposed to the principles of the bill. But we are definitely of the opinion that those who are to be asked to pay for such a scheme should have a voice as to whether or not they favour the proposal, and in the selection of the members of the board which will control the expenditure of the money raised. We believe that there is no great urgency for the measure, in view of the fact that the manufacturers have not given a definite undertaking to find any particular quota or even a £1 for £1 contribution, as has been suggested. According to the secretary of the Queensland organization of growers, **Mr. Wilson** can give no definite assurance that the overseas manufacturers will contribute, but believes that, if they could be induced to subscribe ever so little, a considerable sum would be raised. There is no mention in the bill that the Australian woolgrowers' contribution is to be conditional upon sellers and manufacturers contributing also. The manufacturers will probably benefit to the greatest extent, and, therefore, should contribute on a far higher scale than the men who grow the wool. {: #subdebate-38-0-s1 .speaker-KVN} ##### Mr STREET:
Corangamite -- The attitude adopted towards the bill *by* the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Forde)** was one of friendliness. His only desire is that it shall contain a provision for the taking of a ballot. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- Hear, hear! {: .speaker-KVN} ##### Mr STREET: -- It should be remembered, however, that the bill differs fundamentally from previous measures of an apparently similar type, but which could not be brought into operation .before a ballot had been taken. This legislation will not interfere with the growing, marketing, or sale of the product. In the case of legislation which assumes control of an industry, it is right that a ballot of the producers should be taken in order that their views may be ascertained. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has apparently missed this point, and his criticism, therefore, rather lacks substance. *The* honorable member for Darling (Mr. Clark) has taken exception to the fact that the Australian Woolgrowers Council will nominate the members of the board. That is clearly the most representative body of woolgrowers which could be selected. The Acting Minister for Commerce **(Mr. Thorby)** read to the House a long list of the associations which are affiliated with it. Those associations represent, I suppose, 80 per cent, of the sheep of Australia, and certainly a very large percentage of the growers. This is not a sacrosanct body; any organization of woolgrowers may join it. No organization which has applied for admission to it has been refused entry. The honorable member for Darling has argued that this legislation is not urgently needed. I disagree with him. The importance of the industry to Australia cannot be overestimated. The honorable member for Ballarat **(Mr. Fisken)** quoted figures in connexion with it. It is generally recognized that disaster to the wool industry would mean disaster to the nation. There are, in Australia, approximately 100.000 woolgrowers, who graze 113,000,000 sheep. This continent supplies 27 per cent, of the world's requirements of wool - over 50 per cent, in the case of fine wool - and 33 per cent, of the total value of all the wool produced. During the last 40 or 50 years the weight of fleece has been doubled, and the size of the carcass considerably enlarged. The belief is generally held that a halt has now been called in connexion with these two features. As the honorable member for Ballarat has pointed out, these increases have been accompanied by certain diseases; consequently, the need for more intensive research to combat them is obvious.' The question has been asked: If this is a most efficient industry, if big improvements have been made in regard to the weight of wool and the size of sheep, if it is producing considerable national wealth, and if all the wool produced is going into use, why is it necessary to take steps to increase the sale of the product? The position is deceptive. The increased demand for wool is due to two reasons: First, to the disturbed international situation, with re-armament all over the world; and, secondly, to the temporary shortage which, as the honorable member for Riverina **(Mr. Nock)** has stated exists at the moment. The production of artificial silk has increased from 31,000 lb. 40 years ago to 943,000,000 lb. to-day. Research and publicity have been solely responsible for that increase. It will be noted that the manufacturers of rayon no longer describe it as artificial silk because of the psychological effect upon persons who are disinclined to purchase an artificial product. The latest discovery, staple fibre, is probably the greatest danger to the wool industry. Chemically, it is the same as rayon, being made from wood pulp, but it can be cut into short lengths, and will spin up to about 150 counts, not one long length like rayon. A very real danger to the wool industry lies in the fact that the manufacturers of Great Britain who have experienced difficulty! in continuing their operations with woollen textiles, need no alteration of their machinery to handle the artificial fibres which are now on the market. Surely, then, there is need for immediate action! That wool cannot hope to compete with rayon or staple fibre on a price basis, is universally recognized. It has to compete on a virtue basis. Only by intensive publicity and research, leading to an improvement of the methods of producing what the public requires, will wool maintain its rightful place. Any vital injury suffered by the industry would be calamitous to Australia. I fail to see why opposition should, be offered to the bill in its present form. The need for a preliminary poll is exaggerated. The amount for which any individual would be responsible, is comparatively small. A man with 500 sheep would contribute only about 6s. a year. The cost of a poll would be out of all proportion to the result obtained. I am quite sure that even those who favour the taking of a poll know perfectly well what the result of one would be. {: #subdebate-38-0-s2 .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay -- I have given much consideration to this subject, particularly because one pastoral association in Queensland is opposed to the proposal, claiming that the demand for wool is even now in excess of production without advertising effort, that, therefore, the need for advertising does not exist, that there is no assurance that the grower would' receive any increase of his returns to enable him to meet the extra tax, that, generally, the fund would be used more for the purpose of extending the use of wool than in any other direction, and that the scheme is i.ot desired by the industry throughout Australia. {: .speaker-KVN} ##### Mr Street: -- Does the honorable member agree with that? {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- I have taken the precaution to make myself *au fait* with the position generally. I find that, as has been pointed out by many speakers, including the honorable member for Corangamite **(Mr. Street),** there is dangerous propaganda throughout the world against the use of woollen goods, and it must he counteracted in the interests of the wool industry. I have communicated with the United Graziers Association of Queensland, and have received from that body a reply which reads as follows: - >With regard to the proposal of a levy of not more than ls. per bale per annum for publicity and research in the wool industry, may I say that the Graziers Federal Council and the Australian Wool-growers Council, which bodies represent the organized woolgrowers of Australia, passed the following resolutions as recommendations to the affiliated associations in the other States of the Commonwealth : - > >That this joint meeting of the Graziers Federal Council and the Australian Woolgrowers Council is in favour of raising a fund for improving the production and increasing the use of wool throughout the world by any means, including publicity and research, which, in the opinion of the controlling body, will attain this end. > >That the said fund be raised by a compulsory levy with legislative authority. > >That the levy to be imposed be at the rate of not more than ls. per bale in any one year. > >That' the Commonwealth Government be asked to arrange for the collection of the said levy, and that it be suggested that this be done under the excise powers of the Commonwealth. A sub-committee was appointed to consider the constitution of a body to control and administer the proposed fund. It is not correct to say that this is a move by the manufacturers in their own interests ; it is a move by the wool-growers in their own interests. These recommendations were made on the distinct understanding that the manufacturers would enter into the question of publicity and technical research on a pro rata basis and also that the growers of New Zealand and South Africa, and, possibly, Argentina would take similar action to that proposed in this country. No approach had then been made to the Commonwealth Government. Since then the Commonwealth Government has fallen in with a scheme which is claimed to be almost unanimously desired by the. wool-growers throughout the Commonwealth. As the result of conferences between the wool-growers and representatives of British woollen trade interests who came to this country not to further their own interests, but at the invitation of the wool-growers, this bill has been brought forward. I think the following extract from *The Pastoral Review* sums up the opinions which actuated those who advocated the suggested levy: - >The aim of advertising is to counteract the claims, not always supportable in fact, made for wool's competitors, rayon, vistra, " milkwool ", and the like and to place and keep before the public the inherent virtues of wool as an article of use in many spheres. It is not, however, so much the sometimes extravagant claims made on behalf of wool substitutes that are dangerous to natural wool as the actual goods turned out from them - goods which speak for themselves and which within limits have an undoubted value. As the result of intensive research these have been and are continuing to be immeasurably improved. They have an ever-widening appeal, and by clever advertising and salesmanship that appeal is being translated into constantly increasing consumption. , . . No one can possibly lay it down as a definite fact that the substitution will not be evolved that will supplant wool. It is only necessary to visualize the consequences to Australia of such a possibility to realize the vital importance of keeping wool in the forefront of public estimation. Having closely studied all aspects of the position, I can make no other decision than to support the bill and thereby the aims of the Australian wool-growers. The fund that will be raised will be used to counteract the scurrilous propaganda that is being used by the people behind the wool substitutes to the detriment of the wool trade. At a very small cost, this bill should bring about great benefits. It has been said that this Government is trying to control the wool industry in the same way as it controls the production and the overseas marketing of butter and dried fruits. That is not the case. The graziers will still remain in full control of the marketing of the product. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee.* Clauses 1 to18 agreed to. Amendment (by **Mr. Thorby)** agreed to- >That the following new clause be inserted : - 1a. - (1.) An application in writing may be made to the Minister between the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and forty, and the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and forty, for the taking of a poll to determine whether this act shall or shall not continue in operation, and, if the Minister is satisfied that the application is signed by producers who constitute at least ten per centum of all the producers, and who own in the aggregate, at least fifteen per centum of all the sheep in Australia, a poll of producers shall be taken accordingly, in the prescribed manner, throughout the Commonwealth. (2.) If, at a poll taken, in pursuance of this section, not later than the thirty-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and forty, votes in favour of the discon tinuance of this act are given by a majority of the producers voting at the poll and by producers owning in the aggregate more than one-half of all the sheep owned by the producers so voting, this act shall cease to have effect upon the thirty-first day of May, One thousand nine hundred and forty-one. (3.) For the purposes of this section "producer " means a person carrying on business of wool-growing exclusively or as part of his business, and owning not less than one hundred sheep. Preamble agreed to. Title- >A bill for an act to make provision for improving the quality and increasing the production and use of Wool. Amendment (by **Mr. Thorby)** agreed to- >That the words " the quality " be omitted. Title, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment and an amended title; report - *by leave -* adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2235 {:#debate-39} ### INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1936 Bill returned from the Senate with a message intimating that it did not insist upon its amendment No. 18 disagreed to by the House of Representatives. {: #debate-39-s0 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP -- *by leave* - I ask that leave be given to the Government to have printed in the margin opposite each section in this new and comprehensive measure a reference to the corresponding section of the old act. This permission is sought to provide a convenience to the many persons who will have occasion to refer to the new act, and who are already familiar with the old act. Similar action was often taken in the early days of federation. Honorable Members. - Hear, hear! **Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).I** see no objection to the suggestion. It does not affect the bill in any way. {: .page-start } page 2235 {:#debate-40} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE The following bills were returned from the Senate without requests : - Supply Bill (No. 1) 1936-1937. Supplementary Appropriation Bill 1934- 1935. {: .page-start } page 2230 {:#debate-41} ### WOOL TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1936 {:#subdebate-41-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-41-0-s0 .speaker-KWC} ##### Mr THORBY:
Acting Minister for Commerce · Calare · CP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. I do nor propose to take up any time in discussing this bill, because the explanation which I gave of the Wool Publicity and Research Bill covers the whole of the ground. This bill is necessary to create the machinery for the collection of the tax provided for in the other bill. I ask honorable members to assist me by proceeding without delay to the committee stage, in order that one or two minor amendments may be made. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee :* Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. Clause 3- (1.) In this act, unless the contrary intention appears - "wool" means wool - (1.) shorn on or after the first day of Juno, Our thousand nine hundred and thirty-six; {: #subdebate-41-0-s1 .speaker-JUB} ##### Sir Donald CAMERON:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · UAP . -I move - >That the word "June", sub-paragraph (b) be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word " July ". Before this legislation was introduced, the impression among wool-growers was that the tax would come into operation as from the 1st July next. The 1st July, and not the 1st June, has for many years been recognized as the beginning of the new wool-growing season. In Queensland, particular objection is raised to the 1st June being the date for the commencement of the tax, because the shearing of wool in that State is carried on throughout the year, whereas in Victoria and New South Wales, it does not. start until the month of July. Owing to the bounteous rains that have fallen a great many more sheep have been shorn than is usual, and I have been advised that during June about 90,000 bales of wool will be shorn. If the Queensland graziers had to pay a levy on this amount of wool, they would be put. in a less favorable position than the graziers in the other States, who would not commence shearing operations until the following month. I understand that as this is a simple request, the Minister is willing to accept it. {: #subdebate-41-0-s2 .speaker-KWC} ##### Mr THORBY:
Acting Minister for Commerce · Calare · CP -- I am prepared to accept the amendment, as it merely means a postponement of the commencement of the act for one month. Amend ment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 4 to 9 agreed to. Clause 10 consequentially amended, and, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 11 to 21 agreed to. Clause 22- {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Where the Commissioner finds in any case that tax has been overpaid, he may refund the amount of tax found to be overpaid.. Amendment (by **Mr. Thorby)** agreed to- >That the word " may ", sub-clause ( 1 ) be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof. the word " shall ". Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 23 to 41 agreed to. Title consequentially amended and. as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments, and with amended title. Report - *by leave* - adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2230 {:#debate-42} ### WOOL TAX BILL 1936 *In Committee of Ways and Means.* {: #debate-42-s0 .speaker-KWC} ##### Mr THORBY:
Acting Minis ter for Commerce · Calare · CP -- I move - >That a tax, at rates to be prescribed by regulations made under the act passed to give effect to this resolution, but not exceeding the rates specified in the following schedule,be imposed on all wool - > >) grown in Australia, and > >shorn on or after the first day of > >July, one thousand nine hundred, and thirty-six. The rates specified in this motion are those referred to in my second-reading speech on the Wool Publicity and Research Bill, and they are the maximum rates that may be imposed. It is proposed that they shall come into force on the 1st July, 1936. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported. Standing Orders suspended; report adopted. *Ordered -* >That **Mr. Thorby** and **Mr. Casey** do prepare and bring in a bill tocarry out the foregoing resolution. Bill brought up by **Mr. Thorby,** and passed through all stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 2237 {:#debate-43} ### WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL 1936 {: #debate-43-s0 .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
ringah - Minister for Defence · War · UAP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. The amendments of the Wireless Telegraphy Act contained in this bill refer solely to the territories under the control of the Commonwealth. Clause 2 of the Measure seeks to amend the definition of " Australia " contained in theprincipal act to ensure that the act will have application of its own force to all the territories of the Commonwealth. It already applies to territories such as Papua, but the new definition extends its application to territories governed by the Commonwealth under mandate from the League of Nations. The Commonwealth, as a signatoryto the International Telecommunications Convention, is obliged to enforce the international wireless laws wherever it governs. It is therefore desirable that the Government should be in a position to see that the duties involved in the enforcement of these laws, such as the allocation of wavelengths to avoid interference between stations of the Commonwealth and the territories, and by these stations with those of other countries, are effectively performed. No difficulty has been experienced, either in the Commonwealth or in Papua, as the result of the control of wireless in that territory, and in the Commonwealth proper, by the Commonwealth Government. The LieutenantGovernor of Papua is consulted wherever possible, and is kept informed of all developments. The Administrator at Rabaul has requested that a similar Arrangement be made for the Mandated Territory of New Guinea. The extension of the application of the principal act to that territory will greatly facilitate the performance of the Commonwealth's obligations under the convention which I have mentioned. It will also make for uniformity throughout the Commonwealth and the Territories under its jurisdiction, in the regulations for the control of wireless telegraphy. Clause 3 of the bill contains a provision intended to clarify a position which arose in Papua recently, when a person was prosecuted for operating wireless apparatus without a licence. The magistrate before whom the complaint was made took the view that he had no jurisdiction to hear cases in respect of offences against the Wireless Telegraphy Act. The inclusion in section 9 of the principal act of the proposed new sub-section (3.) in clause 3 of this bill will remove any doubts in this connexion. Honorable members will gather from what I have said that the bill does not in any way affect the application of the act to the Commonwealth proper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2237 {:#debate-44} ### REMOVAL OF PRISONERS (TERRITORIES) BILL 1935 {: #debate-44-s0 .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · Warringah · UAP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to effect a minor amendment of the Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Act 1923. That measure provided machinery for the removal, where necessary, of persons from any of the Territories of the Commonwealth. Whilst it is general in its application, the necessity for it arose particularly by reason of difficulties experienced in dealing with white prisoners in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea: It was found by the Administration that it was inadvisable to confine white persons in gaol there for lengthy periods because of health reasons, and also the fact that no employment was available to which a white person could be put without loss of prestige to the white population in the eyes of the natives. Subsequent to the passing of the act, arrangements were made with the governments of the States of Queensland and New South Wales for prisoners from a territory to be received into gaols in those States to undergo the sentences imposed upon them by the courts of the territories. The cost of maintenance of such prisoners whilst in custody in Australia is paidby the Administration of the territory from which the prisoner is removed. Section 8 of the act provides that if the Governor-General or the Governor of a State to which a prisoner is removed, requires a prisoner to be returned for discharge to the territory from which he was removed, the prisoner shall be returned to that territory for the purpose of being so discharged at the expiration of his sentence. It provides further that in any other case a prisoner, when discharged at the expiration of his sentence, shall, on application made in such manner and within such time as is prescribed, be entitled to be sent free of cost to the territory from which he was removed. Regulations have been made under the act, requiring an application by a prisoner for a free passage to the territory to be lodged within fourteen days of his discharge. Most of the white residents of New Guinea, prior to going to the territory, were residents of Australia, and arrangements have been made with the Government of New South Wales for prisoners from the territory who were born in New South Wales, or who were resident in that State for some time before going to the territory, to be discharged in the State at the expiration of their sentences. Prisoners who were born in other States or were resident for lengthy periods in those States prior to going to the territory, are discharged in New South Wales at the expiration of their sentences, and the cost of their transport to their former States is paid by the Administration. The law of New Guinea provides for the deportation from that territory of persons convicted of certain offences. If a deportation order is issued against a prisoner who is transferred to Australia to serve his sentence and the prisoner claims a free passage to the territory after discharge in Australia, the Administra tion is put to the expense of a passage for the prisoner to the territory and a passage away from the territory when the deportation order is put into execution immediately after the prisoner returns to the territory. It is not considered that a prisoner against whom a deportation order has been issued should be entitled to a free passage to the territory, and this amending bill has been introduced to. take from such prisoners the right to a passage to the territory after their discharge in Australia. {: #debate-44-s1 .speaker-JPN} ##### Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke .- The bill seems to recognize the rightof a territory to send a person, whom it regards as an undesirable citizen for that territory, back to Australia. He has been convicted, say, in New Guinea, of an offence for which he can be ordered, after completing his term of imprisonment, to be deported, and he is sent to a prison in Australia. His offence is apparently regarded as serious, because the penalty imposed includes deportation. Probably the State in Australia does not want him at all, and, after he has been released from the State prison, New Guinea says that the State must keep him. I suggest that when the State authorities understand the position, they will raise objections to the proposal. {: #debate-44-s2 .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · Warringah · UAP -- *in reply* - If a person went from New South Wales to New Guinea, and was sentenced there to five years' imprisonment, by an arrangement made between the governments of the Commonwealth and of the State he would serve the sentence in a New South Wales gaol. Under the present law, he goes back to New Guinea for his discharge, but it is desired that the release should take place in New South Wales to avoid the expense of sending him to New Guinea, and then returning him to New South Wales. {: .speaker-JPN} ##### Mr Blackburn: -- Have the States been consulted regarding this amendment? {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL: -I understand so. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* The bill. {: #debate-44-s3 .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports -- The complaint has been made at Darwin and Alice Springs that white prisoners are herded together with abo- riginal prisoners. The white men object to the prison accommodation, and to being placed in company with aboriginal prisoners. {: #debate-44-s4 .speaker-JPN} ##### Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke .- In order to preserve the prestige of the white race, and to overcome the difficulty due to the unsatisfactory prison accommodation in the territories, white prisoners are sent to State gaols to serve their sentences. Under the existing law a prisoner, on his discharge, can apply to be repatriated to the territory from which he came, but that territory may have already made an order for his deportation. The bill has beenbrought down to obviate the waste of money incurred in paying, first for his repatriation, and then for his deportation. Have the States actually agreed to this alteration of the law? I think that they will revolt against being burdened with exprisoners who have been deported from territories as unworthy citizens. {: #debate-44-s5 .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · Warringah · UAP -- My advice is that the States are agreeable to the proposed alteration. In any case, they cannot object to it, because, under existing conventions, they are required to take back their former citizens. The bill makes no alteration of accepted principles; it merely eliminates unnecessary travelling expenses. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third time. *Sitting suspended from4.15 p.m. to 8 p.m.* {: .page-start } page 2239 {:#debate-45} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-45-0} #### CUSTOMS TARIFF 1936 **Mr. SPEAKER** (Hon. G. J. Bell).I have received the following message from the Senate : - >The Senate returns to the House of Representatives the bill for "an Act relating to Duties of Customs ", and acquaints the House of Representatives that the Senate has considered Message No. 127 of that House, dated 22nd May, 1936,in reference to such Bill. > >The Senate has agreed to the modification made by the House of Representatives in Request for Amendment No. 3. > >The Senate does not again request the House of Representatives to make the amendments indicated in Requests Nos. 4 and 5. > >The Senatehas resolved to press its Request for Amendment No. 8, and again requests the House of Representatives to make such amendment, as shown in the annexed Schedule. I desire to direct the attention of honorable members to that part of the message in which the Senate presses its request for an amendment. The right of the Senate to press a request for amendment in connexion with the tariff has never been admitted by the House of Representatives, nor has the House yet determined its constitutional rights and obligations in relation thereto. On previous occasions the House considered the message, after passing a resolution that the public welfare demanded the early enactment of the tariff, and that, pending the adoption of joint standing orders, the House refrained from determining its constitutional rights or obligations. It rests with the House to determine whether it will receive and consider the message. In the circumstances of the present case, the House may deem it expedient to act as before - to pass a similar resolution and to inform the Senate of the terms thereof. {: #subdebate-45-0-s0 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP -- I do not intend to discuss the constitutional rights of the House of Representatives in this matter. The question arose in connexion with each of the previous tariffs - those of 1901-2, 1907-8, 1920-21, and 1932-34 - and has been discussed in this House by distinguished and learned Attorneys-General. In 1933, the then Attorney-General **(Mr. Latham),** replying to a question asked by the present Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Paterson)** said, *inter alia -* >The Senate should recognize that the only practical way in which effect may be given to the words of the section which draw a distinction between making a request at any stage of a bill and amending a bill, is by taking the view that a request can be made only once, and that, having made it, the Senate has exercised all the rights and privileges allowed by the Constitution. I shall not say more than that, because I have the greatest respect for the opinion of that learned gentleman. So that the request may be dealt with, I move - >That, having regard to the fact that the public interest demands the early enactment of the tariff, and pending the adoption of Joint Standing Orders, this House refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights or obligations in respect of Message No. 123 received from the Senate in reference to the Customs Tariff Bill 1936, and resolves to consider it forthwith. {: #subdebate-45-0-s1 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Capricornia .- I support the motion wholeheartedly. I believe that I shall have dealt sufficiently with the matter if I read section 53 of the Constitution, which is as follows: - >The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government. > >The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people. > >The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications. I submit that this is really a taxation measure, and that it affects the revenues of the Commonwealth. The Senate has no right to persist in its request for a reduction of duty. It is not necessary to inquire into the merits of the duty, which would have a very far-reaching effect upon industry and employment in this country. I support the attitude adopted by the Minister. Motion agreed to. Motion (by **Mr. White)** agreed to - >That the foregoing resolution be incorporated in the message when the bill is returned to the Senate. *In committee* (Consideration of Senate's message) : Item 359- >By omitting the whole of sub-item (e), and inserting in its stead the following sub-item: - " (e) Parts of bodies enumerated in para graphs (1), (2) and (3) of sub-item (d), viz. : - > >Pressedmetal panels, other - > >For bodies with fixed or movable canopy tops and bodies n.e.i., per lb., British 9d. ; per complete sot, intermediate £37 10s.; general £37 10s. > > *Senate's request* (No. 8). - Add new subparagraph - > >As prescribed by departmental bylaws, British free. > > *House of Representatives' message -* > >Requested amendment not made. *Senate's message* - Request pressed. {: #subdebate-45-0-s2 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP -- This request relates to fabricated motor body panels. The matter has already been thoroughly debated, and, on the voices, the request of the Senate has been rejected. I again move - >That the requested amendment be not made. Motion agreed to. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill accordingly returned to the Senate. {: .page-start } page 2240 {:#debate-46} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF (EXCHANGE ADJUSTMENT) BILL 1936 Bill returned from the Senate with a request. *In committee* (Consideration of Senate's request) : >The Schedule- by omitting " 234 and inserting in its stead "234 (a) except as to goods entered for home consumption on or after the 29th November, 1935, and before the 2nd April, 1936" "234 (b) and "234 (c) ". > > *Senate's request -* > >Leave out all the words and figures after the word "stead"; insert - "'234(a) Except as to goods entered for home consumption on or after 29th November. 1935, and before the 2nd April, 1936 ', '234(b)' and '234(c)' - up to and including 30th November, 1936. 234(b)' and '234(c)'- on and after 1st December, 1936." {: #debate-46-s0 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP -- I move - >That the requested amendment be made. This request continues the exchange adjustment in connexion with the cement duty up to the 1st December in pursuance of the resolution carried in this House yesterday. Motion agreed to. Resolution reported ; report adopted. Bill amended accordingly, returned to the Senate. {: .page-start } page 2240 {:#debate-47} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : - Wool Publicity and Research Bill 1930. Wool Tax Assessment Bill 1936. Wool Tax Bill 1930. Petroleum Oil Search Bill 1930. Dairy Produce Export Control Bill 193C. {: .page-start } page 2241 {:#debate-48} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-48-0} #### SHORTER WORKING WEEK {: #subdebate-48-0-s0 .speaker-JPN} ##### Mr BLACKBURN: *- by leave- I* ask the Prime Minister **(Mr. Lyons)** in connexion with his statement on the 40-hour working week, if it is to 'he taken as implying that if a plaint relating to shorter hours is filed in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, and pressed by the unions, the Commonwealth Government, through its Attorney-General, will intervene to support the claim for shorter hours ? {: #subdebate-48-0-s1 .speaker-F4O} ##### Mr LYONS:
UAP -- No, it does not mean that. The Attorney-General would intervene, and by his intervention would enable the whole question to be dealt with from every aspect, and would, I think, subject to correction by the honorable member who knows this matter thoroughly, enable parties, other than the parties to the original plaint, also to go into the matter, so that it might be thoroughly investigated. But it is not to be taken that the Commonwealth is committed to a 40-hour week before the inquiry starts. {: .page-start } page 2241 {:#debate-49} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-49-0} #### MEMBERS' DINING ROOM {: #subdebate-49-0-s0 .speaker-JOS} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon G J Bell: This morning the honorable member for Hunter **(Mr. James)** referred to an official having a meal in the members' dining room, and asked if I approved; he indicated that he considered that discrimination had been shown because of objections that had been raised on another matter. I said, at the time, that I should make inquiries as to whether the official referred to had been given permission by the President of the Senate, which I indicated I had been informed he had been given. The secretary of the Joint House Committee, **Mr. Broinowski,** has informed me that the late **Sir Walter** Kingsmill, when President of the Senate and Chairman of the House Committee, gave a general permission to Captain Bracegirdle, the Military Secretary to His Excellency the Governor-General, to use the parliamentary refreshment rooms. That privilege has been availed of by Captain Bracegirdle on more than one occasion, but this is the first time it has been questioned. I merely make this statement in order to make it clear that an accusation of intrusion by Captain Bracegirdle into privileges of honorable members is without foundation. *Sitting suspended from 8.15 to 9.27 p.m.* {: .page-start } page 2241 {:#debate-50} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF 1936 Message received from the Senate intimating that it did not further pres.3 request No. S, with which the House of Representatives had not complied. Bill returned from the Senate, a=> amended by the House of Representatives, at the request of the Senate. {: .page-start } page 2241 {:#debate-51} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF (EXCHANGE ADJUSTMENT) BILL 1936 Bill returned from the Senate with a message intimating it had agreed to the bill, as amended by the House of Representatives, at the request of the Senate. {: .page-start } page 2241 {:#debate-52} ### SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Motion (by **Mr. Lyons)** proposed - >That the House, at its rising, adjourn until a date and hour to he fixed by **Mr. Speaker,** which time of meeting shall bc notified by **Mr. Speaker** to each member by telegram or letter. {: #debate-52-s0 .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY:
Swan .- I enter a most emphatic and deliberate protest against the action of the Government in not conforming to the Constitution, by not proroguing Parliament at the end of this sitting, and also in bringing down, on the last day of the sitting, various important changes of the Tariff which impose additional taxes on the people. I do not think that that action is fair. I shall not speak at length as I intended, owing to the desire of members to catch the train, but I hope that, in the future, the Government will endeavour to adhere to the Constitution. The tariff proposals introduced to-day will undoubtedly have fairly big results, possibly a trade war with the United States of America and animosity with other foreign countries, and, in the circumstances, it was the duty of the Government to afford honorable members an opportunity to. discuss them during this sitting of the House. I trust that my protest will be given consideration by the Government, and that it will endeavour in the future to act fairly, in respect of both the Constitution and the rights and privileges of honorable members. {: #debate-52-s1 .speaker-F4O} ##### Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · Wilmot · UAP -- I, like the honorable member for Swan **(Mr. Gregory),** had hoped that Parliament could be prorogued after the conclusion of this sitting. I indicated earlier in this period of the session that the Government desired to conclude the session when the House rose, but that has not been possible. The Constitution does not provide that Parliament must adjourn at a particular period. Thehonorable member has suggested that the tariff proposals tabled to-day should have been considered during this sitting, but that was not practicable. He may rest assured, however, that they will be either considered during this session or validated. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- Sessions have lasted for three years. {: .speaker-F4O} ##### Mr LYONS: -- That is no violation of the Constitution. The tariff proposals which the Government has had submitted to-day are in the best interests of the public, and as soon as they have been disposed of, the Government hopes to bring the session to a close. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 2242 {:#debate-53} ### LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL MEMBERS Motion (by **Mr. Lyons)** agreed to - >That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of. this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. {: .page-start } page 2242 {:#debate-54} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-54-0} #### Resumption of Session - Retirement of Mr. J. H. Stapleton {: #subdebate-54-0-s0 .speaker-F4O} ##### Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · Wilmot · UAP .- I move- >That the House do now adjourn. As indicated by the motion that has just been agreed to, honorable members will be summoned to their next meeting by **Mr. Speaker.** It is hoped that Parliament will re-assemble about the end of August, but the actual date will be determined largely by the time of meeting of the next Premiers Conference, which is to sit in Adelaide. The date of that meeting has not yet been decided. The Government is in consultation with the Premier of South Australia, and the Premiers of the other States on this subject, and is endeavouring to arrange for the conference to be held as early as possible; but the wishes of the Premier of South Australia, in particular, and the other Premiers, will be considered. Parliament will be called together immediately after the Premiers Conference has been held. {: #subdebate-54-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER:
Hon. G. J. Bell -- I take this opportunity to inform honorable members that one of the officers of the Library, **Mr. J.** H. Stapleton, will have retired before Parliament reassembles. **Mr. Stapleton** is one of the few officers of the Parliament left who has seen continuous service since the establishment of federation. I understand that only two other officers with such a record remain among the attendants. **Mr. Stapleton** has rendered good and faithful service to the Commonwealth, and on behalf of all honorable members I wish him a long and happy life after his retirement from the service of the Parliament. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 9.34 p.m., until a date and hour to be fixed by **Mr. Speaker.** {: .page-start } page 2242 {:#debate-55} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS *The following answers to questions were circulated: -* {:#subdebate-55-0} #### Censorship of Books {: #subdebate-55-0-s0 .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr Maloney:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA y asked the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the public a right to know who decides what political books or papers they are allowed to read, and to have sent through the post ? 1. Does the Attorney-General himself read and censor political books; if not, who does? 2. Is it considered right to confiscate without compensation property that is legal elsewhere under the British flag, when, at the time of ordering same, booksellers have no means of knowing whether their action is legal or not? 3. Does the Government exercise its censorship powers under section 51 of the Constitution; if so, under what sub-section, or if not, whence is it derived? {: #subdebate-55-0-s1 .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes:
Minister for Repatriation · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The public may presumably read all book's other than those the importation or transmission of which through the post is prohibited under Commonwealth law, or whose circulation is prohibited under State law. 1. The Attorney-General or an officer of the Attorney-General's Department reads the books and advises thereon. 2. It is the practice to permit importers of literature falling within the terms of the prohibition contained in the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations to return the literature to the exporter. 3. It is not the practice to express opinions on matters of law in reply to questions. {: #subdebate-55-0-s2 .speaker-F4O} ##### Mr Lyons:
UAP s. - On the 2nd April, the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Curtin)** asked me the following questions, *upon notice : -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Government yet given consideration to the frequent requests made in relation to the censorship of political books? 1. If so, will he state the steps the Government proposes to pursue in this matter? In reply, I indicated that the matter had been receiving the attention of the Government, and that a statement would be made at the earliest possible date. I am now in a position to State that, as a result of the further consideration given to the question, the Government does not feel that it would be wise to repeal the provisions under which the censorship is operated. It is desirable, perhaps, that I should recall the exact terms of the regulation dealing with the censorship. The Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, Second Schedule, item 14, sets out a list of " goods the importation of which is prohibited except with the consent of the Minister." The list is as follows: - >Literature wherein is advocated - > >the overthrow by force or violence of the established government of the Commonwealth or of any State or of any other civilized country; > >the overthrow by force or violence of all forms of law: > >the abolition of organized government ; > >the assassination of public officials; or > >the unlawful destruction of property; or literature wherein a seditious intention (as defined by section 34a of the Crimes Act 1914-1932) is expressed or a seditious enterprise advocated. It seems to the Government inadvisable to repeal that regulation, and thus proclaim to the world that books which advocate the views set out in those paragraphs should be allowed untrammelled entry into Australia. As to the books which come within the various subsections (a) to (e), it should be noted that the importation is prohibited " except with the consent of the Minister", and the Minister has, and will have, the complete approval of the Government in interpreting the paragraphs in a spirit consonant with the established British principle of the freedom of the press. But that principle cannot be construed to embrace the advocacy of assassination, of the overthrow by violence of all forms of law, or of the wilful destruction of property. Subsidized Shipping in the Pacific. {: #subdebate-55-0-s3 .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: asked the Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties, *upon notice -* >Will he inform the House of the recommendations drawn up by the sub-committee appointed at the Ottawa Conference, of which he was a member, to deal with subsidized shipping in the Pacific? {: #subdebate-55-0-s4 .speaker-KFS} ##### Sir Henry Gullett:
UAP -- After prolonged discussion, the question was referred for the consideration of British Ministers and High Commissioners in London. {:#subdebate-55-1} #### Conversion Loans: Interest Savings {: #subdebate-55-1-s0 .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr Drakeford:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA d asked the Treasurer, *upon notice -* >What amount was saved in interest only in each of the financial years 1932-33, 1933-34, 1934-35, and 1935-36, on the conversion loans effected in London by the High Commissioner for Australia, the Right Honorable S. M. Bruce? {: #subdebate-55-1-s1 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey:
UAP -- The annual saving in interest, excluding exchange, in respect of loans converted in London in each of the financial years concerned is as follows : - Voluntary Military Training. {: #subdebate-55-1-s2 .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP en asked the Minister for Defence, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that shire and municipal councils in Now South Wales are discouraging voluntary recruiting and training by - (a) refusing servants leave to attend military camps; and (b) compelling servants to deduct time taken off for military camps from their annual leave? 1. Are both these procedures contrary to Commonwealth and State Public Service regulations? 2. Does the Local Government Act of New South Wales protect in any way the servants of local-governing bodies who desire to undergo voluntary training in the Commonwealth Military Forces? 4.If no such protection to servants is given, will the Commonwealth make such representations as may be necessary to the Government of New South Wales, in order to obtain the desired protection, and so allow these trainees, both actual and prospective, to suffer no hardship by reason of their military training? {: #subdebate-55-1-s3 .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale Parkhill:
UAP -- Inquiries will be made, and a reply will be furnished to the honorable member as early as possible. {:#subdebate-55-2} #### Imperial Pensions {: #subdebate-55-2-s0 .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr James: s asked the Treasurer, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the total number of Imperial pensioners resident in the Commonwealth ? 1. What is the number in each State? 2. What is the total amount payable to them annually in pensions? 3. What is the half-yearly amount of the exchange payable thereon? {: #subdebate-55-2-s1 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey:
UAP -- The information is being obtained, and will be furnished to the honorable member as soon as possible.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 22 May 1936, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1936/19360522_reps_14_150/>.