House of Representatives
6 December 1939

15th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 15th Parliament
  3. 1939

Mr. Speaker (Hon. G. J. Bell) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2190

QUESTION

BASIC WAGE ADJUSTMENTS

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– Will the Prime Minister give immediate attention to what is a matter of serious importance to the great mass of wage-earner throughout Australia, namely, the need to make some addition to the basic wage as determined by the Arbitration Court, in order to offset the continuous loss which the workers are sustaining, and must continue to suffer, during the period of “ lag “ before the basic wage is adjusted to meet the changed cost of living figures ? Will the right honorable gentleman give an assurance that something will be done to avoid long debates on this subject, and so prevent the natural discontent that must develop if something is not done?

Mr MENZIES:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I shall discuss the matter with my colleague the Minister for Industry.

page 2190

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS

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

Hoods other than of felt; hat forms of braid and similar material.

Hoop pine for export butter boxes.

Metal hinges, butt and tee.

Ordered to be printed.

page 2190

QUESTION

MILITARY CAMPS

Lackof Refrigeration

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– A recent issue of the Brisbane Telegraph which I have just received contains the statement that at the Redbank Camp large quantities of meat had to be destroyed because of the need for refrigeration in the camp. I know that the Minister for the Armyhas had this matter under consideration. I now ask whether he can give any assurance that at an early date refrigeration will be established at all of the camps in order to present food contamination?

Mr STREET:
Minister for Defence · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · UAP

-I do not know whether or not the statement referred to in the honorable member’s question is accurate, butI do know that in certain Queensland camps, including that at Redbank, refrigeration is to be established as early as possible.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for the Army take into consideration the desirability of sewering the Australian Imperial Force camp at Puckapunyal to improve sanitary conditions generally in that area and so safeguard the health of the troops?

Mr STREET:

– Yes.

page 2191

QUESTION

DEFENCE BELIEF WORKS

Sir EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Acting Treasurer in a position to state what are the defence works of a low order of priority which are to be proceeded with under the grant of £2,000,000 for the purpose of providing employment, and will he state in which States those works are situated, and also the character of such works ?

Mr SPENDER:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I am in a position to answer the right honorable gentleman’s question, but I suggest either that he puts it on the notice-paper, or I shall supply details to him direct if he so desires.

page 2191

QUESTION

CORNSACKS

Mr NOCK:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister repre senting the Minister for Commerce say what number of cornsacks the Commonwealth has arranged to be imported into Australia? Can he say whether these cornsacks were among those which were distributed this week throughout New South Wales? If not, can he say when they will arrive?

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Minister for Health · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Towards the middle of October, the Commonwealth Government, in order to ensure that there would be an adequate supply of cornsacks in Australia, arranged for an additional shipment of 6,000,000 bags. The Commonwealth Government assumed financial responsibility in respect of that portion of the shipment which might be left in the hands of the importers. That shipment is now between Fremantle and Adelaide. It is hoped that it will contribute largely towards a solution of the existing problem. Of a total of 20,000 bales on the vessel, the Commonwealth Government has accepted responsibility in respect of 14,200 bales. Even in respect of the remainder of the shipment I point out that those bales would not have arrived in Australia until January had not the Government taken steps to arrange for a vessel to bring them earlier.

page 2191

QUESTION

MILITARY PAY

Mr SPURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Is it a fact that volunteers and conscript trainees have to serve in the same camp in Tasmania? Is it true that under the scale of payment which was announced by the Prime M inister, volunteers will be paid 8s. a day and conscripts 5s. a day ? If so, does tne Minister for the Army think that it is desirable that there should be such differences of treatment among men in the same camp? If not, will he recommend to Cabinet that all men who are trained during the next year shall receive 8s. a day?

Mr STREET:
UAP

– I think that the statement of the Prime Minister yesterday was perfectly clear. I have nothing to add to it.

page 2191

QUESTION

EMPIRE AIR FORCE

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– Can the Prime Minister say what are the terms of enlistment in the Empire Air Force? If not, when does he expect to be able to make a statement on the subject?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · UAP

– I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject as the Government is waiting until statements can be made simultaneously by the Governments concerned. I hope to be able to do so this week.

page 2191

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

Inquiry into Administration.

Mr CURTIN:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Prime Minister a question which, unfortunately, bears on Order of the Day No. 21, namely, the printing of a paper which is the report of the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner for the year ended the 30th June last. In view of the fact that I moved that motion because of the exigencies occasioned by the Standing Orders, can the right honorable gentleman say whether he is yet in a position to answer a. question which I asked previously as to whether or not the report of the investigation officer, Mr. Sharwood, could be tabled in this House, and whether it is the intention to table the document itself, or a summary of it?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I am able to-day to lay onthe table of the House a statement containing a resume of recent inquiries by Mr. W. H. Sharwood into the administration of the Commonwealth Railways. Asthe statement is a fairly lengthy one I ask that it be incorporated in Hansard. [ Leave granted.] The inquiry was a departmental one and it is not the practice to lay on the table reports of such inquiries, but I must say, for the information of the honorable member, that Mr. Sharwood, who made the investigation, has seen the resume which I propose to rable, and that he regards it as a fair summary of his report.

RÉSUMÉ OF INQUIRIES INTO THE ADMINISTRATIONOF THE COMMON! WEALTH RAILWAYS.

The report of the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner to which the honorable member refers was on the administration of Commonwealth Railways for the year ended the 30th June, 1939. Mr. Sharwood’s report on this inquiry was not issued until the 11th August, 1939. The investigations were proceeding on the30th June, 1939, and it would have been quite improper for the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner to have made any reference to it in his report.

The report, with its appendices, occupies 177 pages, quite apart from the evidence and the exhibits at the inquiry.

Apart from inspections the hearing occupied 21 days in Melbourne, and nine, days at Port Augusta.

There were 33 witnesses, mostly from inside ihe department.

There were 42 allegations made, principally by senior officers in the Service,but also by t wo retired officers.

In the main, the complaints appear to nave arisen firstly out of personal feelings of certain senior officers, who had been reduced in status owing to the amalgamation of two departments, secondly, from the disappointment of certain enthusiastic and conscientious officers at their inability to get the 100 per cent. result they desired owing to shortage of funds, and, thirdly, because certain officers considered that they had been harshly or unfairly treated by the Commissioner, and had no real appeal from his action. Mr. Sharwood said that “’ the outstanding and most gratifying feature of the inquiry was that never at any time was any doubt expressed of the personal honesty and personal integrity of Mr. Gallon.”

The allegations fall into various groups. Many of them were not substantiated; others were substantiated in part but do not involve ihe Commissioner personally.Those in which theCommissioner is personally involved are comparatively trivial in an undertaking of such magnitude.

Considered broadly, the inquiry revealed only-

  1. That Mr. Gahan treatedharshly or unfairly certain of Ms officers in- the following instances: -

    1. On three occasions from June, 1934, to

October, ‘1938; the Commissioner spoke to Mr. Hannaberry in terms derogatory of Mr. Hannaberry or his work and did not give him the opportunity to explain fully the circumstances of the incident. Mr. Hannaberry did not seriously press these allegations at the hearing. They are mentioned by Mr. Sharwood only as furnishing instances of the Commissioner’s reaction to what appeared at the time to the Commissioner to be errors and omissions by Mr. Hannaberry.

  1. The Commissioner failed, without just reason, to give to Mr. Hannaberry an “ official designation commensurate with his technical qualifications, and duties “. He was designated “ Senior Rundmnatcr “ (implying a nonprofessional status), whereas a more appropriate title would have been Assistant Engineer of Maintenance”. This was unfair toMr. Hannaberry as a professional man performing professional duties.
  2. On one occasion, the Commissioner asked Mr. Kendrick, the Locomotive Superintendent, whether certain boiler work shouldhe done in the roundhouse or in the workshops. When Mr. Kendrick did express his views the Commissioner said, “ Just what I thought you would say, and I did not expect anything else from you. You should join the same union as the men under you “. That was unjustified.
  3. On one occasion the Commissioner criticized Mr. H. H. Ford, of Port Augusta, for some omission of his. The Commissioner did not give Mr. Ford a fair opportunity to explain the facts, but said to him, “ I do not know what is coming over you. Ford “. Thereupon, Mr. Sharwood reports, Ford adopted an attitude towards Mr. Gahau which was inconsistent with the maintenance of official discipline and sufficient to warrant serious consure by Mr. Gahan, however much Mr. Ford may have resented the criticism made of his work, and the refusal to give him an opportunity to explain the facts.
  4. On two occasions, the Commissioner told

Mr. Wallis, who was a satisfactory and enthusiastic officer, that he had no initiative. On another occasion, Mr. Gahan was not satisfied with an explanation given by Mr. Wallis about, a certain matter. Mr. Wallis invited Mr. Gahan to go into the workshop, whena better explanation could be given. Mr. Gahan replied that, if that was Mr. Wallis’s attitude, he had better get out of the office,and it was time they got some one in the workshops with some knowledge of workshop practice. Mr. Sharwood thought the Commissioner’s action in these two incidents was hasty and ill-considered, but was the Commissioner’s honest reaction to what appeared to him at the time to be a shortcoming by an officer in connexion with his official duties. In regard to another incident concerning Mr. Wallis. Mr. Sharwood thought Mr. Gahan’s action was justified.

  1. Despite the recommendation of the Chief Engineer, one O’Donoghue an Acting Roadmaster and a temporary officer, was not appointed a Koadmaster on the permanent staff. Mr. Sharwood thought that no convincing reason was given by the Commissioner for not appointing Mr. O’Donoghue to one of the lower grades of Roadmaster on the permanent staff and restricting his salary to an amount commensurate with his work and capabilities. (g) Mr. A. W. Ford, of Melbourne, was directed to go toP’ort Augusta. He immediately stated thathe was unfit to go, owing to failing eyesight.The Commissioner assumed Mr. Ford was merely scheming to avoid the transfer and, in his annoyance, used language inappropriate from the head ofa department to a senior officer. When Mr.Gahan realized the seriousness of Mr. Ford’s condition his manner changed, and there can be no criticism of his subsequent treatment of Mr. Ford.

Those are the only adverse findings as regards the Commissioner’s personal dealings with his men. Mr. Sharwood adds: - “Mr. Gahan’s main concern is the job, and ifhe suspects any officer of slackness or incompetence, his reaction is immediate and his language direct and emphatic occasionally over-emphatic”, and “in his indignation he is impatient of explanations and sometimes refuses to listen to explanations “. Mr. Sharwood also regards as important that “every incidentcited has had relation exclusively to some phase of the officer’s work and has never been based on purely personal grounds “, and. when the immediate occasion is over, he quickly calms down and things resume their normal course.

  1. Thai a serious administrative error was made when the two oranohes - the Mechanical Engineering and the Way and Works - were amalgamated under Mr. Race.

This was admittedly an experiment. There was a. precedent for it, which, in somewhat different circumstances, worked well.

It was at first fairly successful and economical, but it failed badly when extra pressure fell upon the railway administration owing to the heavier, faster and more frequent service inaugurated in June, 1938.

When the amalgamation was made, the Commissioner had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that it would work satisfactorily. It failed, however, partly because of the quality of some of the personnel, and partly because of insufficient civil engineering supervision over the track.

These weaknesses resulted in the track deteriorating rapidly under the new service. Owing to his absence in the Northern Territory at the time, the Commissioner was unaware of the deterioration until it had become serious. Immediately onhis return, he personally investigated the trouble and dealt with it expeditiously and successfully.

Before the inquiry commenced, or was contemplated, . the Commissioner had already deter mined, and taken steps to end the amalgamation and revert to the more satisfactory scheme of having separate engineers in charge of each department.

The amalgamation of the two branches, however, during the months of October and November, 1938, resulted in unnecessary expenditure of some thousands of pounds.

Mr. Sharwood thinks that this is the most serious of the matters investigated during the inquiry.

  1. Incorrect methods’ of compiling accounts ware adopted in some instances.

These are essentially accountancy questions. They raise interesting and difficult problems. In the result, Mr. Sharwood thinks that in some cases a wrong method was adopted. This resulted in certain expenditure being debited to capital which should have been charged to working expenses. It did not result in any wasteful expenditure. Upon accountancy questions, the Commissioner accepted and acted on the advice of his responsible officers and no personal responsibility can be attributed to him for their failure to appreciate and adopt the method of accounting which Mr. Sharwood believes to be the correct one. The wrong methods adopted, however, introduced an element of shop-window dressing in that the net returns from the operation of the railway are shown as more favorable than the facts justified.

As regards the Commissioner’s personal responsibility for any errors or mistakes (which was the main subject of the inquiry), it appears from the detailed finding on each charge that little, if any, responsibility can be attributed to him, except in the cases mentioned above of his treatment of certain officers.

With that exception, in all the cases where Mr. Sharwood has decided that there was some error, the Commissioner had fully considered the matter and had reasonable grounds for the course which ho took, and believed that it would result in the economic and satisfactory working of the department.

That broad outline is a fair summary of the adverse allegations. As against this, however, Mr. Sharwood thinks it is only fair to place in the scales that all parties agreed that Mr. Gahan’s heart and soul are bound up in the Commonwealth Railways undertaking and in the furtherance of its interests, and that he is an indefatigable worker, sparing neither himself nor his officers in his efforts to make the undertaking successful. He is very economical in running his department, and Mr. Sharwood thinks it possible (though he does not decide) that the Commissioner in his desire for economy is too reluctant to appoint additional officers and to give increases in salaries.

One must also take into consideration the fact that these are all the matters, adverse to Mr. Gahan which the complainants have been able to prove as having occurred in the ten years during which he has administered the department, which is a big business undertaking. The head office is in Melbourne but the railways administered are in South Australia, Western Australia, Central Australia, Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, and the sole responsibility for the control and management of this large undertaking lies on the Commissioner and almost every phase of it requires his personal attention.

Arising out of the report are four matters -

  1. The re-creation of separate Departments of Ways and Works and Mechanical Engineering. This work had been commenced before the inquiry was mooted and its progress was necessarily held up during the inquiry itself.
  2. The provision of one further officer in the Mechanical Engineering Section in order to give further supervision to the coordination of the work in the workshops. 3.The recommendation of Mr. Sharwood that a board be appointed from among the senior officers of the department to deal with classifications of staff, to hear appeals, and, generally, to relieve the Commissioner from having to attend to such matters in person. During the hearing, the Commissioner, in evidence, expressed himself as being in favour of such a board.
  3. The amounts involved in the accountancy matters are not so great or of sufficient importance to warrant the time and trouble which would be taken to make the adjustments, assuming that such is possible at the present time. The matter has, however, been brought to the notice of the Treasury.

page 2194

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Claim Against Government

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

– Is it correct, as reported in the press, that 25 members of the Royal Australian Air Force in New South Wales have submitted a claim for £280 against the Commonwealth Government? If so, will the Minister give the reasons for such a claim, and state whether the Government proposes to pay the money claimed to the men? If not, why not?

Mr HOLT:
Minister without portfolio, assisting the Minister for Supply and Development · FAWKNER, VICTORIA · UAP

– I cannot say whether or not the press statement is correct, but I shall have inquiries made and let the honorable member know. 2nd AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE.

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for the Army consider making provision for free transport between the military camp and the town of Seymour to members of the Sixth Division who are in camp atPuckapunyal ? I am informed by members of the Sixth Division that the only existing means of transport consists of private hire vehicles, the charge for which is- . 2s. each way between the camp and Seymour. The Minister will realize that that charge is a very big tax on the pay of the men.

Mr STREET:
UAP

– I am not aware of the conditions regarding transport to and from Seymour and the camp, but I shall make inquiries and shall let the honorable know.

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for the Army able to inform me whether it is a fact that men are being discharged from the 2nd Australian Imperial Force for refusing to be vaccinated?

Mr STREET:

– I should think it highly unlikely, but I shall make inquiries into the subject. .

Mr Rankin:

– They should be.

Mr WILSON:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– Is it a fact that there is a proposal under consideration to pay munitions workers extra pay known as “danger pay”? Will the same consideration be given to soldiers when on active service?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I am not aware of the facts. I shall make inquiries into the matter.

page 2194

QUESTION

WOOL APPRAISEMENTS

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the statements of graziers and executives of woolbroking firms that the first two series of the wool clip were appraised at lower rates than the later series, will the Prime Minister make inquiries with a view to the appointment of a select committee to investigate such statement, and, if it be found to be justified, will he adjust the earlier appraisements?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I shall have inquiries made, but I point out to the honorable member that the whole subject of appraisements is in the hands of the Central Wool Committee, which has been constituted on a wide basis and has ample capacity to handle the wool clip.

Mr Beasley:

– Has the committee power to adjust prices?

Mr MENZIES:

– It has the power to control appraisements within the ultimate limits determined by contract.

Mr McHUGH:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Prime Minister inform me whether the Commonwealth Government has any power over the appraisements of wool in this country seeing that the wool has already been sold under agreement to the Government of the United Kingdom?Isnot the wool now the property of the British Government? I hope, of course, that the Commonwealth Government has power to interfere and see that justice is done, but has it?

Mr MENZIES:

– Questions relating to the appraisement of wool are not very usefully directed to me, as I am not administering the scheme. All I can do is to ascertain from the Minister for Commerce the information that honorable members desire. “ I point out once more, however, that the Commonwealth Government has made an agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom relating to the whole of the wool clip, with the exception of the wool needed for manufacture in Australia, and that the appraising of the wool, with the object of bringing out the average price to the amount agreed upon between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Government, is a highly technical and expert matter - which is being handled by, or is under the control of, the AustralianWool Committee.

page 2195

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH LOANS

Mr JOLLY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Acting Treas urer have prepared a statement showing the total amount of interest on Commonwealth loan which is free of State income tax, and also showing to what degree such interest is free of Commonwealth tax?

Mr SPENDER:

– I have to-day answered a question on notice in almost similar terms. The information desired by the honorable member is contained in that answer.

page 2195

QUESTION

WHEAT STORAGE

Mr THOMPSON:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware that considerable chaos exists at country sidings in New South Wales, and ‘I believe in other States also, particularly in Western Australia, with regard to the delivery of wheat; and can he say whether the Commonwealth Government is assuming any responsibility for the storage of this season’s wheat, or whether that matter is being left entirely to the State governments?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– So far as I know, the whole question of storage, as well as the handling and selling of wheat, is in the hands of the Australian Wheat Board. If it is proposed that the Commonwealth Government should go beyond its existing responsibilities and assume the responsibility for storage, I shall ascertain the position from my colleague the Minister for Commerce. I shall make the necessary inquiry.

page 2195

QUESTION

APPLES AND PEARS

Mr FROST:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce say whether this House will have an opportunity to debate the regulations with regard to the acquisition of apples and pears by the Commonwealth?

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
UAP

– That will depend largely upon persons other than myself, and chiefly on whether time will permit of a full discussion of all of the items on the notice-paper before the Christmas adjournment.

page 2195

QUESTION

PROPOSED BUSINESS SESSION

Mr NAIRN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– When he is satisfied that emergency measures, such as those associated with Australia’s wartime preparations are well in train, will the Prime Minister consider the holding of a purely business session of the Parliament for the purpose of dealing with such subjects as the Mortgage Bank, broadcasting, bankruptcy, patents, trademarks and designs, which have encumbered the notice-paper for some time?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I have the keenest desire to do exactly what the honorable gentleman has suggested.

page 2195

QUESTION

SALE OF PRIMARY PRODUCTS TO JAPAN

Mr WILSON:

– I ask the Prime Minister whether, in order to facilitate the sale of our wheat to Japan, or to any other country which may wish to buy it but has not the necessary credit within Australia, he will consider utilizing, the facilities of the Commonwealth Bank to make the necessary credits available?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– If I may employ a striking and an original phrase, I am quite sure I am right in saying that every avenue has been explored or no stone has been left unturned, in the search for some way out of the credit tangle.

Mr THOMPSON:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce whether he is aware that statements have been made recently inthe press that Japan is endeavouring to purchase 300,000 bales of wool and 200,000 tons of wheat from Australia? Will the honorable gentleman intimate whether, if this statement is a fact, the negotiations are being conducted by the Government of the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth Government? If the Commonwealth Government is acting, will the honorable gentleman ascertain the financial conditions on which the sale will be completed by Japan?

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
UAP

– I am not aware that any such statements have been published in the metropolitan press, but I shall communicate the honorable gentleman’s question to the Minister for Commerce to see whether he can clarify the position.

page 2196

QUESTION

WHEATPAYMENTS

Mr SCULLY:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Prime Minis ter inform me how the Government intends to dispose of the proceeds of the flour tax? Is it intended that it shall represent an additional sum to the price already announced, or that it shall be applied to reimburse the Government in respect! of its guarantee?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– As I indicated the other day, the proceeds of the flour tax will, in the first instance, in substance irrespective of form, bo needed as a part reimbursement of the very large sum of money that will be involved in the guarantee. This sum, as the honorable member knows, will exceed £23,000,000. If, in fact, the sales of wheat yield a sum sufficient in itself to reimbursethe advance that is being made, then the proceeds of the flour tax will be used to supplement the amount to be received by the farmers. The whole problem depends upon the making of sales and the total sum- realized by the sales.

Mr Gregory:

– What about the £2,000,000?

Mr MENZIES:

– All I can say about the £2,000,000 is that I shall be very happy if our liability does not exceed that sum. That statement may, perhaps, be regarded as a broad hint.

Mr McEWEN:

– Will the Prime Minister make it clear that the guaranteed price of 2s. 10½d. will not be contingent upon realizations, and that there will be no likelihood that the farmers will be called upon to repay any amount if realizations, plus the £2,000,000 and the proceeds of the flour tax do not give that total price? I should like to be assured that the farmers will not be required to make any re-adjustment from subsequent crops. .

Mr MENZIES:

– No question of any reimbursement by the farmers has arisen. If 2s.10½d. a bushel is not obtained, we realize quite plainly that the amount by which it falls short will be to the loss of our account. I speak, of course, of the proceeds of the harvest which is the subject-matter of the guarantee.

Mr WILSON:

– In view of the straitened financial condition of the wheat farmers, will the Government take some positive action to expedite the first payment on deliveries of wheat?

Mr SPENDER:

– As the Prime Minister indicated, the first payment will be made as soon as practicable.

page 2196

QUESTION

CATTLE TICK ERADICATION

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Health been approached by the Minister for Agriculture of New SouthWales with a view to securing Commonwealth co-operation in the construction of cattle dips in quarantine areas in New South Wales with the object of controlling and eradicating cattle tick and of preventing the spreading of it along the eastern seaboard of Australia?

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
UAP

-I have no knowledge of any recent representations on the subject, but I shall make inquiries and acquaint the honorable member of the result.

page 2196

QUESTION

MILITARY CANTEENS

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for the Army inform me when I may expect an answer to a question which I placed on the notice-paper some days ago on the subject of wet or dry canteens in military establishments?

Mr STREET:
UAP

– This week.

page 2197

QUESTION

PAY OF MILITARY OFFICERS

Mr RANKIN:

– Will the Minister for the Army give reconsideration to the pay of officers up to the rank of lieutenantcolonel, seeing that it has been decided to increase the pay for men in the ranks, and in view, also, of the fact that the pay of officers to-day is from 6s. to 7s. 6d. less than the rates of 1914, and that to-day the pound is worth only 16s. compared with 1914?

Mr STREET:
UAP

– All aspects of military pay have been fully considered, and the rates now fixed will remain.

page 2197

QUESTION

BALING WIRE

Mr McEWEN:

– I ask the Acting Minister for Supply and Development whether he is able to announce what arrangements will be made for the supply of baling wire for farmers? He was good enough to reply a fortnight ago to a question I asked on this subject. The purport of his answer then was that in about a fortnight’s time, adequate supplies of wire would be available. But I am still receiving many complaints from farmers, who say that they are not yet able to secure baling wire.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
UAP

– This subject has been receiving attention by my department. We have been assured by the suppliers of baling wire that they are making the utmost efforts to meet all requirements. If the honorable member submits specific instances of . shortages to me, I shall be pleased to take the cases up with the suppliers with a view to correcting the position.

page 2197

QUESTION

PERSONNEL OF WARTIME BOARDS AND COMMITTEES

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Prime Minister have prepared and tabled before Parliament goes into recess, a statement bringing up to date the list of all appointments to wartime boards, committees and similar authorities, showing the salaries and allowances paid in each case?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I. shall do my best to comply with the honorable member’s request.

page 2197

QUESTION

PRICE OF COAL

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Trade and Customs seen the report which appears in the stop press column of the Daily News to the following effect -

Canberra - Prices Commissioner fixed the price of coal as follows: -

Maximum for large coal, 17s. a ton, f.o.r. colliery siding; small; 16s. f.o.r.; Wonthaggi, screened 23s.; run of mine, 23s. (id.; slack, 17s.6d.

Is there any truth in the report that the Prices Commissioner has consented to the coal-owners increasing the price of coal? If so, how does the Minister justify the granting of permission for such increases in view of the fact that the coal owners, particularly those of his own electorate, have absolutely refused to meet the request of the employees for improved wages conditions?

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The Commonwealth Prices Commissioner, after a full investigation, gave authority for the following specific increases : -

South Cliftow Colliery Proprietary Limited, New South Wales; an increase of Is. 6d. a ton for 48,000 tons out of a total output of 100,000 tons. An increase was claimed on account of increased wages, workers’ compensation and losses in the last three years. The effect of the increase is that the increased costs will be met and the loss slightly reduced but it will not convert the loss into a profit.

Wonthaggi State Coal Mine, Victoria - The last adjustment in price to the public was in March, 1938. Prices to the Railway Department, which are based on equation tests with Maitland coal, have increased by 2s. 4d. to 3s. 7d. a tonwhile the: increases now granted for sales to the public are only from 2s. to 2s. 6d. per ton. The price of Maitland coal f.o.b. Newcastle was 17s. 3d. a ton in January, 1938 and. 21s. 6d. a ton on the 31st August, 1939. The increase granted applies to 45,000 tons out of a production of 250,000 tons. The mine showed a loss of over £125,000 last year. The total value of the increase is between £5.000 and £6,000 per annum.

I emphasize that no general increase has been permitted.

Mr JAMES:

– Did the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner inquire into the subsidiary activities of the coal owners before agreeing to an increase of the price of coal? I refer to their interests in shipping and iron and steel, and the issue of bonus shares.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! That ques-. tion is obviously based upon a reply given to a previous question. Honorable members will see why the basing of questions on reply to previous questions is prohibited : debate is introduced.

Mr JAMES:

– I want to know what sort of inquiry was held ?

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I have no doubt whatever that a full inquiry was made. I shall have full details prepared and forwarded to the honorable gentleman.

page 2198

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Menzies) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until 10.30 a.m. to-morrow.

page 2198

QUESTION

CONTRACTS FOR MILITARY CLOTHING

Mr BEASLEY:

-Will the Acting Minister for Supply and Development make available the names and addresses of successful contractors for the supply of military clothing for the defence forces in New South Wales? Will the honorable gentleman regard this as an urgent matter, so that the representatives of the unions whose members are concerned may take steps to stop the obvious sweating and reductions of wages now taking place in the trade?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is out of order.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
UAP

– I shall give consideration to the request.

page 2198

QUESTION

EXPENSES OF ADVISORY ORGANIZATIONS

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– On the 16th November last, I placed a question on the notice-paper relating to the expenses paid to members of advisory boards or committees set up by the Government. Up to last week the reply had not yet been received, which, the Prime Minister agreed, was unusual. I ask the right honorable gentleman now if these unusual circumstances have yet ceased to exist, and when I might expect a reply to my question?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– As the honorable member will appreciate, the question involved a reference to all departments, and a good deal of labour has been involved in some departments, particularly the Departments of Commerce and Defence, in working the matter out. I am now told that the information will be ready for submission to me this afternoon, and I shall therefore be in a position to answer the question to-morrow.

page 2198

QUESTION

WATERSIDE WORKERS

Industrial Conditions

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

– During the last period of this session I asked the Attorney-General whether it was the intention of the Government to adopt the recommendation of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. John Lawson) that the Transport Workers Act should be suspended in a number of ports. The right honorable gentleman then said that he would consider the matter. Has the Government considered it, and, if so, what decision has been arrived at?

Mr HUGHES:
Attorney-General · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The matter has been considered, but no decision has vet been arrived at. I can hardly hold out any hope that it will be settled before the House rises for the Christmas recess.

page 2198

QUESTION

SHIPPING FREIGHTS

Mr MAHONEY:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– In view of the hardship imposed on Tasmanian primary producers owing to the increase of freight rates by 10 per cent., will the Prime Minister set aside a sum of money to compensate the Tasmanian primary producers who ship their surplus products to the mainland market ; and if not, why not?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I am afraid I cannot answer the bit at the end, Mr. Speaker; but insofar as I understood the honorable member to make a suggestion, I shall be very glad to have a look at it without making any commitment in relation to it.

page 2198

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Mr DRAKEFORD:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– Is the Government satisfied that the £2,000,000 made available to the States to undertake works of low -defence value for the relief of unemployment at Christmas is being utilized independent of the ordinary relief funds set aside by the governments of all the States? If not, will the Acting Treasurer make inquiries with the object of ascertaining if such is the case? Can the honorable gentleman say whether these works have already been commenced, and if not, will he endeavour to have them expedited?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member may not have noticed that there is a similar question on the notice-paper to-day.

Mr Drakeford:

– But I have received information to-day which gives rise to my question.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If a question in similar terms is on the notice-paper it will be answered to-day.

Mr Drakeford:

– I should like the Acting Treasurer to answer the question, if possible.

Mr SPENDER:

– In reply to the first part of the question, I have not been in touch with all of the States, but suggestions have been made with respect to New South Wales that the money made available by the Commonwealth was being used in substitution for the ordinary relief money provided by the New South Wales Government.

Mr Beasley:

– Not additional to the ordinary relief money?

Mr SPENDER:

– No; tie suggestion was that the money made available by the Commonwealth was being used in substitution for money which the New South Wales Government would otherwise have spent on relief work. As the result of inquiries which I have made in New South Wales, I have been assured that there is no foundation for such a statement. As far as the other States are concerned, I shall be pleased to communicate with them to ascertain the actual facts. With regard to the latter part of the question, my information is that works are on the way in all States. It will take some time before they are put fully in hand, but not very long.

Mr Drakeford:

-Will they be put in hand before Christmas?

Mr SPENDER:

– Yes, I understand so.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question asked by the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) was in almost identical terms to a question which appears on the notice-paper to-day. The honorable member must realize that there is a definite rule that if an honorable member places a question on the noticepaper, he is entitled to have the reply. Furthermore, a question on similar terms asked without notice should not be replied to.

page 2199

QUESTION

CHARLTON POST OFFICE

Mr RANKIN:

– Did the PostmasterGeneral make any further inquiries with regard to the post office at Charlton following the questions I asked and the comments I made in regard to this subject on the adjournment of the House? The building, which was erected in 1873, is in a disgraceful condition-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must ask his question.

Mr RANKIN:

– Has the PostmasterGeneral made any inquiries in regard to this matter, and will he pay his promised visit to the Charlton post office in the near future?

Mr HARRISON:
Minister for Repatriation · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The honorable member will realize, I am sure, that the whole of the new works development within the post office must be subordinated to a matter of more pressing importance, namely, defence finance. If I have failed in any way to satisfy the honorable member in respect of his comments on the adjournment of the House, I apologize.

page 2199

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO WHEATGROWERS

Mr WILSON:

– In view of the fact that in many parts of the wheat areas there has been a very considerable percentage of crop failures this year, will the Prime Minister consider giving a direction that that portion of the flour tax, which was originally ear-marked for the purpose of removing settlers from marginal areas, be applied to the provision of assistance for settlers whose crops have failed owing to drought conditions ?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I shall bring the honorable member’s suggestion under the notice of my colleague, the Minister for Commerce.

page 2200

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Mr WARD:

– In view of the fact that living costs have considerably increased since the rates were previously fixed, will the Government grant an increase of the present rates of invalid, old-age and war pensions? If the Government does not propose to take such action, is it because it considers that the present rates are adequate, or are there other reasons for not increasingthem? If there are other reasons, will the Prime Minister mention them ?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– The Government is not prepared to take the course suggested by the honorable member.

page 2200

CURTAILMENT OF POSTAL FACILITIES

Mr THOMPSON:

– Is the PostmasterGeneral aware-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is not in order in prefacing his question by using the words “Is the Postmaster-General aware. Each question he has asked to-day has been started in that way. Question time is not a time to inquire as to a Minister’s knowledge of various subjects.

Mr THOMPSON:

– Has it come to the knowledge of the Postmaster-General that letters are still being sent out by his department to the effect that facilities, such as mail and telephone extensions, cannot be provided because of the heavy defence commitments of the Government? Will the honorable gentleman say whether it is the fixed policy of the department to pursue this attitude during the war period, or is he prepared to consider all cases on their merits?

Mr HARRISON:
UAP

– I am aware of the fact that these letters are being sent out. Obviously the policy of the department must be based on the amount of money made available to it in the budget. Insofar as that money is made available, additional developmental work will be undertaken.

page 2200

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICA

Mr CLARK:

– In view of the decision of the South African Government as reported in the Cape Times of the 10th November, 1939, not to send troops abroad,, will the Prime Minister lay on the table of the House a paper setting out the reasons which prompted the South African Government to make that decision, before the Australian Government carries out its intention to send troops overseas?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I have not been informed by the South African Government as to its reasons for the adoption of any particular policy, and I therefore would not be able to table any such document. Indeed, I question very much the accuracy of the report referred to by the honorable member, because I have seen it stated that the South African Government is contemplating sending an air force to Europe. If that be so, it would appear to contradict the report mentioned by the honorable member. In any event, I go back to my original statement that I have received no official statement from the South African Government, nor, so far as I am aware, has any of my colleagues, and, therefore, I cannot place any document on the table of the House.

Mr BEASLEY:

– Will the Minister for Information take steps to peruse a copy of the Cape Times of Friday, the 10th November, which contains a statement made by the Information Officer in a broadcast speech on behalf of the Parliament of the Union that -

It is necessary for the Information Officer to state once again that it is not the intention of the Union Government to send troops overseas.

I should like that matter to be investigated by the Department of Information and the result to be conveyed to this House before we go into recess, because this is an important matter which bears on a statement made by the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth.

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
Minister for External Affairs · HENTY, VICTORIA · UAP

– I shall take the honorable member’s request into consideration.

page 2200

QUESTION

SIR HARRY BROWN

Resignation as Director-General of Postal Services.

Mr GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the PostmasterGeneral seen the paragraph in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning, stating that Sir Harry Brown said at Launceston that six months ago he did not think he would be leaving the Post Office, and that he hinted that, as the result of a disagreement within the office itself, he found himself out of step ? ls the Minister in a position to state what was the subject of the disagreement?

Mr HARRISON:
UAP

– I have seen the statement referred to by the honorable member. I am not in a position to add anything at all to the statement made by Sir Harry Brown, beyond saying that nobody regrets more than- myself that he saw fit to send in his resignation to the Government and to vacate an office which he filled with great distinction to himself and satisfaction to the governments under which he worked.

page 2201

QUESTION

DIVORCE LAW

Mr JENNINGS:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Government in view legislation to make the divorce laws uniform throughout the Commonwealth in order to end the confusion which is stated to exist ?

Mr HUGHES:
UAP

– I noted in the press the other day that a deputation intended to wait on the Prime Minister. I know nothing at all about it. No representations have been made to me.

page 2201

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr McHUGH:

– Can the Acting Treasurer say whether the Government has granted the request of the Premier of South Australia for diversion of some of the £175,000 Commonwealth grant from approved works to other works?

Mr SPENDER:

– I have seen no such request. I indicated earlier to the honorable gentleman that if representations were made to me by the Premier of South Australia, I should give them full consideration.

Mr McHugh:

– A request went to the Prime Minister’s Department.

Mr SPENDER:

– I shall inquire whether a request has been made to the Prime Minister.

Later:

Mr McHUGH:

– I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to give me a satisfactory reply when I ask him, as I have already unsuccessfully asked the Acting Treasurer, whether the South Australian Government has asked for the diversion of money to other works than those specified?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I shall find out the position and advise the honorable member to-morrow.

page 2201

QUESTION

BANKRUPTCY ACT

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with the hill to amend the Bankruptcy Act?

Mr HUGHES:
UAP

– lt is not the intention of the Government to attempt to amend the Bankruptcy Act before we rise.

page 2201

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE RECRUITING

Mr WHITE:

– In order to clear any uncertainty in the minds of intending recruits for >the Royal Australian Air Force, will the Acting Minister for Air make a statement not later than the end of this week, giving the terms and places of enlistment either for overseas or for home service?

Mr HOLT:
UAP

– Since I informed the House that I hoped to make a general statement on recruiting, the Empire Air Training Scheme has been completed, and it has been decided to postpone the general statement on recruiting until the details of that scheme have been announced. If the honorable gentleman has in mind any applicant who requires further details, I shall be glad to attend to the matter.

page 2201

QUESTION

SEMI-GOVERNMENT LOANS

Mr McEWEN:

– Under .the National Security Act regulations, the raising of loans by semi-government bodies, I understand, is conditioned by limitation of the rate of interest to 4f per cent. . I have been approached by representatives of the. Wodonga sewerage authority and the Beechworth Shire Council, who have informed me that they can raise loans at that rate of interest, but that they will be required to pay a brokerage charge. They have been informed by the Director of Finance in Victoria that the payment of a brokerage charge will increase the effective rate of interest above 4$ per cent. What is the position?

Mr SPENDER:

– Semi-government loans fall into two categories. Loans not exceeding £25.000 in a. year are not. subject to any Commonwealth control, but their raising must be approved by the Treasurer of the State in which .the local body concerned is situated. Loans of over that amount are subject to Commonwealth control. In the fixation of the effective rate of interest, all expenses excluding the usual legal costs, are taken into consideration. In the cases referred to by the honorable member, the brokerage would increase the effective rates of interest to more than 4¾ per cent.

page 2202

QUESTION

SUPPLIES OF QUICKSILVER

Mr GREEN:

– Has the Acting Minister for Supply and Development received complaints from remote mining districts that it is impossible for miners to obtain supplies of quicksilver because merchants have told them that supplies are not available?

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
UAP

– I have no knowledge of such complaints, but I shall make inquiries.

page 2202

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY RECESS

Mr THOMPSON:

– Can the Prime Minister say whether the Parliament will go into recess this week or next week?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– Hope springs eternal in the human breast. I am therefore thinking of Friday afternoon.

page 2202

ARBITRATION COURT JUDGES

Mr WARD:

– I desire to know from the Attorney-General whether, in view of the obvious fact that recent decisions on certain matters referred to the Arbitration Court indicate that certain of the judges, because of advancing age-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must ask a question, not give information.

Mr WARD:

– I desire to ask whether, in view of the fact that advancing age is impairing the capacity of certain Arbitration Court judges-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! It is quite clear that the intention of the question is to direct attention to certain things which the honorable gentleman says are a fact. That is not in order.

Mr WARD:

– What I am endeavouring to ascertain from the AttorneyGeneral is whether, in view of the fact that advancing age is impairing the capacity of some of the judges-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member will resume his seat.

Mr GANDER:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Government intend to appoint new judges to the Federal Arbitration Court?

Mr HUGHES:
UAP

– No.

THE LATE Dr. F. LIDDELL.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to inform the House that I have received from Miss Liddell a letter thanking the House for its resolution of sympathy.

page 2202

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1939

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 10)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 5th December (vide page 2128), on motion by Mr. John Lawson -

That the schedule to the Customs Tariff be amended.

Division 5. - Textiles, Felts and Furs, and Manufactures thereof, and Attire.

Items 110 and 120 agreed to.

Division 6. - Metals and Machinery

Items 146, 151, 158, 170, 174, 176, 177, 178, 181 and 219 agreed to.

Division 7. - Oils, Paints and Varnishes

Item 229a agreed to.

Division 9. - Drugs and Chemicals. Item 269 agreed to.

Division 11. - Jewellery and Fancy Goods

Item 320 agreed to.

Division 12. - Hides, Leather and Rubber

Items 326 and 333 agreed to.

Division 13. - Paper and Stationery

Item 338 agreed to.

Division 16. - Miscellaneous

Item 390 agreed to.

Item 392 (Yarns)

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

– I take it that the object of the Minister for Trade and Customs, (Mr. John Lawson), in increasing the duty on condenser yarns, &c, for the manufacture of towelling, is to increase the demand for Australiangrown cotton. To that extent it has my support, but it is not sufficient merely to increase the demand for Australiangrown cotton; it is also necessary to increase the production of raw cotton in this country to meet the demand. The immediate requirements of the Australian manufacturers are 35,000 hales, and Australian production falls short of that by 15,000 bales. When these new duties become operative, the demand for Australian raw cotton will increase. It is expected that within the next two years there will be a demand in Australia for 50,000 bales of raw cotton. It should be our objective to ensure that Australian manufacturers are supplied with raw cotton from Australian farms. That, I believe, is the Minister’s ambition, but in order to achieve it he must lay down a long-range plan for the encouragement of the cotton-growing industry. The decision of the Government to restrict the payment of a bounty on raw cotton to one year will have the effect of retarding development of the industry by holding up irrigation undertakings. The bounty legislation should’ be re-enacted for a period of at least five years. The Queensland Government tentatively agreed to do a number of things to assist the industry, provided the Commonwealth Government embarked upon a long-range plan, particularly in regard to the cotton bounty. The State Government agreed to make a grant of £30,000 for the year 1939-40 to assist individual growers to install pumping plant; also, to conduct investigations into the most suitable kinds of land, and to establish irrigation works. Cultural experiments were to be carried out, and dry-farming methods studied, because dry farming would have to be continued until irrigation schemes were established. The recent proposal of the Minister that the bounty legislation would have a currency during the war of -not more than twelve months will affect the expansion of the industry most detrimentally, and will retard irrigation developments. The chief problem in Queensland is one of production. The industry was revived in 1920, and since then cotton has been grown with the aid of natural rainfall only. The average yield per acre is very low, and the raising of cotton is, for the most part, unprofitable to the growers. Unless the acreage yield can be increased, the industry is faced with gradual extinction;

The Cotton Board considered this ques* tion, and came to the conclusion that only by irrigation could production be increased and the industry placed on a sound and profitable basis. After the Tariff Board’s report was presented to the Government in April 1939, negotiations were commenced between the Commonwealth and the Government of Queensland regarding the future of the industry. It was recognized that something further would have to be done if the industry were to expand, so as to supply all requirements” of Australian spinners from the product of Australian farms. The urgent need for increasing the acreage yield was recognized by both governments. It was agreed that the Queensland Government should undertake extensive irrigation works, and it was understood that this could only be made an economic proposition if a long-term plan were embarked upon. Therefore, the Queensland Government asked that the bountyon raw cotton be granted for a period of at least five years. Preliminary investigations were begun and the Queensland Government is prepared to fulfil its part of the undertaking. The hold-up has been caused by the announcement of the Commonwealth Government that the bounty legislation will be reviewed from year to year. The experience of growers’ in the United States of America shows clearly the value of irrigation in the growing of cotton. There, the acreage yield was increased by irrigation from 400 lb. to 1,500 lb. Experiments conducted by the Queensland Cotton Board show that production in Queensland has been increased fourfold as the result of irrigation. It would be a bad thing for Queensland, and for Australia generally, if the cotton-growing industry were to be extinguished. There are 3,600 growers, and seasonal employment is provided for 3,000 workers who migrate from cottonpicking to cane-cutting, obtaining a few months’ work in each industry. If these men are to be deprived of employment in the cotton industry their annual income will be substantially reduced, and there will be less money in circulation. There will be a general increase of unemployment, and more persons will be seeking the dole. I therefore urge the Minister to treat this as a matter of importance. The reenactment of bounty legislation for one year does not meet the situation. There is no certainty as to the future, and this is having a disturbing effect upon the growers. In ‘the past, they have not obtained a sufficient return for their product to enable them to develop their holdings. Many of them have not earned even the basic wage after expenses have been paid, and they have been unable to do the fair thing by those whom they employ. In many instances the cotton-pickers have to live in tents and bag humpies. That is not the wish of the growers. If the industry were profitable they would like to provide the same conditions for their employees as are provided generally in the pastoral industry. It is with a view to placing the industry on a proper footing that I appeal to the Minister to embark upon a long-range plan, including the payment of a bounty for five years. The bounty might be on a diminishing scale, the protective duties being made to rise as the bounty falls.

Item agreed to.

Items 393, 415 and 419 agreed to.

Item 392 (Yarns) (c) Woollen or containing wool - -by leave - reconsidered.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- It is proposed to reduce the British preferential tariff from 6d. per lb. and 25 per cent. ad valorem to 4d. per lb. and 10 per cent. ad valorem, and the general tariff from1s. per lb. and 42½ per cent. ad valorem to1s. per lb. and 35 per cent. ad valorem. There is no justification for the reduction. The total production of woollen yarns in Australia, based on the output for 1935-36, is approximately 27,700,000 lb. per annum. The output of yarns used in weaving is approximately 21,500,000 lb. per annum, and, in addition, the output of knitting and fingering yarns amounts to 6,200,000 lb. Importations of yarns in 1935-36 totalled 274,000 lb. Nearly all of the woollen mills in Australia treat the wool from the time that it arrives in the bale. They class and scour it, spin it into yarns and weave and dye it. In many instances, all of the work is done under the one roof, whereas in England many manufacturers specialize in the production of yarns only. Messrs. Paton and Baldwins, of Launceston, specialize in the weaving of wool yarns. There is no difficulty in getting in Australia the whole of our requirements of woollen yarns. The same argument applies to worsteds and ladies’ lightweight dress materials, on which the committee expressed an unmistakable verdict last night. As I dealt at some length with the woollen industry last night, I shall not go into details to-day, but shall leave the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard), who has intimate knowledge of this subject, to bring certain facts before the committee. Last night the committee made it clear that it does not intend to accept willy-nilly any recommendation of the Tariff Board, and I hope that, in respect of these duties also, it will take a similar stand.

The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) said that at one period he was under a misapprehension with regard to the Ottawa Agreement/ He believed that, if the Parliament did not endorse a recommendation of the Tariff Board for a reduction of duty, it thereby committed a breach of the Ottawa Agreement, but subsequently he realized that was not so. The honorable gentleman said -

However, a new interpretation has now been placed on the Ottawa Agreement. Article 11 of the agreement specifies that Parliament shall be “ invited to vary “ the rates of duty. The full text of the article is as follows : - “His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia undertakes that a review shall be made as soon as practicable by the Australian Tariff Board of existing protective duties in accordance with the principles laid down in Article 10 hereof, and that after the receipt of the report and recommendation of the Tariff Board the Commonwealth Parliament shall be invited to vary, wherever necessary the tariff on goods of. United Kingdom origin such manner as to give effect to such principles.

Article 10 is in these terms -

His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia undertakes that during the currency of this agreement the tariff shall be based on the principle that protective duties shall not exceed such a level as will give United Kingdom producers full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of the relative cost of economical and efficient production, provided that in the application of such principle special consideration may be given in the ease of industries not fully estab- lished." The significance of the article lies in the words " invited to vary ". WhenI was putting through the tariff schedule in 1933. I understood those words to mean that any defeat of a recommendation of the Tariff Board would involve the violation of the agreement, and I said so on more than one occasion. That was also the opinion of the honorable member for Henty **(Sir HenryGullett),** who had taken part in the framing of the agreement.

Among the supporters of the Government there was no unanimity on the subject. The Government obtained the opinions of eminent counsel, and at the time it adhered to the policy propounded by the then Minister for Trade and Customs. Later, when speaking at Geelong, the Minister expressed opinions in relation to the Ottawa Agreement which were in conformity with the views expressed by honorable members on this side of the chamber. We had described it as an iniquitous agreement which cut across the protectionist policy of Australia, in that it took from the Parliament the right to fix what it thought to be adequate protection and handed over the whole business to a body consisting of public servants and representatives of industry, which had been created by the Parliament. In dealing with the many tariff items which have come before it the Tariff Board has always had in view the reduction of the protective incidence of the tariff in order that overseas manufacturers may compete on favorable terms in the Australian market. The Labour party has always held that charity begins at home, and that the first responsibility of the National Parliament is to Australia and Australian workers. It is our privilege and duty to protect the livelihood of the 500,000 Australians who are engaged in secondary industries in this country. On this point, the members of the Country party should support the Labour party because they frequently bring forward requests that the primary producers of this country should be paid for their produce a home-consumption price based on the cost of production. I remind members of that party that a homeconsumption price can be paid to the primary producers only so long as we have in Australia a contented population of workers in receipt of decent wages. Were it not for the market provided by the workers, it would be impossible to pay bounties to the growers of wheat, fruit, butter and other primary products. On this question, the Labour party does not face both ways, but there are certain honorable gentlemen in this chamber who try to have one foot in the freetrade camp while claiming also a place in the protectionist camp. They want 300 per cent. protection tor all that they produce and freetrade in respect of the things they do not produce. Their inconsistency brings them into all kinds of difficulties, so that one day we find them fighting one another, and the next day voting together. Just as the committee last night disregarded the recommendation of the Tariff Board in respect of woollen piece goods, so I trust that to-day it will act similarly in regard to woollen yarns and wool tops. I invite honorable members to reject this proposal. The previous duties should be restored.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I associate myself with the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), on this. item. The proposal of the Government provides for a reduction of the duty from 6d. per lb. and 25 per cent. ad valorem, subject to exchange adjustment, British, and 1s. per lb. and 42½ per cent. ad. valorem general, to 4d. per lb. and 10 per cent. ad valorem, with exchange adjustment . 6 per cent. ad valorem British, and1s., 35 per cent., and . 7 per cent. respectively, general. I strongly oppose the alteration. The reasons I gave last night for resisting the proposed reduction of duties on woollen piece goods apply with equal force to this proposed reduction of duties on yarns. I said last night that because of the war, the full effect of any such reduction might not be felt immediately, but that the reduction was sure to have a seriously adverse effect on the industry when normal conditions returned and when normal shipping was available. This industry is of great importance in myelectorate where 1,250 hands areemployed in making woollen yarns. Their pay roll is considerably more than £3,000 a week. I have watched the industry grow from very small beginnings to its present proportions. It would be serious for the Government to interfere with the industry. If the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. John Lawson) is not prepared to withdraw the item for reconsideration, I trust that honorable members generally will deal with it as they dealt last night with the item relating to woollen niece goods. No doubt the Minister will say that the Government is under an obligation to honour the Ottawa Agreement. The Ottawa Conference was held in July and August, 1932, and the agreement was signed on the 20th August. The Tariff Board, in September, 1932, recommended certain revisions of duties. Subsequently, when these came before Parliament, the then Minister for Trade and Customs said that the new rates gave effect to the formula for margins of preference and other charges agreed to by the Australian delegation at Ottawa. In these circumstances the duties then agreed to should be continued. I admit that the proposed new duties carry the unanimous recommendation of the Tariff Board.

Mr Pollard:

– But it was a very wrong recommendation !

Mr BARNARD:

– I agree with the honorable member. The yarn manufacturers in my electorate are very concerned about the situation. If the duties are reduced, the results may be extremely serious to the Australian people. Under the rates of duty now proposed, the firm would probably be able in normal times to send Australian wool to Scotland, manufacture it there, and return the finished product to Australia at a cheaper rate than it could be produced for in Tasmania. “We should not take the risk of any such happening. The growth of this industry has been remarkable. Its operations are decentralized and all the circumstances of the case warrant the extending of the most favorable consideration to it. I shall not labour the matter as I covered the ground fairly fully last night. I submit that, as the company is not earning exorbitant profits, and as it is producing a satisfactory article, it should be accorded the protection it deserves. Lower duties than those which applied prior to the introduction of this schedule should not even be considered.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong

– The Government has produced no evidence to support this proposed reduction of duty, but apparently it feels obliged to give full effect to all recommendations of the Tariff Board in respect of woollen goods. I suggest, however, that it would be wipe to take cognizance of the vote recorded by honorable members last night when the Government proposals were defeated. Any reduction of the duties affect ing the woollen trade , should be strongly resisted. Honorable members indicated last night that this was their view. I do not propose to traverse the ground so effectively covered by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde). I simply urge the Government not to regard, the Tariff Board as an infallible body, but to give some attention to the expressed views of honorable members of the committee. The Tariff Board should not be permitted to override Parliament, and it is unreasonable, in my opinion, for the Government to expect us to accept, without question, every recommendation that the Tariff Board may make of this kind. No justification has been advanced for any reduction of these duties and, therefore, I hope that the vote which honorable members gave last night in respect of the duties on woollen piece goods will be repeated in respect of these yarns.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– ‘Honorable members who have criticized this proposal should bear in mind that primarily the Government is actuated by the desire to do the fair and reasonable thing towards the United Kingdom. This proposal is fair and reasonable. The total production of woollen yarns in Australia in 1937-38 exceeded 30,000,000 lb., while imports in the same year totalled 238,000 lb. - considerably less than 1 per cent, of local production. Raw wool for spinning into yarn is available in Australia at world parity prices and represents from 60 per cent, to 75 per cent, of the total yarn cost. Existing duties are high, and on a typical yarn of United Kingdom origin exceed 14d. per lb., which is equivalent to two- thirds of the costs incurred in Australia in all the processes of manufacture from greasy wool to finished yarn. Such yarns as are imported are brought in to supply the demand for special varieties not obtainable in Australia. In the majority of yarns examined by the board, the cost of ‘ converting the wool into white yarn exceeded similar British costs by from 20 per cent, to 40 per cent. The production of dyed yarns is a more expensive process, but here again Australian conversion costs do not exceed similar costs in the United Kingdom by more than 40 per cent. The variety of yams required in Australia, especially for fancy dress goods and sports wear, is enormous. The demand is constantly changing, thus rendering it difficult for all types to be economically produced in Australian factories. In a number of instances submitted to the Tariff Board, the Australian price was less than the landed duty-free cost of comparable imported yarns, and this would apply to the great bulk of yarns in big demand. Because of the limited market local prices for fancy yarns are relatively higher. The bulk of yarn is produced in Australia in selfcontained factories and is thus largely immune from overseas competition. While most Australian yarns are available at reasonable prices there are instances where local prices are higher than necessary. The greater part of our imported woollen piece goods consists of cloths in which variety is the predominant sales factor, and in this field local weavers are somewhat hampered by the present high duties on these special yarns. The duties now proposed will not affect the Australian production of yarns except in those few instances where local prices appear too high. Any increased importations will be in respect of yarns not competitive with local production. This will assist Australian weavers in competing with imported cloths made from these special yarns. I have no doubt that the margin of protection accorded the Australian spinners of woollen yarns under the proposals now before the committee will adequately safeguard the local industry.

Mr NOCK:
Riverina

– I support the Government’s proposal. I believe that the information supplied by the Tariff Board, in addition to that given by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. John Lawson) in regardto imports, provides ample justification for my support of the reduced duties. Some people are continually talking about adequate protection; in my opinion the present rates of duty afford adequateprotection to the Australian industry. The fairness of the rate is obvious when we realize that less than 1 per cent. of similar goods is imported into Australia. There is no need for excessive protection. Yesterday, during a discussion on another item, reference was made to profits. We were told that certain members of the Opposition did not take any exception to manufacturers making big profits - that they did not care how large profits were.

Mr Forde:

– No honorable member on . this side of the chamber said that. We are all against profiteering, and we stated that the Government could deal with profiteering under its emergency powers.

Mr NOCK:

– The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) said that he did not care what large profits were made because the Government could tax them. His statement can be verified by reference to Hansard. I take up a different attitude. I believe that the protection should be reasonable, but that it should not allow manufacturers to make unreasonable profits because unreasonable profits increase the cost of living. We have seen the unreasonable profits earned by the glass industry; we saw them in the cement industry; and we see them again in the motor body building industry. The tariff should be so regulated at a reasonable level to ensure that the Australian market is reasonably reserved to the Australian manufacturers and yet prevent them from exploiting the Australian people. These duties were recommended by the Tariff Board and, as I consider them reasonable, I support the Government’s proposal.

Question put -

That the sub-item be agreed to.

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sub-item agreed to.

Item 433 (Wool tops).

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- The proposal before the committee is that the duties on wool tops be reduced from 6d. per lb. and 20 per cent. British to 4d. per lb., and from ls. per lb. and 20 per cent, general to 9d. per lb. For the same reasons that I opposed the duties on woollens, worsteds and ladies’ lightweight dress materials last night, and on woollen yarns to-day, so I oppose the reduction of duties on wool tops. The Tariff Board made its recommendations regarding the reduction of the duties on these items as the result of investigations having in mind the terms of the Ottawa Agreement. I quote another passage from the remarksof the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White), who was a member of the delegation that visited the United Kingdom last year to consider the renewal of the agreement, and to make what adjustments might” be necessary. Speaking on another item yesterday, the honorable gentleman said -

In connexion with the interpretation of the agreement, however, it was finally agreed that, provided the law officers of the United Kingdom approved, the article in question would he taken to mean just what the words implied, namely, that Parliament “ would be invited to vary “ the duties in accordance with the recommendations of the Tariff Board, but if it did not do so, there would be no abrogation of the agreement.

So, the committee may reject the recommendation of the Tariff Board which is contained in the Government’s tariff proposals without in any way infringing the Ottawa Agreement. I trust that it will do so as it did so overwhelmingly in regard to another item last night. The manufacturer of wool tops in Australia is very soundly established. For many years unspecified tops were admitted to this country duty free, irrespective of origin, but from 1909 to 1915 a bounty was paid for export. The bounty payments ceased in 1915, and in December, 1929, a duty of 9d. per lb. and 20 per cent, was imposed. This far exceeded the cost of conversion and gave practically the whole of the Australian market to the local manufacturers. Before that duty was imposed, approximately 1,000,000 lb. of tops was imported annually. Because of the difference of organization in the two countries wool tops are not bought and sold in Australia in the same proportions as they are in the United Kingdom. For many years wool tops have been exported from Australia in considerable quantities. In 1935-36 the export was 3,145,057 lb., valued at £A.404,704, and in 1936-37, 3,749,819 lb., valued at £A.532,574. Commenting on this industry the Tariff Board said -

It speaks well for the efficiency of the Australian combing industry that, in spite of the depreciation in our currency, with its indirect effect on costs, the process of combing is carried out in Australia at costs in Australian currency that are little higher than the costs of the same work in sterling in the United Kingdom. It would appear that, even if the tops were duty free in all columns of the Customs Tariff, no importations would occur, except to supply tops manufactured from counts of wool not available in sufficient quantity in ‘ Australia. There is one factor, however, that might place the Australian manufacturer of tops at a disadvantage compared with the British manufacturers, and that is the occasional higher cost of strong crossbred wool in Australia.

In view of the comments of the Tariff Board and the fact that we have the plant, equipment and the men in Australia necessary not only to supply the whole of the Australian market, but also to export considerable quantities overseas, there is no justification for the proposed reduction of duty. The arguments advanced in connexion with worsteds and cotton yarns are applicable in this case. The committee should reject the Government’s proposal and permit the duties formerly levied to be continued.

Question put -

That the item bo agreed to.

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 31

Majority…….. 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the affirmative.

Item agreed to.

Item 443 agreed to.

Preliminary paragraphs verbally a mended, and, as amended, agreed to.

Prefatory note agreed to.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered-

That Mr. John Lawson and Sir Frederick Stewart do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

page 2209

CUSTOMS TARIFF (No. 4) 1939

Bill brought up by Mr. John Lawson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted: - 3a. Duties of customs coileeted in accord ance with customs tariff proposals introduced in the House of Representatives on the fourteenth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine, in respect of goods the rate of duty on which, as specified in those proposals, has, prior to the passing of this act, been disagreed with by the House of Representatives, shall, where the duty is collected prior to the sixth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine, at nine o’clock in the forenoon reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, be deemed to have been the duties lawfully imposed in respect of those goods as at the time of collection, and those duties shall be deemed to have been lawfully imposed and collected.

In view of the committee’s rejection of the Government’s proposals for a reduction of the duties on woollen piece-goods, the duties revert to the higher level under the Customs Tariff Act as from the date of their introduction, and normally the Government would therefore have to charge the higher duty on goods already cleared through the customs. The insertion of this new clause will overcome the necessity for charging the higher duty on past imports, and will limit the higher rate to goods entered through the customs from now onwards.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2209

MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINE BOUNTY BILL 1939

Message reported recommending appropriation.

In committee (Consideration of Goveimor-General’s message) :

Motion (by Mr. John Lawson) proposed -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made tor the purposes oi a bill for an act to pio vide for the payment of a bounty on the production of motor vehicle engines.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BarkerLeader of the Country party

– This is the first occasion on which I have heard of an appropriation being made for this purpose, and I was not aware that the Government had yet put anything through Parliament which would “give the authority to pay this bounty. Some more explanatory statement by the Minister is necessary before, in what may be the last week of this sitting, we commit ourselves to any definite action. I was aware of the history of the proposal to pay a bounty on the production of motor vehicle engines, but I believed that the matter was. now somewhere “out in the blue “ and not likely to return for some time. I would, therefore, like to hear an explanation from the Minister.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The Government has been giving consideration to the establishment of this industry for a very considerable time, and statements on the subject were made in this House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in order that honorable members might be made aware of the fact. The Government now proposes to introduce this bill providing for the payment of a bounty on the production of motor car engines, and it is my desire to take it to the second-reading stage now and then adjourn the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. John Lawson and Mr. Holt do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill brought up by Mr. John Lawson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Honorable members will recollect that in 1936 the present Minister for External Affairs CSir Henry Gullett) advised this House of the decision of the then Government to give a strong lead, and what was hoped, decisive encouragement, to the establishment of the motor vehicle engine and chassis-manufacturing industry in Australia. To this end bounty proposals on engine units were ottered and an import tax of .’7d. per lb. was imposed on all chassis entering the country in order to provide the funds for payment of bounty. Prolonged investigations and negotiations followed this otter of the Lyons Government. There was on the part of those companies which might have been expected to undertake manufacture a perhaps understandable reluctance to accept the Government’s offer. The profits of some of the companies were high and it appeared that they preferred to continue to conduct the industry on the basis of the importation of chassis. One of the first acts of the present Government was to consider the steps necessary to ensure the establishment of the industry in the Commonwealth. On the 17th May, 1939, the Prime Minister announced in this House that the Commonwealth Government had’ definitely decided that motor vehicle engines and chassis are to be manufactured in Australia and that there should be no undue delay in establishing the industry. The reasons for this decision were defence preparedness, industrial expansion, conservation of overseas funds, immigration, employment and utilization of Australian raw materials.

The Government considers that the time has now arrived when the necessary bounty legislation should be introduced in order that the Government’s offer can be translated into an act of Parliament, and the Government’s desire to see the industry established fulfilled. Briefly, the terms of the bill provide for payment of bounty on engine units of 15 horsepower or over of -

For the first 20,000 engine units- £30 a unit,

For the second 20,000 engine units– £25 a unit,

For the third 20,000 engine units - £20 a unit.

This bill provides for payment of bounty’ only in respect of engine units of 15 horsepower or over. If the occasion arose for the Government to consider a proposal for manufacture of engines below 15 hor?epower the bounty legislation could be amended if this course were considered desirable. The bill also provides that bounty shall be paid on the basis of the engine units comprising 90 per cent. Australian materials. The bounty rates will be reduced if the units contain less than this percentage.

The act will come into operation only when the Governor-General notifies that he is satisfied that there is a factory with complete works properly equipped for the manufacture of at least 8,000 engine units per annum.

Mr Beasley:

– Has the Government investigated that aspect?

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The Government has made extensive investigations.

Mr Forde:

– Have any proposals been made to the Government ?

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Yes. Provision is also made that the bounty will be paid only when the shareholding of a company claiming bounty is at least two-ithirds Australian owned and controlled.

It is estimated that the 60,000 units for which bounty provision is made will take a well-equipped compauy some four years to produce when consideration is given to the fact that no company would produce at capacity in the first two years of production. It will take probably eighteen months for the company to erect plant, install machinery and enter into large scale production. Bounty payments will amount to £1,500,000 for the 60,000 engines. From now until the end of the four-year manufacturing period it is estimated that the existing . 7d. per lb. imposed on imported chassis will return £1, 400,000.

Mr Forde:

– What amount of tax has already been collected ?

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I cannot say offhand, but I think about £1,000,000.

It will be essential for the successful marketing of the Australian car that a price differential in favour of an Australianproduced car should be established in order to overcome what might be termed “ sales resistance “ and to meet the competitive methods of firms marketing cars incorporating imported engines and chassis. Probably the major portion of the bounty will be required for an Australian company to meet these two points. To the degree that the prices of cars are reduced the public will benefit.

It is anticipated that, when the Australian car is offered for sale, the price of the imported cars will be considerably reduced.

The Government is anxious for the industry to be established in Australia at the earliest possible date and feels that the introduction and passing of this legislation will be an important contribution to that end. The time is long overdue when this great industry should be established. The great pity is that it is not already a part of our economy, playing a vital part in the general war effort of the country. There are probably few industries in a nation’s industrial makeup during time of war that rank higher than the motor car engine and chassis manufacturing industry.

Mr Forde:

– If we can manufacture aeroplane engines we should he able to manufacture motor car engines.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Yes. The highly-skilled labour, machine and machine tool equipment, essential precision work and the development and production of alloy steels will bring about national development in the highest form of engineering production and achievement. I strongly emphasize that. To-day one of the standards of a nation’s wartime strength is measured in terms of motor car production.

The Government is satisfied that motor car engines and chassis can be produced in Australia economically and withoutadditional cost to the public. Certain parts may have to be imported in the initial stages, but, ultimately, most of the engine and chassis parts will be able to be manufactured in Australia. This bill does not, of course, make provision for assistance in respect of chassis parts. The question of the form of protection to be accorded to chassis parts will be considered at a later stage.

Australian industrialists have proved themselves in the field of iron and steel production and in engineering achievement. To-day we are entering into the higher field of precision production. The manufacture of aeroplanes is a notable example, and with the manufacture of the complete motor car we shall indeed be able to claim that Australia will have witnessed an industrial revolution. It sometimes requires a major crisis to bring to fruition those national projects long delayed or too long in contemplation. The national pulse to-day is beating at a faster rate, and it will stimulate us to achievements by which we shall be able to measure our progress as a nation.

The difficulties confronting those who will undertake this work will be very real and complex. Not the least of these will be the competitive methods which will be employed against them. It will be the duty of every Australian government to ensure that the Australian industry is given a fair and reasonable opportunity in its own market. I am surely not anticipating developments when I say that the Commonwealth Government will take all possible steps to safeguard the new industry against unfair competition. I say this solely for the purpose of letting all interested parties know where the Commonwealth Government stands.

I make an earnest appeal to all honorable members to give the greatest possible support tothis bill, and, when the industry is established, to that industry. The success of the venture will depend not only on Australian engineering skill and administration, the Australian artisan, who ranks with the best in the world, and the Australian public, but also in no small measure on the good offices, sympathy and co-operation of every Australian government. There are many directions in which each government will be able to assist in the initial stages of development, and I make this appeal in thehope that it will be met.

In asking all honorable members to support this bill, I wish to pay tribute to the vision of the present Minister for External Affairs, who first sponsored the proposal. As. I said earlier it is a pity that the industry is not already part of our wartime economy. That honorable gentleman not only sponsored the proposal, but also fostered it and kept it alive. I should mention, too, the very active support given by my predecessor, the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. “White) during the earlier negotiations.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Forde) adiourned.

page 2212

WINE EXPORT BOUNTY BILL 1939

Assent reported.

page 2212

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1939

Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Amendment (No. 4)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 14th September (vide page 594), on motion by Mr. John Lawson -

That . . . the schedule to the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Act 1933-1939, as proposed to be amended … be further amended . . . (vide page 591).

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I move -

That the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Proposals be amended as follows: -

After “105(f) (2)” add the following: - “, up to and including 5th December, 1939 “.

Insert the following: - “by inserting as on and after6th December,1939,’ 105 (f) (1) ‘ and ‘ 105 (f) (2) “’.

The effect of this amendment is to make exchange adjustment again applicable to the British preferential tariff rate under items 105 f 1 and 105 f 2, which cover woollen piece goods. This restores the duty on woollen piece goods to the same level as applied before the Government altered the duties in September last, and gives complete effect to the decision of the committee when the relevant tariff item on woollens was dealt with.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. John Lawson and Sir Frederick Stewart do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

page 2212

CUSTOMS TARIFF (EXCHANGE ADJUSTMENT) BILL (No. 2) 1939

Bill brought up by Mr. John Lawson, and read a first and second time.

In committee:

Glauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Further variation of duties).

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I move -

That the following new sub-clause be added : - “(2.) Where, by any amendment made by this act, any further variation in duties of customs is made as on and after any date later than the fifteenth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and thiry-nine, the further variation shall be deemed to have come into operation on and after that later date at nine o’clock in the forenoon reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory.”

This new sub-clause is necessary consequent upon the amendment made in Committee of Ways and Means to re-insert exchange adjustment on items 105f 1 and 105 f 2 as on and from the 6th December, 1939.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. .

Bill read a third time.

page 2213

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1939

Customs Tariff (Canadian Peeferenoe) Amendment (No. 3)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 14th

September (vide page 594), on motion by Mr. John Lawson -

That the schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-38, as proposed to he amended … be further amended (vide page 592).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. John Lawson and Sir Frederick Stewart do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

page 2213

CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADIAN PREFERENCE) 1939

Bill brought up by Mr. John Lawson, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 2213

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1939

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 12)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 22nd September (vide page 1119), on motion by Mr. John Lawson -

That the schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-39, as proposed to be amended … be further amended . . . (vide page 1115).

Division 5- Textiles, Felts and Furs, and Manufactures Thereof, and Attire

Item 105 agreed to.

Division 6. - Metals and Machinery

Items 176, 180, 181 and 193 agreed to.

Division 13. - Paper and Stationery

Item 334 agreed to.

Division 14. - Vehicles

Item 359 agreed to.

Preliminary paragraphs verbally amended, and, as amended, agreed to.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. John Lawson and Sir Henry Gullett do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

page 2213

CUSTOMS TARIFF (No. 5) 1939

Bill brought up by Mr. John Lawson, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 2213

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1939

CustomsTariff (Exchange

Adjustment) Amendment (No. 5)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 22nd

September (vide page 1119), on motion by Mr. John Lawson-

That . . . the schedule to the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) . be further amended . . . (vide page 1118).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. John Lawson and Sir Henry Gullott do prepare and bring in a hill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

page 2214

CUSTOMS TARIFF (EXCHANGE ADJUSTMENT) BILL (No. 3) 1939

Bill brought up by Mr. John Lawson, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 2214

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1939

Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 4)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 22nd

September (vide page 1119), on motion by Mr. John Lawson -

That the schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-38, as proposed to he amended … be further amended . . . (vide page 1118).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. John Lawson and Sir Henry Gullett do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

page 2214

CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADIAN PREFERENCE)’ (No. 2) 1939

Bill brought up by Mr. John Lawson, and” passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 2214

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1939

Customs Tariff Amendment. (No. 13)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 22nd

September (vide page 1122), on motion by Mr. John Lawson -

That the schedule. to the Customs Tariff 1933-1939 … be further amended . . . (vid-e page 1 121 ) .

Division 6. - Metals and Machinery

Item 176 agreed: to.

Division 16.- Miscellaneous

Item 424 agreed: to

Preliminary paragraphs verbally amended and,as amended, agreed to.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended : resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. John Lawson and Sir Henry Gullett do prepare and bring, in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

page 2214

CUSTOMS TARIFF (No. 6) 1939

Bill brought up by Mr. John Lawson, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 2214

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1939

Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Amendment (No. 6)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 22nd September (vide page 1122), on motion by Mr. John Lawson -

That . . . the schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) … be further amended . . .

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. John Lawson and Sir Henry Gullett do prepare and bring in a bill tocarry out the foregoing resolution.

page 2214

CUSTOMS TARIFF (EXCHANGE ADJUSTMENT) BILL (No. 4) 1939

Bill brought up by Mr. John Lawson, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 2214

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1939.

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 14)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 30th

November (vide page 1859), on motion by Mr. John Lawson -

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1939 … be further amended . . . (vide page 1858).

Division II. - Jewellery and Fancy Goods.

Item 320-

By omitting the whole of paragraph (1) of sub-item (c) and inserting in its stead the following paragraph: - “ (1 ) Sensitized kinematograph film, unexposed, per lineal foot, British,1d.; intermediate.1d.; general,1d.”.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- I understand that a deputation from certain motion picture interests in Australia waited on the Minister this morning. It is pointed out that the proposed duties would interfere with the production of motion pictures in Australia and cause hardship to those engaged in the industry. I desire to know whether the Minister has satisfied those interests.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I move -

That paragraph (1) of sub-item (c) of item 320 be omitted and the following inserted in its stead : - “ ( 1 ) Sensitized kinematograph film, unexposed - (a) As prescribed by departmental by-laws - British, free; Intermediate, free; General, free. (b) Otherwise - per lineal foot, British,1d.; Intermediate, 1d.; General,1d.”

The effect of this amendment is to modify the duty imposed on unexposed kinematograph film on Thursday last, the 30th November. The duty then imposed was1d. a lineal foot and its principal object was to secure revenue from unexposed film used in the copying in Australia of positive films from imported negatives or lavender prints. In its incidence, the duty bears very heavily on Australian film studios engaged in the production of motion pictures, such as the film studios at Waver ley, Sydney, and on producers of Australian newsreels. The amendment provides for free admission of unexposed film subject to departmental by-law. It is proposed . to exercise the provisions of these by-laws in cases in which Australian motion picture film studios would be adversely affected by the 1d. duty.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Preliminary paragraphs agreed to.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. John Lawson and Mr. Holt do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

page 2215

CUSTOMS TARIFF (No. 7) 1939

Bill brought up by Mr. John Lawson, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 2215

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1939

Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 7)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 30th

November (vide page 1859), on motion by Mr. John Lawson -

That the Schedule to the Excise Tariff 1921-1930 be further amended .

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Item II agreed to.

Preliminary paragraphs agreed to.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. John Lawson and Mr. Harrison do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

page 2215

EXCISE TARIFF (No. 3) 1939

Bill brought up by Mr. John Lawson, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 2215

NATIONAL OIL PROPRIETARY LIMITED AGREEMENT BILL 1939

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 5th December (vide page 2109) on motion by Mr. Holt -

That the bill be now read a second time. [Quorum formed.]

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- The Labour parfy will not oppose this bill, but it is of the opinion that the interests of the workers who will establish homes at Glen Davis should be protected. We know from practical experience that whenever new mining villages are established, as is proposed in this case, the workers are likely to be exploited by financiers, contractors and others. No provision is made in the bill to prevent such exploitation. We are of the opinion, also, that as the Commonwealth Government has invested a largo sum of money in this venture, its security should be protected. Originally, a lien was held over the land, part of which, comprising from 80 to 120 acres, is to be used for the village site; but this apparently has been surrendered and it would seem that in the future the Commonwealth Government, at any rate, will have a lessened security in respect of the money it has invested in this enterprise. The original agreement made between the Commonwealth of Australia of the first part, the State of New South Wales of the second part, and the National Oil Proprietary Limited of the third part, provided that the Commonwealth should invest £334.000. the State Government invest £166,000, and the National Oil Proprietary Limited £166,000 in this enterprise, making a total investment of £666,000, of which £500,000 was being provided by the two

Governments. As I understand the agreement which we are now asked to ratify, any claim which the Commonwealth Government may have had on the land in question is to he discharged. Whilst it is laudable that provision should be made to enable the workers to establish homes at Glen Davis, it is also desirable that the interests of the Commonwealth, on the one hand, and of the workers, on the other hand, should be safeguarded. Banking and finance companies, investors and land speculators should all be watched. Apparently, no satisfactory title deed is to be provided in respect of the land upon which individual workers may establish themselves. We do not know the amount by which the State Government may reimburse itself out of the sale of this land at Glen Davis, but it seems that no provision whatever is being made to preserve the security of the Commonwealth. The land is to be sold at auction next Boxing Day.

I take exception to the procedure that has been adopted in regard to this bill. When two parliaments are asked to ratify an agreement made with a third party, I consider that the bill submitted to one parliament should be made available to the members of the other parliament. There should, in fact, be an exchange of bills. But, although the Parliament of New South Wales passed a. bill early in November to ratify this agreement, we were not furnished with copies of it, nor have we received copies of the resultant act. This act will cover the conditions of disposal of land over which we have a covenant for £334,000, which the Commonwealth has invested.

Mr Holt:

– The Parliament of New South Wales passed the bill at the request of the Prime Minister, and this Government was familiar with the terms of it.

Mr JAMES:

– I understand that the honorable member for Hartley in the Parliament of New South Wales took exception in that Parliament to the provisions of clause 29, which took away the right of the State Liquor Licensing Board to grant any further hotel licences at Glen Davis without the consent of the Minister of the State of New South Wales. When a right of this . kind is taken from a duly-constituted licensing board and made subject to the will of a Minister or of a government, the word that immediately comes to one’s mind is “ graft “, particularly when it is asserted that Mr. Davis, who owns the land, gave an undertaking to Mr. Lee, of the hotel at Mount Victoria, that, if he obtained a transfer licence he would see him protected against competition. Hence, the reason for section 29 of the New South Wales act, which confirms Mr. Davis’s promise to Mr. Lee - no licence is to be granted without the consent of the State Minister.

The workers employed at Glen Davis are entitled to the enjoyment of home and family life in close proximity to their work. They should not be obliged to keep two homes, as men are usually required to do who undertake pioneering work in new mining fields. I have had that experience myself, for I have pioneered in mining villages. The workers should not be obliged to travel considerable distances at week-ends from a temporary home on a mining field to wherever their permanent home may be; but at the same time any arrangement that is made to enable them to acquire a home of their own on the new mining field should include provisions for their protection against persons who are only too ready to grasp every opportunity for exploitation.

The Government of New South Wales will undoubtedly be able to recoup itself to some degree from the proceeds of the sale of the Crown lands which will become the site of the new village.

Mr Holt:

– I think I should point out that the Government of New South Wales will be spending. £40,000 in addition to the money that it has already voted for this enterprise. I assume that it will reimburse itself, to some degree, in respect of that £40,000 from the proceeds of the sale of this land.

Mr JAMES:

– My reply to that is that whilst a State government is expending £40,000, the Commonwealth Government is providing approximately £70,000 for the construction of a strategic road to the town for a distance of 30 miles through very difficult country, in addition to our £334,000 as against the State’s £166,000. It is regrettable, however, that, although the Commonwealth is providing that money, the work is being carried out under the supervision of the New South Wales Government, which is exploiting the workers engaged on it. What is actually happening is that the New South Wales Government is utilizing this £70,000 for the purpose of relieving unemployment in the State. Single men are given two weeks’ work in every eight weeks and married men two weeks’ work in every four weeks. These men are drawn from the metropolitan area of Sydney, and because of the long periods of idleness they suffer considerably from sore hands when they resume work.

Mr Mulcahy:

– Did the Commonwealth empower the State to subdivide the township of Glen Davis?

Mr JAMES:

– No, the Commonwealth is providing £334,000 to finance this project and an additional £70,000 for “ the construction of the strategic road; the New South Wales Government is making only a comparatively small contribution. In his second-reading speech on the bill the Assistant Minister (Mr. Holt) said-

The company has generously offered to make available to approved employees the, necessary deposits to enable them to undertake the construction of their own homes. Who will be regarded as “ approved “ employees? Will the company give first consideration to cringing and crawling employees, or scabs, who may take the place of trade unionists? Does the honorable gentleman believe that the company is so philanthropic as to make advances to its employees for home building, free of interest and without security? Its home-building scheme will be purely a business proposition. The workers in mining towns have had a very sad experience’ of home-building schemes such as this. Many people in the mining localities in my electorate who have taken advantage of a so-called “ generous offer “ such as this, after having paid their instalments regularly for a long period of years, have experienced bad times and lost their equity in the property to this company or other finance companies. We have only to remember what happened in connexion with workmen’s homes erected by J. and H. Brown Proprietary Limited at Minmi. As the result of the loss of employment through the depression years most of those unfortunate people who acquired homes from the company found that they were so hopelessly in debt to their employers that they had to relinquish their homes. Today J. and H. Brown Proprietary Limited own practically the whole town of Minmi. This may be the future of Glen Davis. It is remotely situated from the main centres of population, and, should this undertaking fail, the position of workers who have secured advances for home building from the company will be no better than that of the unfortunate people of Minmi, Kihabba, Greta, and half a dozen other mining towns in the electorate which I represent.

Mr Beasley:

– Is the Government doing nothing to protect the equity of the worker in such cases?

Mr Holt:

– I shall deal with that later.

Mr JAMES:

– Paragraph 2 a of the schedule of this bill empowers the Prime Minister to annul the only protection possessed by the workers who acquire homes from the company. The paragraph reads -

Notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 12 of the said agreement….. and’ the terms of the Deed of Covenant and Charge …. made by the company in favour of the Commonwealth the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth shall have power to release without any consideration the lands described in the schedule hereto from the provisions of clause 12 of the said agreement and of the said Deed of Covenant and Charge to the intent that such lands shall cease to be comprised in or subject to such Deed of Covenant and Charge and the Prime Minister may deliver up to the company all documents of title to any of the said lands.

This at least gives the Commonwealth Government a right in the land, and by virtue of that right, a sympathetic government could protect workers from the exploiter. In view of the fact that the Commonwealth Government, with road included, is finding approximately £500,000 for this venture, why is power to be given to the Prime Minister to annul the only safeguard provided in the original agreement? No provision is being made in the bill to prevent the exploitation by land sharks of workers who acquire homes. Unscrupulous land speculators will be permitted to buy as many blocks as they wish, and to fix the price at which they are re-sold to the workers. Adequate provision should be made to curtail the activities of these unscrupulous speculators.

Just as the Government finds it is necessary to assist private enterprise in the building of defence annexes for the manufacture of war material, so also is it necessary for the Government to finance workers who are engaged in the production of oil. so essential for our fighting force to build houses. I have no quarrel with the Government for its decision, to assist this company, but I contend that adequate safeguards should be provided for the protection of the employees of companies so assisted. Why should not the workers at GlenDavis be assisted to build their own homes by advances made through the Commonwealth Bank? The history of homebuilding ventures by private enterprise in the past, particularly by mining companies, has been an unhappy one. A mine of any description, once opened up, is a wasting asset; the life of most mines rarely extends beyond 40 years. I venture to say that the life of the shale oil deposits in the Newnes-Capertee valley will not exceed 30 years. After these deposits have been exploited what will be the position of the workers who have acquired homes from the company, particularly those who have acquired building blocks from land sharks at an exorbitant price? After 30 years the homes purchased by the workers at Glen Davis will not be worth a “ bumper “. It will be a deserted village. In the words of the poet Goldsmith -

Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,

Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.

Although certain protection was afforded by the terms of clause 12 of the original agreement this bill now proposes that the Prime Minister may deliver up to the company all lands comprised in the deed of covenant. It will be found that the company which, in the words of the Assistant Minister has, “ generously offered to make advances for home building “ will, in the final result, own not only the lands comprised in the covenant but also the whole of the improvements of the town of Glen Davis.

The measure which has been submitted to us is very brief - its contents are largely contained in the schedule - compared with the more elaborate measure submitted to the State Parliament. The Commonwealth should guard againetbeing regarded as a milch cow by individuals engaged in exploitation of industry. I have nothing against Mr. Davis. I realize that he has done much valuable work for his country, but when substantial financial backing for enterprises of the sort pioneered by Mr. Davis is provided at the expense of the taxpayers, adequate protection should be given to the workers engaged in them. The Government should not overlook the fact, too, that other localities in which large deposits of shale exist should not be neglected. Very large shale deposits are to be found at Baerami in the electorate represented by the honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Gardner), and in the Gwydir electorate. Although the shale in those deposits is of greater thickness and is capable of being mined at a lower cost, the yield is not so high in oil content as from Glen Davis shale. The mining of a seam of shale varying from 2 feet to 3 feet in thickness involves heavy expenditure for brushing. Before men, horses or vehicles can work underground on a seam of that depth, the strata, have to be brushed down to a. depth of at least 4 or 5 feet, which costs an extraordinary amount of money. Brushing is not necessary in the two localities to which I have referred, whereas costs at Newnes and Glen Davis are at least 100 per cent. higher on that account.

The Assistant Minister stated that £450,000 of a total of £660,000 had been expended on the employment of Australian labour and Australian material in this venture. That appears to me to be very strange, because, during the debate in the Parliament of New South Wales, it was stated that Mr. Davis had not called upon any of the money provided by the State Government or the Commonwealth Government. According to the Assistant Minister, the Davis Gelatine Company must have only £6 left of the amount that it made available. I ask him, therefore, to give a satisfactory explanation of that circumstance. How has all this money been expended? It has been expended principally on surface works, such as concrete constructions. And who has received the bulk of the money under the contract for these works? The Concrete Construction Company. Admittedly, it is an Australian company, but we know that two of its directors, Mr. Murray, M.L.C., and Mr. Kneeshaw, M.L.C., are interested in companies which have received not only this contract but also other big defence contracts from the Commonwealth Government. They appear to be favoured by this Government, and so does National Oil Proprietary Limited. 1 understand that Mr. Murray is the chairman of directors of the Masonite Company, which is now constructing military huts for the Defence Department with masonite, quite different from the materials which where used during the last war. Masonite fs very expensive. It appears to me that Messrs. Murray and Kneeshaw, and others of their kind, are being given preference in connexion with (Join mon wealth contracts.

Mr Green:

– Their firm has been granted the £118,000 contract for the Patent Offices now under construction at Canberra.

Mr JAMES:

– It is obvious that they are being favoured. The contract for the work at Glen Davis specified a margin of 10 per cent, over and above costs, whereas a contract in my electorate, which was let to a contractor in Hamilton, was for cost plus 5 per cent. How is it that supporters of the Government, such as Messrs. Murray and Kneeshaw, receive contracts at higher percentages plus cost than any one else?

Mr Beasley:

– They are refusing to pay country allowance to their workers.

Mr JAMES:

– That is another fact to be added to those which I have already stated. Members of the Government leave themselves open’ to the severest criticism when they talk of the employment of Australian labour and materials in these works. They should ensure that the works are - allocated more equitably, and not given to one particular group of political supporters every time.

I ask the Assistant Minister to give favorable consideration to the suggestions that I have made. If he does not do so, members of the Opposition may feel disposed to move an amendment designed at least to safeguard the investments of the people whom they represent and the interests of the men employed in this industry who desire to acquire homes. The workers should be given treatment »s considerate as that accorded to the owners of large industrial organizations which have established defence annexes. Those annexes which the Commonwealth Government finances will be of no use to the working people. They will become the property of those who own the land upon which they are built. The Government has never attempted to build annexes on land owned by workers; on the contrary it has taken their homes away from them as it did at Rathmines. Because oil is just as essential to the defence of this country as annexes which provide the implements of war, the Government should retain its interest in the ownership of this land and construct workers’ homes upon it as an annexe to house workers in an important industry of defence such as oil supplies. Those homes could be rented to working people at reasonable rates, and in that event, the workers would not lose as much as they are losing at present. If any body should suffer as the result of this war, it is the Commonwealth Government and not the workers. I ask the Assistant Minister to consider my submissions.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

.- The committee is indebted to the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) for raising aspects of this matter which otherwise might not have occurred to our minds. From the remarks of the Assistant Minister (Mr. Holt) it would appear on the surface that this proposal involves merely the transfer of 180 acres of land to the State of New South Wales, but from the remarks of the honorable member for Hunter, it would appear that the transfer actually involves the severing of certain rights which the Commonwealth holds over that land, by handing it to the State Government which, in turn, according to statements made in the Parliament of New South Wales, proposes to offer the property at auction. It might be purchased by speculators, or even perhaps by National Oil Proprietary Limited, whose employees will live in homes erected on that land.

Mr Curtin:

– The men could bp allowed to construct homes on leasehold on this ground.

Mr Holt:

– They are able to do that under the provisions of the New South Wales act.

Mr BEASLEY:

– According to what has been said, this measure, if enacted, will empower the State of New South Wales to dispose of the land in any way that it may think fit. I have yet to learn from the statement of the Assistant Minister that this proposal ties the hands of the State Government. It removes all legal obstacles affecting the Commonwealth’s rights and hands over entirely to the State Government the right to dispose of the land. If that be the case, it will be competent for the State Government to offer the property at auction. That will offer opportunities for speculators to bid The workers, because they do not possess the necessary assets, will not be able to take part in the auction in order to acquire for themselves areas upon which they may have entire freedom to erect their own homes and dispose of them when they so wish. No workers at this stage can be sure of any continuity of the tenure of their employment. They will be at the mercy of the employer, and under this measure, they are left entirely without safeguards. That is most unsatisfactory. The Government should not surrender its rights in any way. The land could be made available to those workers who wish to erect their homes upon it, without handing any rights over it to any other body, which might decide to sell it by public auction to speculators. This industry is undoubtedly of national importance as the major oil companies exercise an extraordinary influence, not only over this country, but also ever most of the countries of the world, and therefore we have yet to see whether or not this venture will be permitted to develop to its full capacity. But at this stage in this matter we should, at least, preserve the rights of all workers, who will be, from time to time, engaged in the industry. At public auction the land might be acquired by the National

Oil Proprietary Limited, not necessarily openly, out through some intermediary.

Mr Holt:

– it would be purchasing the land that it is actually giving away itself.

Mr BEASLEY:

– How does it happen to be giving away that land ? What legal rights has the Commonwealth in the matter if it has no rights of ownership over the land? It is ridiculous if we are merely passing legislation upon some matter in which we have no rights at all. The Minister said inhis statement-

Mr Holt:

– I said that National Oil Proprietary Limited owned the freehold of 120 acres of the land.

Mr BEASLEY:

– There are 180 acres in the property.

Mr Holt:

– Sixty acres comprise Crown land over which the State, apart altogether from the Commonwealth, had certain rights. The only right that the Commonwealth had was a lien over the assets of the company to secure advances which it had agreed to make in company with the State of New South Wales. Both the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales possess that lien over the assets of the company in respect of advances which they are to make under the conditions of the agreement which was entered into. This land was certainly one of the assets of the company; the company has now transferred that particular asset to the State of New South Wales, and to that degree I admit the Commonwealth has been deprived of one of many assets.

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

Mr BEASLEY:

-I ask leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

Debate adjourned.

page 2220

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1939

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 15) ; Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 5) ; Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Amendment (No. 7)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

.- I move - [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 15).]

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1 933-1 939. as proposed to be amendedby Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as hereinafterset out, and that, on and after the seventh day of December, One thousand nine hundred and thirtv-nine. at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1939 as so amended. That in this Resolution " Customs Tariff Proposals " mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates, namely : - 8th September, 1939 ; 21st September, 1939 ; 22nd September, 1939 ; and 30th November, 1939. [Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 5).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1938, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposals, be further amended as hereinafter set out, and that on. and' after the seventh day of December, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the CustomsTariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1938 as so amended. That in this Resolution " Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposals " mean the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates, namely : - 14th September, 1939 ; and 22nd September, 1939 [Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Amendment (No. 7).] That, on and after the seventh day of December, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Act 1933-1939 as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Proposals be further amended as hereunder set out. That in this resolution "Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Proposals" mean the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates, namely: - 14 th September, 1939; and 22nd September, 1939. by omittinsr " 130 (a) " and " 130 (b) (1) (6) "; by omitting "289 (a) ". These proposals give effect to recommendations contained in nine reports of the Tariff Board. Increases of duty are provided in the duties on cotton canvas and duck, cylinder-sleeve assemblies for tractors, other than diesel tractors, lifting jacks and twist drills, and reductions of duty are proposed on glycerine stoves and ranges of the " Aga " and " Esse " types which function on the heat-storage principle, barometers of certain types, and in the general tariff rate on spring hinges. The Tariff Board has recommended assistance partly by duty and partly by bounty to the projected manufacture of cotton canvas and duck in Australia. On an average weight cloth, the duty and bounty assistance amounts to slightly under4½d. a square yard against British canvas and duck. I shall take the opportunity as early as practicable to. introduce a bill to provide for the payment of bounty. The higher duty on cotton canvas and duck will not take effect until a date to be proclaimed. The proposed manufacture in Australia of cord and fabric for pneumatic tyres prompted the Tariff Board to recommend assistance by bounty at the rate of 3½d. per lb., on the assumption that imports would be admitted at the rates of British free and general 15 per cent., but that an additional duty of½d. per lb. would be imposed when bounty expenditure reached £5,000 per annum and that the bounty rate would be correspondingly reduced. The Government's scheme will give the same amount of assistance as that recommended by the Tariff Board, although the bounty rate will be1¼d. per lb. lower owing to the imposition, since the receipt of the board's report, of a budget tariff increase equivalent to about l¼d. per lb. The additional duty of½d. per lb. recommended by the Tariff Board will not operate immediately. A bounty bill will be introduced as soon as it is possible to do so. The tabling of these proposals disposes of all reports which have been received from the Tariff Board up to the present. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 2224 {:#debate-66} ### NATIONAL OIL PROPRIETARY LIMITED AGREEMENT BILL 1939 {:#subdebate-66-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from page 2220. {: #subdebate-66-0-s0 .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney .- Before this debate was interrupted, the Assistant Minister for Supply and Development **(Mr. Holt)** gave the. House a little more detail regarding this proposal, but I believe that honorable members will want further enlightenment. This measure needs a much closer examination than I- believe it was originally intended that it should have. The Assistant Minister declared that the land with which this bill is concerned belongs to the National Oil Proprietary Limited. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- Out of a total of 180 acres, 120 acres belong to that company. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY: -- That land is an asset of that company. The original agreement contained in the National Oil Proprietary Limited "Agreement Act provided for a lien over the land and other assets of the National Oil Proprietary Limited as a security that the company would recognize its financial obligations and other responsibilities to other parties to the agreement, namely, the Commonwealth Government and the Government of New South Wales. The proposal in this bill is to lessen the value of that, security to the extent by which the land owned by the National Oil Proprietary Limited is reduced in size as the result of the transference of the ownership for the establishment of a town. The Government lien over that particular land will come to an end. The matter resolves itself into whether or not the security held by this Government in respect of the money that it has advanced to the National Oil Proprietary Limited shall diminish until the security is merely a lien over plant. All honorable members are aware that plant, once erected and in use on a mining field, becomes almost worthless as a security because it is too costly to remove it. {: .speaker-K9A} ##### Mr Gander: -- It becomes scrap iron. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY: -- Yes, as so much iron and steel it represents no real security. Land is the greatest asset of all from the security point of view. The greater the development of the shale oil project, the greater will be the value of the land, and consequently the greater the security. In is strange, therefore, that the Government should surrender any portion of that security. Under the principal agreement the Commonwealth Government advanced to the National Oil Proprietary Limited, £334,000 and the Government of New South Wales, £166,000, both upon security. At that time, it was maintained on this side of the House that public funds should not be invested in any undertaking unless the undertaking was subject to the direction of a representative of the Government. We contended that it was wrong that the Government should invest money in a private undertaking without reserving some power to control its operations. We further suggested that a board should be set up to control the shale oil projects in the same way as boards control Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited and Commonwealth Oil Refineries, in each of which this Government holds a majority of the shares and is represented. It was necessary, we said, that that should be done, because, otherwise, the Commonwealth Government would have no means of telling whether the money that it was investing was being wisely expended. It was the more essential in this case, because of the importance of oil in our national economy. Our suggestions were brushed aside. The Minister at the time **(Sir Archdale Parkhill)** refused even to consider them. That brings me to the matter raised by the honorable member for Hunter **(Mr. James)** who directed the attention of the House to the work that is being carried out at Newnes by Concrete Constructions Limited. I am led to understand that that firm is working on a cost plus 10 per cent, basis. At least part of the £334,000 which the Commonwealth invested at Newnes is being used to pay foi the completion of that contract. I fail to understand why the contract was granted on a basis of cost plus 10 per cent., especially when defence contracts are being carried out on the basis pf cost plus 5 per cent. If we had a representative on the National Oil Proprietary Limited we should be able to check up on that sort of thing. Clause 12 of *the* original agreement provides that - >Notwithstanding anything in this agreementcontained before any advances made by the Commonwealth or the State to the company, the company shall execute and deliver to each of them the Commonwealth and the 'State as security for the advances to be made by it and interest thereon a Deed of Covenant and Charge in accordance with the form contained in the second schedule hereto with such variations, modifications and additions as the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth and the Premier of the State and the company consider necessary or desirable and so that the said deeds of covenant and charge shall rank pari passu as a first charge on the property and assets of the company comprised therein or subject thereto without any preference or priority one over the other. That clause gives to the Commonwealth Government security for the money advanced. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr James: -- And this bill annuls that security. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY: -- Yes. Clause 2 of the new agreement reads - 2. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of clause 12 of the said agreement made the twenty-third day of July one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven and the terras of the Deed of Covenant and Charge dated the twentyeighth day of March one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine registered Number 868 Book 1841 made by the company in favour of the Commonwealth the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth shall have power to release without any considers tion the lands described in the schedule hereto from the provisions of clause 12 of the said agreement and of the said Deed of Covenant and Charge to the intent that such lands shall cease to be comprised in or subject to such Deed of Covenant and Charge and the Prime Minister may deliver up to the company all documents of title to any of the said lands. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Notwithstanding the provisions of clause 12 of the said agreement made the twenty-third day of July one thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven and the terms of the Deed of Covenant and Charge dated the twenty-eighth day of March one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine registered Number 809 Book 1841 madeby the company in favour of the State the Premier of the State shall have power to release without any consideration the lands described in the schedule hereto from the provisions of clause 12 of the said agreement and of the said Deed of Covenant and Charge to the intent that such lands shall cease to be comprised in or subject to such Deed of Covenant and Charge and the Premier may deliver up to the company all documents of title to any of the said lands. That completely annuls the security which this Government has held against the advances made by it to the company, in respect of, not. only bona fide operations; but also interest payments.We maintain that the Commonwealth should retain its interest in this land which, as the venture develops, is bound to become more valuable. If the Commonwealth relinquishes control to the State, it should impose the necessary conditions in the agreement, but that does not seem to be intended. If the land is auctioned, some of the sites will fetch more than others, and we should like to know who will finally obtain possession of the land. "We do not want it to pass into the hands of speculators who will be in a position to levy toll on the workers in that district. Has the National Oil Proprietary Limited asked for this change? No reason for it was advanced by the Minister in his secondreading speech. My concern is to ensure that the workers' title in their homes will not be disturbed by some one whose only interest in the venture is to reap profits. The primary object of this development is to obtain oil, and in this the part played by the employees will perhaps be more important than that played by capital. If the Commonwealth retains its interest in the land it will be in a position to compel the company to honour its undertakings, and to meet its commitments and not drive the workers off the field by taking possession of the land upon which their homes will be erected. The Government, moreover, will be able to ensure that the workers will never be forced to abandon their homes, and lose their equity in them, at the whim of a proprietary company. Therefore, 1 move - >That all the words after " That " be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof: - " this House is of the opinion that the bill should be withdrawn so that the agreement therein referred to may be reconsidered with the object of ensuring that the securities now held by the Commonwealth over the National Oil Proprietary Limited's land shall not be surrendered until a proper scheme has been devised for the housing of its employees." {: #subdebate-66-0-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT:
Assistant Minister for Supply and Development · Fawkner · UAP -- I think I can clear up most of the difficulties which are troubling honorable members. The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment of the honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley)** because a comprehensive scheme of settlement on the land in question has already been prepared. It is of great importance that the measure should be put through Parliament as soon as possible, so that the work may be proceeded with. The honorable member for West Sydney has stated that the Commonwealth is surrendering one part of the security it possesses for the advance which it has agreed to make to National Oil Proprietary Limited. According to that agreement, we undertook *to* advance £330,000, and as part of the security we have a lien, in common with the Government of New South Wales, over the assets, of the company. As the honorable member has pointed out, one of the assets is an area of 120 acres of land which has now been transferred by the company to the Government of New South Wales. The honorable member suggests that this is likely to be the most valuable of the securities, and that the Commonwealth is making a real sacrifice of its security by permitting the transfer to take place. I have two answers to that. The first is that, after all, the transfer is being made to a State Government. If it is a concession to agree to the transfer, the concession is in favour of the Government of the State which i3 primarily interested in the development of the project. My other answer is that the land was purchased for approximately £9 an acre, which represents a total outlay of a little more than £1,000. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- But its value will alter materially as development progresses. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- It is suggested that the value of the land will increase considerably. If that is so, it means this: **Mr. Davis** is in one breath accused by the honorable member of entering into an arrangement with Concrete Constructions Limited that will menace the investment of the Commonwealth ; in the next breath it is stated that he is making a most generous gift of land which, according to the honorable member for West Sydney, will be of - great value as time goes on. This gesture by **Mr. Davis** is, in that case, a 'most generous one, and the Commonwealth is prepared .to assist him to be generous by not maintaining its own position at the expense of the Government of New South Wales. As for the arrangement with Concrete Constructions Limited to do certain work at cost, plus 10 per cent., I point out that the advance made by the Commonwealth is not in the nature of an investment in the company, hut is a loan at, 4£ per cent, interest. Consequently, if **Mr. Davis** has made an arrangement that will react unfavorably against the company, it will affect first only the company's dividends, and not necessarily the return to the Commonwealth on its advance. . The purpose of the honorable member in moving his amendment is, I presume, to ensure that a proper scheme of townplanning is devised and enforced, and that the rights of employees in their house properties are not endangered because of lack of proper supervision by the authorities concerned. The Government of New South Wales is the authority directly concerned with the administration of this township, and with the provision of proper facilities. The Commonwealth Government has no power over local governing bodies, save, perhaps, what authority it might exercise through its wartime emergency legislation. The Government of New South Wales has gone to a great deal of trouble to ensure that, this town is properly planned. It has appointed the Surveyor-General of the State to preside over the committee which has the work of planning in hand. The plans are at an advanced stage, and it is proposed to conduct an auction of some of the land on next Boxing Day. I come now to the substance of the complaint that the Governments concerned have not exercised proper supervision. In this connexion I draw the attention of honorable members to some of the provisions of an act recently passed by the legislature of New South Wales. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr James: -- Why were we not supplied with copies of that legislation? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- Copies of it have not yet reached the Parliamentary Library, as they have not been circulated by the Government of New South Wales, but as I have already informed the honorable member for Hunter **(Mr. James),** who is the official spokesman for the Opposition in this matter, I am prepared to make available to him the copy in my possession. Under section 16 of the New South Wales act it is provided that the Minister may lease any land. That point was raised by the honorable member foi Hunter, who contended that the employee should have the right to lease land without necessarily having to purchase it. The section referred to contains the following words : " subject to such reservations and conditions and for such term as he may think fit ". It goes on to make provision as to how the conditions of the lease are to be exercised, subject to the supervision of the Minister. Under section 17, power is given to the Minister to sell any of the land acquired by him under the act to any person upon such terms and conditions as he may think fit. It also prescribes some of the conditions, one of them being that the land shall not be subdivided without the consent in writing of the Minister. Another condition is that buildings only of a specified character or class shall be erected on the land, and that they shall be erected within a specified time. The Minister is given power to impose any condition which he considers necessary for the carrying out of the objects and purposes of the act. So far as the protection of employees is concerned, I point out that, under the proposed arrangement, the company is prepared to make deposits available to its employees in order to enable them to acquire land. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr James: -- It will want security and interest, and eventually it will get possession of the land like J. and A. Brown Limited has done. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- The only deposit required is 10 per cent, of the value of the land. The rest of the finance will be arranged, I am advised, through the Credit Foncier section of the Rural Bank. By section 25 of the act, the Minister may remit any part of the amount due under any contract for the sale of land, or extend the period for the payment of any interest or purchase money. Honorable members will see that substantial protection is to be given to the purchasers of the land. The Minister will be in a position either to remit any part of the amount owing, or to extend the period provided in the contract for the payment of the purchase money. The responsibility devolves upon the State Government which is primarily interested. {: .speaker-KZ9} ##### Mr Riordan: -- Why should the State Government sell the land at all? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- That Government is not compelled to sell the land ; if it so desires it can dispose of the land under lease. T assure the House that the details of this project have been carefully worked out. As was stated in the legislature of New South Wales, this project represents an important and interesting experiment on the part of the Government of New South Wales, in conjunction with the company. It is an attempt to provide a model township at Glen Davis, so that the workers there may live under decent conditions. At this moment, the Commonwealth Government is negotiating with **Mr. Davis** with a view to increasing the output of the company from 10,000,000 gallons to 30,000,000 gallons per annum. That increased output should cause an expansion of the township and also of employment. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- Did the company ask to be relieved of this security? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- If the company had regarded the transaction merely from a cold commercial point of view, it would not have asked to be relieved of an asset which is likely to increase in value. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- Did it ask to be relieved of its commitments under Article 12 of the original agreement? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- Its commitments will not be lessened. The security will be transferred to one of the creditor parties, namely, the State Government, which shared in the lien which was to be exercised jointly by it and the Commonwealth Government. Under the original measure covering the tripartite agreement between the Commonwealth Government, the State Government, and National Oil Proprietary Limited, the Commonwealth Government advanced certain money to the company at 4£ per cent, on the security of the company's assets. That was provided for in the bill which came before this House. To the extent that the company will transfer to the State Government 120 acres of land which "it formerly owned, the arrangement entered into will be varied, and, in order to put the transaction in order, it is necessary for this Parliament to approve formally of the transfer of the land from the company to the Government of New South Wales. That is all that this measure proposes to do, and that is the only reason for bringing this proposal before the House at the present time. {: #subdebate-66-0-s2 .speaker-L07} ##### Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa .- I refuse to accept the statement- of the Assistant Minister **(Mr. Holt)** that a generous spirit has been exhibited by thi? company, or, indeed, any similar company in the treatment of its employees. "We have heard similar stories on numerous occasions. I remember that when a company at Port Kembla set out to establish a home-endowment scheme for its employees, I told one of its members that it would build homes for some of its employees, but not all of them. I had with me one of the company's employees who was active in the industrial sphere, and I said, " Would you build a home for Pat Molloy?". The answer was, "Certainly not ". It is the custom in Britain and in many other countries for the workers to be housed near to their work, and to be given an interest in their homes. That system is also in operation in the United States of America, where it is used as an economic weapon to discourage workers from participating in industrial disputes. Expressed plainly and bluntly, it is a means adopted by employers to keep around them a number of potential " scabs ". I am suspicious of this project, because of my experience and of what I have read of the measures taken by huge companies to protect their own interests under the guise of making " generous gestures" to their employees. There must have been some reason why the Government accepted this land as security in the first place. We are told now that it is worth only about £1,000. If that be so, why was it thought advisable to accept it as security? I do not like people who buy land by the acre and sell it by the foot. On the other side of the chamber are men who have made large sums of money in that way. One of them is a member of the Cabinet. This company will make advances to its employees in order that they may build homes. It will probably happen that some of them will have partly paid for their homes when sickness or trouble overtakes them, with the result that they will lose their homes. That kind of thing has happened too often. Few workers who set out to buy homes under such conditions ever own them. If the Government really wants to provide homes for the workers, it should utilize, the resources of the Commonwealth Bank and build homes for them, free of interest. Only by such means will the workers have a chance to own their homes. Under these endowment schemes a man who sets out to purchase a home costing £1,000 may pay £2,000 or even more, and still not own it. I am afraid that that will happen in this instance. As the honorable member for Hunter **(Mr. James)** said, the company will eventually own all of the homes, and the workers in them as well. Why cannot the company direct that homes may be built on leasehold land as in the Australian Capital Territory? Under the leasehold system, a man with £50 or £100 can build a home, whereas when a land boom is on it takes that much to buy the land. There has 'been more cheating of the workers under homeendowment schemes than perhaps in any other way, and I hope that the Government will not encourage the introduction of that vicious system. I frankly confess that I am suspicious of the whole thing. When this land is handed over to the State Government the Commonwealth will lose its asset. We know the attitude of the present Government of New South Wales towards big companies. It has given away to them State assets worth thousands of pounds, and it will do the same with this land. The Mair-Bruxner Government will do with this land what the Stevens Government did with the State brickworks, metal quarries, and other assets. I regard this as a " land-boodling " scheme to enable the company to make money out of its employees. The company proposes to start a home-endowment scheme so that it may hold over every home purchaser the threat, "Go to work, or lose your equity in your home ". If industrial trouble should occur at Glen Davis in the future, the miners living in these homes might be treated as the coal-miners were treated in parts of England years ago. We have all read, I suppose, of mothers and children being turned out of their homes into the street by the owners of their dwelling houses who took this means to try to force the bread-winners to terms. In days gone by, sick mothers and children have actually been carried out into the street in their beds in the hope that this action would break the spirit of the miners when a strike was in progress. We do not want conditions of that kind to be developed here. I am suspicious of this scheme and shall support the amendment of the honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley).** This project should not be hurried. The Government should be prepared to bring , down a properly-planned and complete scheme that would ensure adequate protection of the interests of the workers. There is no need for haste; but it seems that on every occasion when the Government is rushing into recess, it must bring down a bill of this description and, on the plea of urgency, rush us into doing something which, if proper consideration were given to it, would not be done. It has been said that the Government is concerned about the interests of the workers. Has it shown any interest in the welfare of the unemployed workers? Not even the approach of Christmas has awakened such interest in Ministers opposite.- {: #subdebate-66-0-s3 .speaker-JOS} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon G J Bell:
DARWIN, TASMANIA The honorable member must confine his remarks to the subject before the Chair. {: .speaker-L07} ##### Mr LAZZARINI: -- Apparently the Government and its supporters wish to place the Opposition in a false position, but we and they know that our objective is solely in the interests of the workers. If a proper scheme is introduced it will have our support. {: #subdebate-66-0-s4 .speaker-K4X} ##### Mr NOCK:
Riverina -- I support the bill. It is clear, surely, that a properly-planned town is desirable at Glen Davis. In my opinion, the proper authority to ensure that a suitable town shall be built is the State Government. Let honorable members who are opposing this bill look, for a moment or two, at the alternative. If the measure is not passed, the land will remain the property of **Mr. Davis,** who will, himself, be able to build such homes as he wishes on the site. It is quite likely that homes built by a. private individual will not be of the same standard as homes built under government supervision. Surely also it is clear that it is desirable that there should be only one mortgage over the properties. I can see no reason for objecting to the mortgagee being the Government of New South Wales. The workers would undoubtedly get a fair deal from that authority. There is everything to be said in favour of allowing the workers to own their own homes in this proposed new settlement. Regulations would undoubtedly be promulgated by the Government of New South Wales which would ensure proper conditions. I strongly favour the adoption of the Government's plan in preference to one which would permit the whole project to remain under the control of a private individual or a company. As the land was bought for about £10 an acre originally, the elimination of the area that will be involved in this town-planning scheme is not a very material factor in the security of the Commonwealth and State Governments, for it is only a trifle in the total security. In any case, the Commonwealth Government has only a mortgage interest in the land. If the Newnes shale oil-fields deposits are developed as successfully as we hope they will bc, the value of this land will increase and the workers who own the homes will benefit thereby. In all the circumstances, I shall support the bill. {: #subdebate-66-0-s5 .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports -- If the proposal were as the honorable member for Riverina **(Mr. Nock)** has described it, I should not offer much objection to it, but he has not directed attention to all of the facts. I know something of the history of the building of mining towns in Australia. On some of the richest mining fields of Australia, which have been developed for many years, miners are still living in shacks built mainly of kerosene tins. That is a disgrace to the authorities responsible for it. If it were proposed that modern homes should be built under modern conditions at Glen Davis no one would offer any objection to the scheme. The trouble is that room is being left for the exploiter to exercise his guiles. I do not think that any honorable member has offered any objection to the principle of the construction of homes for workers in close proximity to their work. In every State there is a clamour for workers' homes to he built. The trouble is .that the conditions of this scheme are contradictory. I strongly object to the proposal that the land shall be auctioned. Under that scheme, the company, or some speculative interests, might buy all the blocks and thus put a stranglehold on the settlement at its very inception. The blocks will, of course, go to the highest bidder if they . are auctioned, and the old and objectionable system of private landlords will be inflicted on this new settlement. I suggest to the Government that it should evolve a scheme similar to that at Yallourn in Victoria. Years ago, the Victorian Government was in much the same position in respect of the Yallourn district as the Commonwealth Government and the Government of New South Wales are in in respect of Glen Davis. The Victorian Government had decided to exploit the brown coal deposits of Yallourn. But instead of offering land for sale in the proposed town site, it took responsibility itself for the whole scheme. It prepared the plan, surveyed the land, provided all the essential services, and built the homes which were afterwards let to tenants. The properties remain in the possession of the State Government. That, I suggest, is a very good scheme which could well be copied at Glen Davis. I do not think any honorable member desires to adopt the dog-in:the-m anger attitude and say that this Government should not, in any circumstances, refuse to allow the Government of New South Wales to do what is necessary to provide modern homes for the workers at Glen Davis. What we wish to do is to prevent the speculator from entrenching himself in the new town. If the Government would prepare the plan and build houses, the workers, could become tenants of the Government. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- The State Government has already arranged to spend about £40,000 in laying out the site and providing the necessary services. {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY: -- In that case I see no reason at all why it should not go further and build the homes. I see grave objection to allowing private speculators to come in and reap the advantage that must accrue, in such a place, for the expenditure of so much public money in town-planning. If the land increases in value, as it is sure to do if this scheme develops as we hope it will, the Government should reap the benefit, and not the private speculator. If the hope that the production of fuel oil from this field will increase from 10,000,000 gallons to 30,000,000 gallons a year is realized, the town allotments will certainly treble in value. All these considera- tions reinforce my argument that the Government itself should assume complete responsibility for the whole scheme. That would ensure that slum areas would not be developed. There is always a temptation .to private speculators to make as much profit as possible out of schemes of this kind. If the Government takes charge such temptations will be resisted to a large extent, if not altogether. No doubt **Mr. Davis** himself desires to see a pleasant and modern town built at Glen Davis. This ideal will be more likely to be realized if the Government is responsible for the operations. I urge that the Yallourn scheme be looked to as a. model. The job of building the town of .Glen Davis should be undertaken properly; the whole operation should be under Government control, and the dwellings should remain Government property. {: #subdebate-66-0-s6 .speaker-KZF} ##### Mr LANE:
Barton .- I am surprised that honorable members of the Opposition should be placing so many obstacles in the way of the carrying out of this scheme. They say they represent the workers, but they are not representing them in the truest sense by the stand they are taking up to-night. The Government's scheme should be endorsed, for it undoubtedly provides for full cooperation between the parties concerned, and will permit of the construction of a properly-planned town, such as should be provided in such an area. I have had the pleasure of visiting the Newnes works on three occasions. The first time I went there I discovered that considerable dissatisfaction existed amongst the employees of the co-operative company which was then engaged in the production of oil. I was informed by one of the men in charge of the works that agitators who came from the city had induced the men to limit the number of skips which they handled each day. The effect of this slowing down process was to so restrict production that it became impossible to produce oil in payable quantities. The New South Wales Government subsequently withdrew its support of the project, and the works were closed. On my second visit I was accompanied by the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. John Lawson).** On that occasion . I warned the workers not to allow themselves to be made the tools of certain unscrupulous organizers. I pointed out that the future of the project lay in the willingness of the average Australian worker to do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, and that those who allowed themselves to be led astray by unscrupulous agitators could contribute nothing to the success of a venture such as this. I told them that more harm would be done to this enterprise by such people than by the major oil companies which they professed to fear so much. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- I warned the workers at Newnes what to expect from the honorable member before he went there. {: .speaker-KZF} ##### Mr LANE: -- If I had my way, the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** would not be allowed in Glen Davis. Honorable members opposite have stressed the need for Government control of the sales of land in the township. . In this connexion we have only to remember that the present leasehold system adopted in the Australian Capital Territory has reflected no great credit on the Government. I believe that the Government should do everything possible to encourage the workers to own their own homes, and the scheme proposed for the housing of the workers at Glen Davis has much in its favour provided that the homes do not prove too expensive. I do not believe that any working man can afford to purchase a home costing more than from £500 to £600. I commend the Queensland Government for its excellent home-building scheme. During an extensive tour through Queensland I inspected, a number of houses provided under the Government housing scheme. One of the greatest difficulties associated with that scheme was that the Queensland Government asked working men to take over properties costing £1,000 for which the payments in respect of principal and interest were too high. If a worker on the basic wage is purchasing his own home and has the misfortune to be out of employment for- three months, he i3 immediately in great difficulties. His difficulties are, of course, greatly increased if the rate of repayment is high. Let us consider, for instance, the difficulties associated with the administration of wai- service homes. Here,, we have perhaps the best example of government mismanagement of a housing scheme. If I had my way, I would write down the value of every one of those homes, and put it within the power of returned soldier purchasers to repay the whole amount owing on their homes within ten years. The only fault I find with the scheme for the housing of workers at Glen Davis is that it is proposed that the repayments be spread over a period of twenty years. I cannot understand why honorable members opposite should put obstacles in the way of the development of this important industry. If they had the interests of the workers seriously at heart, they would assist honorable members on this side of the House to give the bill a speedy passage. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- The company cannot get sufficient plant to enter into immediate production on a large scale. {: .speaker-KZF} ##### Mr LANE: -- I believe that the difficulty in connexion with plant is largely a matter of finance. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- That is not so. {: .speaker-KZF} ##### Mr LANE: -- I am informed that **Mr. Davis** went to Great Britain twelve months ago in order to acquire the necessary plant. I appeal to honorable members to disregard the remarks of the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Lazzarini).** The honorable member has merely repeated the statements of disgruntled people outside this Parliament. The workers at the Cockatoo Island Dockyard, and at the factory of the Davis Gelatine Company at Waterloo speak highly of **Mr. Davis.** He is regarded as a captain of industry, capable of handling this large venture with profit, not only to himself, but also to the workers engaged in it. {: .speaker-K9A} ##### Mr Gander: -- Is the honorable member in favour of the establishment of a wine bar at Glen Davis? {: .speaker-KZF} ##### Mr LANE: -- If a wine bar is established there, I certainly would not be in favour of allowing the honorable member to have anything to do with it. He is the wrong sort of person to go into a wine bar. Nor would I grant to his colleague, the honorable member for Hunter **(Mr. James),** a licence to run the " pub ". I am sorry that the question of the liquor licence has been introduced into this debate. In my opinion all hotels should be under the control of the Government. {: #subdebate-66-0-s7 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! {: .speaker-KZF} ##### Mr LANE: -- I believe that the establishment of a hotel at Glen Davis will only result in great disaster into many homes in the locality. I sincerely hope that the conduct of an " annexe " such as this will not be left to private enterprise. Here is an opportunity for the State Government to have a " go " at the role of hotelkeeper. If the hotel at Glen Davis were conducted by the Government much would be done to curb the rapacity of unscrupulous private individuals who batten on the workmen and fleece them of their hard-earned wages, and whose activities result in needless poverty in many homes. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member must either discuss the bill or resume his seat. {: .speaker-KZF} ##### Mr LANE: -- I trust that this bill will be passed in its original form, and that the amendment will receive the consideration it merits. I do not believe that honorable members opposite seriously desire to hold up the development of this important industry. At heart I am sure they are just as anxious as we are to see the workers at Glen Davis settled in their own homes and given an opportunity to live a normal, useful life. The result of their labours will be of great benefit in the development of this country. Nothing is more needed in Australia than a permanent supply of oil, and it is the earnest wish of every Australian that this industry should be established on a sound footing. I am surprised that the honorable member for Hunter should have placed every obstacle in the way of the passage of this bill. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr James: -- I have not done so. {: .speaker-KZF} ##### Mr LANE: -- I trust that the members of the Labour party, recognizing in this bill an opportunity for the successful establishment of a great Australian industry, will expedite its passage. {: #subdebate-66-0-s8 .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES:
Hunter -- I wish to speak to the amendment. I am at a loss to understand the statement of the honorable member for Barton **(Mr. Lane)** that the members of the Labour party and I, in particular, have placed every obstacle in the way of the speedy passage of this bill. That is not so. Thia bill is designed to supplement legislation which has already been passed by the New South Wales Government. Under the covenant contained in the schedule of the original act, the New South Wales Government held what may be termed "protection", by way of mortgage over the land which originally belonged to **Mr. Davis.** By the passage of this bill we renounce that mortgage. The honorable member for Barton referred to the granting of a liquor licence at Glen Davis. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- There is nothing in the amendment about the granting of a liquor licence. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES: -- This Government has a lien by way of mortgage upon the land on which the hotel may be built, but in spite of that, a liquor licence has already been granted by the New South Wales Government Liquor Licensing Board. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member is replying to the remarks made by the honorable member for Barton who was speaking on the bill. The honorable member has already spoken on the bill and is now dealing with the amendment which does not cover the question of the establishment of a hotel. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES: -- I claim, **Mr. Speaker,** that I am in order in referring to this matter, because the Minister, when replying to the amendment moved by the honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley),** referred to section 29 of the State legislation which empowers the responsible New South Wales Minister to override a decision of the State Licensing Board in connexion with the granting of a further licence at Glen Davis. I submit also that I am entitled to discuss the matter of the granting of a hotel licence because the Commonwealth Government holds a lien over the land on which the hotel will be erected. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The amendment does not refer to a liquor licence; it refers only to housing. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES: -- Hotels erected in mining communities provide housing accommodation for single men. The licence has been transferred to Glen Davis by William Lee, the licensee of the Mount Victoria Hotel. Prior to that, according to the debate in the Parliament of New South Wales, **Mr. Davis** had promised **Mr. Lee** that, if he secured a licence, he would be given every protection against the granting of other licences. Under clause 29 of the New South Wales act, the State Minister, **Mr. Martin,** has absolute power to reject any application for a hotel licence at Glen Davis. In proof of that statement I quote the amendment embodied in clause 29 of the Glen Davis Bill of New South Wales - >That all the words after the word " application " be struck out and there be inserted in lieu thereof the following words and new paragraphs : - " to a licensing court - > >for the grant of a spirit merchant's licence for premises situated within the boundaries of any land acquired by the Minister under this act (except the land described in the fourth schedule to this act)- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! In order that the honorable member may direct his remarks to the subject before the Chair, I quote the amendment now under discussion, which is couched in the following terms : - >That all words after "That" be omitted with aview to the insertion of the following words in place thereof: - "this House is of the opinion that the bill should be withdrawn so that the agreement therein referred to may be reconsidered with the object of ensuring that the securities now held by the Commonwealth over the National Oil Proprietary Limited's land shall not be surrendered until a proper scheme has been devised for the housing of its employees ". The New South Wales act has nothing to do with the amendment now before the Chair. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES: -- The amendment relates to housing, and workers are housed at hotels. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! Hotels are not referred to in the amendment. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES: -- Then I shall not use the word "hotel". It is grossly unfair if, under this housing scheme to which we object, one person is to have a monopoly of the boarding-house accommodation at Glen Davis. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member is attempting to evade the ruling of the Chair. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES: -- The point is that the State Minister has power to refuse any one the right to conduct a boardinghouse. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! I shall not allow the honorable member to continue if he does not speak to the amendment. He has already spoken to the bill. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES: -- This Government is actually countenancing the unfair provisions of the State act. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I shall not permit the honorable member to continue along those lines. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES: -- In his reply to the case submitted by myself and amplified by the honorable member for West Sydney, the Assistant Minister **(Mr. Holt)** did not answer the question that I raised in regard to housing. The Commonwealth Government has expended millions of pounds on the establishment of annexes to private industries for the purpose of building implements for the destruction of human life, including aeroplanes, which will be absolutely useless without oil fuel. Since the products of National Oil Proprietary Limited are essential to the effective defence of Australia, I ask the Government why it does not build another form of annexe by erecting homes for the workers who are producing this commodity. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Had the Assistant Minister answered that part of the honorable member's speech I should have called him to order, because he was then speaking only to the amendment. He can reply to the second-reading debate at a later stage. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES: -- The Assistant Minister said that the company, which had paid £9 an acre for the land, had very generously offered it to the State. But the Commonwealth has an interest of £334,000 in that land as a security, and under this proposal, it is relinquishing that security. According to the Assistant Minister, **Mr. Davis** is going to be generous and make an advance to the homebuilders ; but he will not make an advance without obtaining some interestbearing security, and that security will be the title deeds of the homebuilders with the prevailing rate of interest. As time goes on, this mining village will go down, and I have have seen others go down, until ultimately the workers will be in intermittent employment only and will be unable to maintain their payments. Then **Mr. Davis** will be able to foreclose on his mortgages. It will merely be a repetition of what happened in the township of Minmi, the whole of which was acquired by J. and A. Brown. The right honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Scullin)** visited that township where that firm showed the kind of "generosity" that **Mr. Davis** proposes, and he will be able to support my statement. That "generosity" turned out to be merely a wise business transaction. The shale-oil industry at Glen Davis will not last for more than 30 years. The t ownship will Ihen become a nice little tourist resort in the mountains, and for that reason will be very valuable but not to workers. That is unfair. The proposed amendment provides that the land, upon which the Commonwealth has a lien, will not be exploited in order that **Mr. Davis,** who professes to be a philanthropist, may enrich himself. In the district from which I come there are thousands of acres of land surrounding the mines, which is not worth more than 2s. an acre. If it were cut up into town sites, however, it would be worth a great deal more. It is in that way that National Oil Proprietary Limited is now trying to enhance the value of its own property at the expense of both the State of New South "Wales and the Commonwealth. It proposes to give the land away for the time being, but ultimately it will get it back when the workers are unable to meet their mortgage payments. The State Government, which has put £166,000 into the project, proposes to sell the land. It will be bought first by speculators, not by the workers. The workers cannot afford to compete at auction sales with the speculator, but ultimately will accept the speculator's sale terms. As the result of this sale the State Government will get back the money that it has invested. But what protection is provided in this measure for the Commonwealth's investment? The Commonwealth has provided more than four-fifths of the money invested when the road we arc building into the area is included in our original investments. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- The Commonwealth will get 4½ per cent. on its investment. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES: -- What is the Commonwealth getting for the 30-mile strategical road, costing more than £70,000, which will provide a highway to those home sites? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member's remarks have nothing to do with the amendment. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES: -- Altogether the Commonwealth has put approximately. £400,000 into this venture. At election times members of the Government and their supporters talk about the welfare of the working class and tell the people that they will provide a proper housing scheme for the poor unfortunate workers. But when the chickens come home to roost, and those honorable gentlemen are returned to office, they do not redeem their promises. This amendment provides them with an opportunity to do so by building homes at Glen Davis as annexes to an important industry that will supply fuel for the machines of war which are necessary for the defence of Australia. If it is good enough for private enterprise to undertake this project, let us hold on to this land and build homes for the workers. {: #subdebate-66-0-s9 .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley .- The Commonwealth and State Governments are engaged in a very interesting transaction with the National Oil Proprietary Limited. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- This proposal has the unanimous support of the Labour party of New South Wales. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR: -- I am not concerned about that. I am concerned with a few aspects which may have been overlooked, even by the Labour party of New South Wales. The interesting aspect of this is that the National Oil Proprietary Limited, in spite of all of the wonderful inducements that were held out to it, would not venture upon the extraction of oil from shale without the advance to it by the Commonwealth and State Governments at a low rate of interest of a great sum of money. Yet, before the company has actually reached the stage of production, it finds itself able to lend money to its employees to enable them to take up land for the building of homes. According to the honorable member for Riverina **(Mr. Nock),** the unimproved value of the 120 acres of land entailed in this proposal is only £10 an acre. At that valuation, it does not matter a great deal whether or not the land remains part of the security which the company gave to the Commonwealth and State Governments. The amount of £1,200 is little in a. total advance of £500,000 by the Commonwealth and State Governments to the company. The proposal is that the Government of New South Wales shall expend £40,000 on improvements to this land, which was originally worth £1,200. The land will then be subdivided and sold to the highest bidder. That is where this party joins issue with the Commonwealth and State Governments. We believe that, if the real purpose of this scheme is to provide a township of decent homes at reasonable rentals for the mostly unskilled and basic-wage workers, the objective of the Governments should be to make the land available at the cheapest possible rate, so that the workers will be able to take up the land. My contention is that, in order to prevent speculators from cornering this land, there should be a leasehold system under which no person would be able to take up more than one block. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- Provision has been made for that, except in special circumstances. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR: -- No. The Assistant Minister read sections of the State act to prove his case, but he failed to do so, because that act provides that the Minister may sell the whole of the land, portion of it, or lease it, in whole or in part. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- I shall quote what the State Minister said. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR: -- There is no provision in the State legislation to prevent speculators from taking up the whole of the blocks.' The Government of New South Wales cannot move in this matter unless this Parliament passes this bill. We, therefore, have some say. If, in respect of this land, the Government of New South Wales were to operate a leasehold system, which would prevent anybody from purchasing the whole of the blocks, there would be this advantage: If any lessee wished to surrender his lease, the State could issue a fresh lease to any person who did not already hold a block. Unfortunately, it is not proposed to do that. Instead, the land will be offered to the highest bidder. None of the basicwage workers will be able to compete with the land speculators. Thus, the dis posal by the State of this land by auction will defeat the very objective of cheap homes foi' the workers, because those land jobbers who purchase blocks will dispose of them later at inflated values. It is probable that this land, which in its unimproved state is worth £1,200 and upon which a further £40,000 is to be expended on improvements, will, on sale, bring £100,000. Who will get the profit? Will it go to the State Government or to the National Oil Proprietary Limited? It would be interesting to have a reply to that, because it is intended that National Oil Proprietary Limited shall become money lenders to its employees. It is said that more than 4,000 people will be housed in the proposed township. I should say that 4,000 people would represent between 1.500 and 2,000 families. Those families will become the immediate victims of the money lender. This company which is " sacrificing " its interest in a £1,200 block of land, will become the money lender and the security that it will have will be £150,000 worth of assets created by government expenditure. I do not see why the Assistant Minister should have felt it incumbent upon him to eulogize the National Oil Proprietary Limited in his second-reading speech, because, after all, that company is sacrificing nothing in comparison with the security it receives for its loans to home builders because of the expenditure of the contracting governments. The honorable member for Hunter **(Mr. James)** drew a parallel between this proposed new township and townships in the northern coal-fields area which have become the absolute property of the coal barons. The workers at Newnes will find themselves under this plan in the same position as many wheat-farmers who cannot produce at a profit because of the inflated value of their land, and they will find themselves forced " to pay fictitious values for the land on a small income. Should one of the employee-tenants be unable to meet his commitments, the money-lending company will be able to realize on the asset that he is forced to abandon. Fundamentally, the whole scheme is wrong and should be recast. {: #subdebate-66-0-s10 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- In ordinary circumstances the Opposition would support any scheme of home purchase for the workers, hut there are certain important aspects that must be considered when the proposition concerns housing on a mining-field. The Newnes field will have a limited life, and eventually what has happened on many other mining-fields will be repeated; the homes that are to be erected will have to be abandoned. The objective of the National Oil Proprietary Limited and the Commonwealth and State Governments is not so much the provision of housing for the employees of that company as the tying of the employees to their work. The honorable member for Barton **(Mr. Lane)** said that it was labour difficulties that had prevented earlier companies from successfully exploiting the shale-oil deposits. Those companies could not get workers to remain at the niggardly pay that they offered. But, if a worker has his home near the locality of his employment, there is a greater incentive for him to stay on the job. Moreover, when workers are the tenants of the employer, there is not the same likelihood of an industrial dispute because they will fear to lose their homes along with their employment. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr James: -- And lose the whole of their equity. Mr.WARD. - Yes. The Assistant Minister- for Supply and Development **(Mr. Holt)** said that the State Minister would have the right to remit certain payments or to extend the period of repayment. Judging by experience, when the workers have engaged in an industrial dispute over working conditions, we may expect an anti-Labour government to be favorably disposed to the attitude of the employers. If such a government is in a position to do so, it will " apply the screw " to ensure that the workers, under pain of losing their equity in their property, return to work upon the conditions laid down by the employers. We know that anti-Labour governments have not hesitated to expropriate the interest of the workers in superannuation and homepurchase schemes in an endeavour to force them back to work when an industrial dispute occurs. We should not be prepared to accept the mere statement of the Assistant Minister that the scheme is designed for the benefit of the workers. The Newnes field has only a limited life, and I believe that the best proposition would be for the State Government to build homes for letting to the workers at moderate rentals. Then, in the case of an industrial dispute, the workers could walk off the field without incurring the risk of losing the savings invested in their homes. We should not be carried away by the glib assurances of honorable members opposite that they are anxious only to assist the workers. The mere fact that they have given those assurances should be sufficient to make us view the whole scheme with suspicion. {: #subdebate-66-0-s11 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT:
Assistant Minister for Supply and Development · Fawkner · UAP -- *in reply* - Some honorable members opposite have claimed that the safeguards against the possible exploitation of the workers under this scheme are not sufficiently strong. I have already referred honorable members to those clauses in the New South Wales act which empower the Minister to exercise rigid supervision over the conditions of sale and lease of land. I shall now quote from the speech of. the Minister who introduced the bill in the New South Wales Parliament, reported at page 7294, volume 143, of the New South Wales *Parliamentary Debates -* > **Mr. L.** O. MARTIN. Yes. The Government realizes the need to prevent speculators from swamping out those interested and every safeguard is to be taken to prevent speculators from buying and holding for a rise in the unimproved value at the expense of some one else. The bill also gives power to the Government to attach certain covenantsto the land, and areas will be sold subject to a provision that the purchaser shall erect a certain type of building in a given time, otherwise the land shall revert to the Crown, to which the money paid 'for it shall be forfeited. > > **Mr. Horsington.** Is there any restriction to the number of blocks which a person may purchase ? > > **Mr. L.O.** MARTIN. An effort will be made to prevent persons from buying more than one block, except in cases in which it is necessary to have additional land to carry stores or other buildings. > > **Mr.. Baddelet.** In which case they would have to erect big buildings? > > **Mr. L.O.** MARTIN. That is so, and every precaution will be taken to ensure that the wish of the Government is carried out. That is a very clear expression of the determination of the State Government to see that the employees will not be exploited. It has been suggested that the housing scheme should be financed by the State Government. In effect, that is practically what is being done. **Mr. Davis** has undertaken to advance 10 per cent. of the purchase money, representing the deposit on the land, but arrangements are now in train for the balance of the purchase money to be made available by the Credit Foncier department of the Rural Bank. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- That seems to indicate that **Mr. Davis** is now financially strong enough to carry on without the help of a Commonwealth Government advance. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- I do not think that we would be justified in drawing that conclusion. In any case, if the scheme is as good as honorable members suggest, the Commonwealth will obtain a return on its money in excess of the interest it has itself to pay. The Commonwealth, in those circumstances, should have no desire to be relieved of the need to make the advance. A lot of unjustifiable criticism has been directed against **Mr. Davis.** It has been suggested that he will be in a much stronger position as the mortgagee who has advanced money on the land than if he had not transferred the land at all. I point out, however, that the Government of New South Wales, and, indeed, all the members of the Parliament of New South Wales, made it clear that they appreciated the generous action of **Mr. Davis** in transferring the land, and the Commonwealth Government has no hesitation in endorsing that appreciation. Very few men would be prepared to transfer land which, on the admission of honorable members opposite, is likely to increase considerably in value. In addition, **Mr. Davis'** has indicated his readiness to advance money to his employees to pay the necessary deposits on the purchase of the land. I feel confident that the Government of New South Wales car be relied upon to prevent the exploitation of the workers. I trust that the House will not divide on this question, but will exhibit the same unanimity in regard to this important industrial and social undertaking as did the State legislature of New South Wales. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr James: -- What security has the Commonwealth now for the money it will invest in the enterprise? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- There will remain as security all other assets of the company. Question put - >That the words proposed to be omitted **(Mr.** Beasley's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.) AYES: 36 NOES: 29 Majority . . 7 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In Committee:* Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to. {: #debate-66-s0 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT:
Assistant Minister for Supply and Development · Fawkner · UAP -- I move - >That after clause 3 the following new clause be inserted - > >The National Oil Proprietary Limited Agreement Act 1037 shall be read and construed as if the Fourth Schedule to the Agreement, a copy of which is set forth in the Schedule to that Act, contained, and had at the date of execution of that Agreement contained, words excluding from that Schedule the lands described in the First Part of the Schedule to the Agreement a copy of which is set forth in the Schedule of this Act." This is a purely formal amendment which is consequential on the modification of the principal agreement made by the clause 1 *a* of the amending agreement proposed to be approved by the bill. That clause of the amending agreement provides, in. effect, that any reference to land in the principal agreement shall be read as a reference to the land specified in that agreement but excluding the land prescribed in the first part of the schedule to the amending agreement. In the National Oil Proprietary Limited Agreement Act 1937 there are two provisions in relation to the lands specified in the principal agreement. In view of the variation of that agreement, it is desirable that the act of 1937 should be read as if the reference to lands therein were a reference to the lands now covered by the principal agreement, asvaried. The proposed new clause has been prepared to give effect to this. objective. Proposed new clause agreed to. Schedule. {: #debate-66-s1 .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney -- The Assistant Minister for Supply and Development **(Mr. Holt)** did not fully reply to the criticism levelled against the schedule. Clause 2 a of the proposed agreement deals with the surrender of the right of the Commonwealth Government to hold this land as security. The Assistant Minister said that the attitude of the company in forfeiting this land was generous, and that the legislature of New South Wales had expressed its appreciation of that generosity. I understand that, at the moment, the land in question is the property of the company. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- That is so. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY: -- It is the property of the company only insofar as to provide security for assistance rendered to the company by the Governments of the Commonwealth and New South Wales. That is to say, although the land is the property of the company, the company is not free to dispose of it asthe company may think fit. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- That is so. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY: -- In other words, the land is tied up, and therefore the Minister's statement relating to the generosity of the company is without foundation. On examination, the proposal of the company is purely a business one. The company desires to free the land from the lien which the Commonwealth Government has upon it. At the moment, the land is not free, but it is proposed to free it and to transfer it to the Government of New South Wales, for auction by the State, probably in order that the company may buy it back again, free of any lien. Notwithstanding that, the State Government proposes to expend £40,000 on improving the property. In its present condition, the land is worth, perhaps, £9 an acre, but, after the State Government has expended £40,000 on improvements, and when it is free from lien, it will be worth much more. It will be seen, therefore, that the company, instead of being generous, is making a good business deal. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- It might be if it bought the land. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY: -- What is to stop it from buying the land? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- The Government of New South Wales says that it will sell only single blocks. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY: -- The Assistant Minister said that the Government of New South Wales expressed a wish to that effect, but he produced no evidence to prove that it would act in that way. And even if that point were covered, there would be nothing to prevent the company from securing the most valuable sites, which would greatly appreciate in value after £40,000 had been expended in providing roads, sewerage, and other improvements. The Government of New South Wales, it is stated, will not expend that money while the Commonwealth Government retains its lien upon the land. I repeat that the proposal of the company is not generous; it is, in fact, a shrewd business deal in its own interests and, I admit, no one can complain about the company making the best deal it can in its own interests. It is this kind of generosity that is so frequently exhibited by men like those who have been appointed to the various advisory panels associated with the Defence Department. They are not so generous as some would have them appear to be. I do not want to be one to fall for such things. It is not a generous offer, but is a business deal, and I am happy to know that the Opposition has not fallen for it in the way the Minister presented the case. Whatever may have happened in the State Parliament, the Opposition in this Parliament will oppose the proposal contained in this bill. It may he that the workers who occupy these homes will have roofs over their heads, but the land will begin to slip away from them from the moment that they take possession of their homes if these conditions are allowed to prevail. {: #debate-66-s2 .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley .- I do not think that the Assistant Minister for Supply and Development **(Mr. Holt)** should expect the committee to pass the schedule without some further explanation. Section 12 of the original agreement refers to the assets of this company in the following terms: - >Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement contained before any advance is made by the. Commonwealth or the State to the Company the Company shall execute and deliver to each of them the Commonwealth and the State as security for the advances to be made by 'it and interest thereon a Deed of Covenant and Charge in accordance with the form contained in the Second Schedule hereto with such variations modifications and additions as the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth and the Premier of the State and the Company consider necessary or desirable and so that the said Deeds of Covenant and Charge shall rank *pari passu* as a first charge on the property and assets of the Company comprised therein or subject thereto without any preference or priority one over the other. For the money which they lent to the company, the Commonwealth and State Governments have an equal share in the lien over the company's assets, which were tendered as security. ' It would appear that the bone of contention is in clause 2 of the proposed agreement, wherein it is provided that the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales shall deliver to the company all documents of title to any of this land. According to the measure before us, all claims by the governments concerned to this property are immediately to be abandoned to the company. I wish to know by what means the Government of New South Wales will recover its right to the property. The Minister should explain whether it is merely a legal transaction between the company and the Government of New South Wales or whether it is something which requires special legislation. I wish to know also at what date the company proposes to abandon its claim to this property. Will it do so before £40,000 is expended on improvements by the Government of New South Wales or after those improvements have been completed ? Should the company not abandon its claim to the property until the improvements have been effected, will it be entitled to any rebate from the Commonwealth or the State in respect of the " sacrifice " that it will make ? I make that point for the reason that if the company hands over the property now, all that it could expect in return would be its value, which is £1,200; but if it retains the land until after improvements costing £40,000 have been effected, the position might be entirely different. There is no provision in this bill - and it might be that such a provision should not rightly be placed in it - requiring the company to hand over the property immediately the lien upon it is removed. I hope that the Minister will inform the House as to what plan the governments concerned have in mind for the disposal of any surplus which might arise from the sale of the property. Will any such surplus be shared equally by the two governments, or will special consideration be given to the company? The Assistant Minister should make it quite clear that if the lien on this property is removed there will be *no* hindrance to an immediate transfer of the land to the State Government. {: #debate-66-s3 .speaker-KYH} ##### Mr PRICE:
Boothby .- I have listened with interest to the speeches of the honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley)** and the honorable member for Dalley **(Mr. Rosevear)** and I endorse their request that the position im regard to this property be clarified. We should know exactly what we are doing. {: #debate-66-s4 .speaker-K4X} ##### Mr NOCK:
Riverina .- In connexion with any collateral security it is not unusual for a release of security on adjustment of the advance or some other condition to be arranged between mortgagees and mortgagors. I do not th ink there is anything unreasonable in the proposition before us. It is purely a business deal such as is frequently made in connexion with collateral security. It should be recognized that if this land were not transferred to the State Government **Mr. Davis** himself could do what is now proposed. He could build houses or shops or in fact do anything that an owner of land may do with his land, but he could not give workers a clear title to the blocks unless it is released from the Government mortgage. I can see no reason why the Labour party should object to the procedure that is being adopted. When an owner of land erects buildings on it he is entitled to draw the rentals. As a matter of fact **Mr. Davis** is not on a bud wicket, but I have no doubt that he, like the Government of New South Wales, is interested in the building of a -typical model town on this site. He, as well as the Government, desires to see a better town than is usual in mining settlements. It is for this reason that the State Government has taken action. The conditions provided in the State act counteract speculation, and make it clear that the kind of buildings to be erected and also the general terms and time limit for erecting buildings in connexion with the whole matter shall be subject to regulation. I have no doubt at all that the State Government has ideals which it would like to see expressed at Glen Davis. The very fact that only one block of land will be sold to each person, except where, say, a big store is to bc erected, shows that the matter has been given careful consideration. I can sec no reason why the proposal should not to be endorsed. **Mr. BLAIN** (Northern Territory) in this discussion but for the suggestion implied in the speech of the honorable member for the Riverina **(Mr. Nock)** that, at present, **Mr. Davis** could do what he liked with this property. The word "planning" has been used frequently this evening, but some honorable members do not seem to appreciate the meaning of the term. I have not visited Glen Davis but I have visited the shale deposits west of Muswellbrook and I can visualize the situation to some extent. The honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley)** and also the honorable member for Dalley **(Mr. Rosevear)** have, in my opinion, rightly raised the whole question of the method by which this proposed new town is to be built. It should be remembered that town planning is the function, mot of an individual, but of a local authority. I was surprised to hear the Assistant Minister **.(Mr. Holt)** speak as he did on this point in his secondreading speech. He seemed to disregard altogether the consideration that town planning is the function of a local authority. The honorable member for West Sydney is quite right, in my opinion, in pretesting against the expenditure of £40,000 by the Government of New South Wales on certain planning operations in view of the fact that no proper arrangements have been made for supervision. I am not aware of all the facts of the case, but if public money is to be expended in the provision of roads, footpaths, sewerage, water services and other amenities, a proper local authority should be appointed to supervise the work. I am sure the British Parliament would not endorse a proposition of this kind. When a similar subject was being discussed in the House of Commons recently, **Mr. McLean** pointed out that, when public moneys were being expended on highways, arterial roads or the like, the owners of adjacent properties were required to make some contribution, on a graduated scale, for the benefits that they would thereby enjoy. That is a proper system. It seems to me that some honorable members do not understand even the rudiments of town .planning. In this instance we have not been informed whether there is to be a civic square, or whether any of the usual facilities of a modern town are to be provided. The name of the ex-Surveyor-General of New South Wales, **Mr. Matthews,** has been mentioned, but we have not been informed of his exact status. We do not even know whether he is to prepare the plan; but, in any case, the carrying out of the plan should be supervised by a local authority. I was sorry to hear the honorable member for Riverina blatantly state that, at present, **Mr. Davis** could do as he likes in a matter of this kind. {: .speaker-K4X} ##### Mr Nock: -- I did not say that. I said that he owned the land at present, and so could do what was needed. {: #debate-66-s5 .speaker-JPT} ##### Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY -- I join members of the Labour party in protesting against the unsatisfactory provision that is being made to ensure that a proper townplanning authority shall be set up and a proper plan prepared in respect of Glen Davis. We should defer further action on this matter until adequate assurances are forthcoming that the work will be properly done. The workmen who will live at Glen Davis should not be treated as mice; they should be given some authority. Otherwise, the proposed work will not be done as we might wish it to be done. {: #debate-66-s6 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT:
Assistant Minister for Supply and Development · Fawkner · UAP -- Two points have been raised in this discussion. The honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley)** and the honorable member for Dalley **(Mr. Rosevear)** have asked what interval is likely to elapse after the passing of this bill before the land will be transferred from the company to the State government. I assure them that the sooner the bill is passed, the sooner the transfer can be made. At present, difficulty is being encountered in preparing the plans because the transfer has not been completed. The auction sale is to be held on Boxing Day. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr Rosevear: -- Will any legislative action be required in connexion with the transfer of the land after this bill has been passed ? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- No; that will be a legal process. The other point related to the proceeds from the sale of the land. I have already explained that the State Government is spending £40,000 on this site in providing various services. In my opinionit will be very fortunate if the sale of the land reimburses it for this expenditure. Schedule agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report - *by leave* - adopted. Bill- *by leave* - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2242 {:#debate-67} ### PATENTS, TRADE MARKS, DESIGNS AND COPYRIGHT (WAR POWERS) BILL 1939 {:#subdebate-67-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-67-0-s0 .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES:
North SydneyAttorneyGeneral · UAP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to make special provisions with respect to patents, trade marks, designs and copyright in consequence of the war. The measure will remain in operation for the period of the war and for six months thereafter. It is substantially identical with a similar measure passed some little time ago by the Imperial Parliament. As honorable members are aware, trading with enemy subjects is forbidden under the Trading with the Enemy Act; but unless provisions such as those set out in this bill are made, it will not be possible for traders and manufacturers to enjoy the benefits of licences under patents, designs and copyright that may have been granted by enemy subjects. In like fashion it would be equally impossible, in the absence of a measure such as this, for persons in this country to obtain in enemy countries that protection for their inventions and the like which, but for the war, they would have been able to obtain. The bill provides that where a person residing or carrying on business in this country has obtained a licence under a patent, design or copyright from an enemy subject, the licence shall continue in force. There are, no doubt, in this country many manufacturing industries carrying on under licences obtained from persons who are now enemy subjects. If these licences were hot continued in force, these industries might be forced to suspend or curtail their operations because they would no longer have authority to manufacture according to the patents held by enemy subjects. The bill also empowers the Attorney-General to, revoke such a licence or to vary any condition subject to which it has effect. Difficulty may arise in the case of a person who wishes to establish some industry in Australia for the purpose of which it is necessary to use a patent held by an enemy subject. The provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act prevent that person from obtaining a licence for such a purpose at present, and provision is made in the bill empowering the Attorney-General to grant a licence under patents, designs or copyrights held by enemy subjects. The bill also contains certain provisions in respect of trade marks. It not infrequently happens that substances are principally, or solely,, known according to some trade mark. If such a case occurs in respect of an enemy trade mark, trade in that article would be hampered by reason of the fact that the trade mark could not be used in connexion therewith. The bill provides that, in such cases, the AttorneyGeneral may suspend the right to use the particular trade mark to the degree necessary to render well-known and established some description of the article which does not involve the use of the trade mark. I remember very well the case of Bayer's Aspirin and Aspro. This bill is becoming increasingly familiar to me as I go through it; it is almost a facsimile of a bill introduced some time ago. The bill further provides that, notwithstanding the war, patents may be "ranted, and trade marks, designs and copyrights registered, on the application of an enemy subject, and that no act necessary for that purpose shall be deemed a contravention of the Trading with the Enemy Act. It will be appreciated by honorable members that if we were not to allow this to be done, reciprocal rights would not be granted in respect of Australian patents in enemy countries. Owing to the dislocation of communications, considerable delay takes place in lodging and completing applications for patents and the like received from abroad. Tt is therefore proposed to authorize the extension of any period of time fixed under the relevant acts where circumstances arising from the existence of a state of war render that course desirable. Tho bill also contains a clause permitting persons in Australia to pay any fee, or to do any act, necessary for obtaining the grant or renewal of a patent, trade mark or design, in an enemy *country,* and permitting an enemy subject to pay any such fee or to do any such act necessary for obtaining such a grant in Australia. This provision is desirable in order that Australian subjects may acquire, in Germany, their rights to industrial property. All of these provisions arise directly out of the war. There is, however, one provision in the bill which does not arise in consequence of the war. I refer to clause 15. By reason of a recent amendment of the Imperial Patents and Designs Act, certain Orders in Council which gave effect in Australia to the international arrangements for the protection of patents, trade marks and designs, were repealed as from the 1st August. 1938. Section J 21, sub-section 4 of the Patents Act 1903-1935 reads - >The provision of this section shall in the case of foreign States apply only in the case of those foreign States with respect to which His Majesty by order in council has before or after the commencement of this act declared the provisions of the aforesaid section one hundred and three of the said first recited Imperial Act (or any provision enacted in substitution for that section) to be applicable, and so long only in the case of each such State as the order continues in force with respect to that State. It was the practice until quite recently to proceed by way of Order in Council; but in the recent amendment of the Imperial act, that procedure was superseded by statutory authority. Section 121 of the Patents Act 1903-1935 refers to and is operative only in respect of Orders in Council. It is necessary to amend the Australian act to conform .to the amendment of the Imperial act. The Imperial Patents and Designs Act which, as I have said, formerly operated by Orders in Council directed to - specific countries, was in operation when ; the first Australian Patents bill was introduced into this Parliament in 1903. The former procedure of operating by Orders in Council operates under statutory authority. An Australian who wished to obtain patent rights in countries other than his own could not be granted such rights in countries to which the Order in Council did not apply. Now the procedure has been altered and the matter can be rectified by the exercise of statutory authority which applies to all countries which are members of the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr Rosevear: -- How many countries are not signatories to that Convention? {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- I do not know offhand; I should say that practically every civilized country is. Amendments of which notice has been given will be submitted, and I shall be pleased to give to honorable members any information I can regarding them. Speaking generally, I commend the measure to the House, and give an assurance that a substantially similar bill has been passed by the British Parliament. All of the provisions, with the exception of clause 15 to which I have referred, arise out of, or are necessary, owing to the war. The period for which this legislation will operate is limited to the war and six months afterwards. {: #subdebate-67-0-s1 .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra .- I have read this bill and it appears to be a necessary measure in a war period. As the Attorney-General **(Mr. Hughes)** has said, it is a temporary measure and will operate only for the duration of the war and six months afterwards. That was the period for which similar legislation operated during the last war, but this is not the same kind of law as was passed on that occasion, and I am rather glad to notice that it is not. I suppose that the experience gained has led to this alteration. The bill passed on the last occasion merely gave power to make regulations to do certain things, but in this case the bill itself stipulates the fundamental principles to be observed, and enables the House to determine them. This is a great improvement. The measure brings home to us how upsetting the war really is. Not only does it strain the relations between nations; it also upsets the trading, and almost personal, relations within a country. As the Attorney-General has pointed out, the main thing which this bill does is to give authority to the Minister to suspend or void patents, trade marks, designs and copyright. It gives authority for persons to hold licences for patents that are in the hands of enemy subjects, or trade marks, otherwise the Trading with the Enemy Act would prevent the sale of goods under those trade marks. The bill enables us to carry on with patents thatwould otherwise be in the hands of the enemy. It also enables enemy subjects to pay fees to maintain their patent rights, and it makes it possible for Australian patentees to pay fees in an enemy country to maintain their patent rights there. On the whole, I think that this is very necessary legislation. It occurs to me, in reading measures of this kind, and in studying international conventions dealing with trade marks and patents, that agreement has been reached to a remarkable degree between practically all of the nations of the world regarding the reciprocal rights that have been granted in different countries in respect of patent's and trade marks. One regrets that we cannot get that same spirit of co-operation with regard to other matters instead of having to resort to war. {: .speaker-JPN} ##### Mr Blackburn: -- In connexion with the Postal Union we find similar agreement. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN: -- Yes. When nations meet around a table, and discuss certain subjects of mutual interest, they can reach agreement, but on other matters that are of greater moment, I believe that if they met at a conference table in the same spirit, they could reach agreement to a. similar degree, and avoid the bloodshed witnessed in the past. However, the fact that so many nations are prepared to respect patent rights in all countries is, in itself, a great achievement. This legislation, it has been stated, will operate for the period of the war and six months after it, and then the rights of other nationals will be practically restored to them. Any money derived from the issue of licences, or any royalty received, will go not to the enemy, but to our own revenues, to be held in trust for adjustment subsequent to the war, thus respecting the individual rights of persons who may now be regarded as enemy subjects. Of course, there are safeguards in the bill to prevent money from going to enemy countries arising out of any of their rights during the war and six months afterwards. As the bill is a most necessary one, I support it. {: #subdebate-67-0-s2 .speaker-KYH} ##### Mr PRICE:
Boothby .- This bill deals with very important matters, in which I have been interested for years. When the Attorney-General introduced the measure, I asked him whether it was the big bill or the little one. He said that it was the little bill that deals with enemy subjects. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- And with our own rights, too.. {: .speaker-KYH} ##### Mr PRICE: -- Of course. I look forward to the time when the second reading will be moved of the other measure, which will deal with the law relating to patents and trade marks generally. Certain legislation was passed recently by the British Parliament, and it is now necessary for Australia to fall into line in that regard. The more comprehensive measure to which I have referred will deal, among other things, with certain anomalies that have arisen in connexion with our trade relations with the United States of America. Under the present bill, some protection will be afforded in respect of patents, trade marks and designs of enemy subjects. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. Clause 3 - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In this act, unless the contrary intention appears - (3.) For the purposes of this act - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. where a patent has been granted - 1. to any person in respect of an invention communicated to him by the actual inventor; {: #subdebate-67-0-s3 .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES:
North SydneyAttorney General · UAP -- I move - >That after the word " inventor ", subclause 3 *a* i, the words, " or by his legal representative or assignee " be inserted. Paragraph *a* of the clause provides that the actual inventor is to be deemed to have an interest in a patent where it has been granted, not to him, but to some one to whom he has communicated the invention, or has been granted to his agent, attorney or nominee. The reason for this provision is to prevent evasion by an enemy subject who is an inventor obtain ing the grant of a patent by means ofa person in one of the classes named. The paragraph as printed, however, does no: provide for the case where an enemy subject who is the actual inventor assigns the invention to a second person, and that second person communicates the invention to a third person, who obtains a patent therefor in the Commonwealth. Nor does it cover the case where the legal representative of the enemy subject communicates the invention to a person in the Commonwealth. The obtaining of a patent by a communicatee from the legal representative or 'assignee of the actual inventor is provided for under section 32 of the Patents Act, and the amendment is necessary in order to cover cases such as this. It may be taken that the amendment is necessary in order to make the clause clearer and more effective. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 4 agreed to. Clause 5 - (2.) Where, during the present state of war, an enemy subject is, or has been, whether alone or jointly with any other person, the proprietor of a patent or registered design, or the owner of any copyright, in respect of which such a licence is in force, the AttorneyGeneral may, on the application of the licensee or of any other person interested in. the patent, registered design or copyright, by order - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. revoke the licence; 1. revoke or vary any conditions subject to which the licence has effect; or 2. revoke or vary any of the provisions of a contract insofar as they relate to the licence, and may, by order, revoke or vary any such order. . . . {: #subdebate-67-0-s4 .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES:
North SydneyAttorney General · UAP -- I move - >That sub-clause 2 be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following subclause - " (2.) Where, during the present state of war, an enemy subject is, or has been, whether alone or jointly with any other person - > >the proprietor of a patent or registered design or the owner of a copyright ; or > >entitled to some other interest in a patent, registered design or copyright (not being merely the interest of a licensee), in respect of which a licence in favour of a person resident or carrying on business in Australia is in force, the Attorney-General may, on the application of the licensee or of any other person interested in the patent, registered design or copyright, by order - > >revoke the licence; > >revoke or vary any condition subject to which the licence has effect; or > >revoke or vary any of the provisions of a contract insofar as they relate to the licence, and may, by order, revoke or vary any such order ". The reason for the amendment is that sub-clause 2, as printed in the bill, refers only to enemy subjects who are the owners of patents, designs and copyrights, and does not include a reference to persons who, while not being the owners thereof, have an interest therein. Honorable members will see that sub-clause 1 of the clause refers to persons having an interest, as does also clause 6. The corresponding English provision also contains a reference to persons having an interest, and' it is considered desirable to bring the Commonwealth provision into line therewith. In order to clarify the drafting of the sub-clause, I am moving that it be omitted and a new sub-clause inserted. The new sub-clause is the same as the sub-clause as printed, except for the inclusion of the reference to persons interested. {: .speaker-KYH} ##### Mr Price: -- Is that in the British act? {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- Yes. This amendment is to make this bill, which is based on and is substantially the same as the British act, adaptable to the circumstances of this country. Amendment agreed to. . Clause,. as amended, agreed to.. Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to. Clause § - (4.) Subject to any direction of the AttorneyGeneral, the Commissioner of Patents, the Registrar of Trade Marks, the Registrar of Designs or the Registrar of Copyrights may, in any case in which he is satisfied that it is desirable in the public interest to do so, refuse to take, or suspend the taking of, any proceedings on, or in relation to, an application by an enemy subject for a patent or for the registration of a trade mark, design or copyright, or any other proceedings relating to a patent, registered trade mark, registered design or registered copyright. {: #subdebate-67-0-s5 .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES:
North SydneyAttorneyGeneral · UAP -- I move - >That the words " or any other proceedings relating to a patent, registered trade mark, registered design or registered copyright ", subclause 4, be omitted. This is appropos of the point raised by the honorable member for Boothby **(Mr. Price).** The words proposed to be omitted are not in the corresponding section of the British act. Honorable members will notice that they are in terms general and not limited to patents, &c, held by enemy subjects. It is not considered necessary that the powers conferred by subclause 4 should be exercised in relation to patents, &c, not held by enemy subjects. Amendment agreed to. Clause as amended agreed to. Clause 9 verbally amended, and, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 10 to 17 agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report *- by leave* - adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2246 {:#debate-68} ### RULES PUBLICATION BILL 1939 {:#subdebate-68-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-68-0-s0 .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES:
North SydneyAttorneyGeneral · UAP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this measure is to authorize the re-printing of Statutory Rules, as amended from time to time. As was pointed out in the second report of the Standing Committee of the Senate on Regulations and Ordinances, " the frequent amendment of regulations makes it extremely difficult for those concerned to lay their fingers upon all the regulations that bind them ". The committee suggested, as one of the means by which that evil might be mitigated, that a periodic consolidation of the regulations should be made. "While provision is made by the Amendments Incorporation Act, that, whenever the Government Printer reprints an act, he is to reprint it with any amendments which have been made thereto, no such provision exists ' with respect to the reprinting of Statutory Rules. It is now twelve years since a general revision of Statutory Rules was made, and many of them have been amended on numerous occasions, thereby giving rise to the difficulty to which the Senate committee has referred. This bill, therefore, proposes to insert in the Rules Publication Act, which is the act providing for the printing of Statutory Rules when they are made, a new section requiring the Government Printer, whenever he reprints a Statutory Rule, to reprint it with all amendments thereto. The terms of the proposed new section are clear and follow, with such alterations as are necessary, the corresponding provisions of the Amendments Incorporation Act. The object of the amendment will, I trust, commend itself to the House. {: #subdebate-68-0-s1 .speaker-JPN} ##### Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke .- I have examined the bill and I believe it to be a useful and necessary measure. I have nothing to add to the remarks made by the Attorney-General **(Mr. Hughes)** when moving the second reading. 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 2247 {:#debate-69} ### SULPHUR BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 1939 {:#subdebate-69-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-69-0-s0 .speaker-KZZ} ##### Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. Clauses 2 and 3 of the bill will render it possible for manufacturers to receive the full amount of bounty payable to them each quarter instead of each financial year - thus conforming to past practice in this industry. The Tariff Board had recommended a sliding scale bounty based on the average imported cost for each financial year, but practical considerations, not apparently brought before the board's notice, render it impossible to pay sulphur manufacturers any bounty at all until after the end of each financial year, as the basis for bounty, namely, the average imported cost for that year, could not be ascertained until after the end of the year. This amendment of the principal act will be very acceptable to sulphur producers, and will render that act similar in its operation to other bounty acts. Section 9 of the principal act provides for a reduction of bounty where profits exceed 10 per cent. per annum. Without the amendment proposed in clause 4 of the bill, it would be impossible to determine the sales value of sulphur or sulphuric acid used by a manufacturer in the production of his own fertilizers or other commodities. The determination of an assumed sales value or selling price for such sulphur or sulphuric acid is essential for the Minister to determine the net profit earned from the manufacture and sale of sulphur or sulphuric acid, and to limit that profit to 10 per cent. per annum, which is the vital purpose of that section of the bounty act. The industrial section, clause 5 of the bill, was not included in new bounty legislation in 1938, as there was then some doubt as to its validity. The then AttorneyGeneral, however, promised the DeputyLeader of the Opposition **(Mr. Forde)** to consider the matter fully, and to insert such a section if it were found to be valid and also advisable in the interests of employees in industries in receipt of Commonwealth bounties. Such consideration has been completed, and the Government recommends to the House the present bill, which provides for - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. the observance by bounty claimants of standard rates of wages and conditions of employment prescribed by Commonwealth or State industrial authorities, or registered under Commonwealth or State industrial agreements; or 1. where such standard rates do not exist, the special declaration by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, upon application by the Minister, of fair and reasonable wages and conditions of employment. The bill also empowers the Minister to direct that, where standard or specially-declared rates of wages and conditions of employment are not observed by bounty claimants, the whole or any portion of the bounty claimed by them shall not be payable. {: #subdebate-69-0-s1 .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong -- This measure, which embodies a principle very acceptable to the members of the Opposition, is to protect employees engaged in industries producing commodities on which a bounty is paid. It. is gratifying to honorable members on this side of the chamber to find that the Government has at last realized the soundness of the arguments which the Labour party has advanced from time to time, and that where standard or specially-declared rates of wages and conditions of employment are not observed by bounty claimants the whole or a portion of the bounty shall not be payable. This principle has at last been recognized by the Government, as it is embodied in other measures introduced during this period of the session, and I trust that the same principle will be observed in all other bounty legislation. It is also gratifying to find that the existing bounty is to be preserved, and that this bill provides that in future it will be paid quarterly instead of annually, although I believe that the orginal rate of bounty should have been retained. . 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 2248 {:#debate-70} ### TRACTOR BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 1939 {:#subdebate-70-0} #### Second Reading **Mr. JOHN** LAWSON (Macquarie- Minister for Trade and Customs) [11.10].- I move- >That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Tractor Bounty Act in the same way as the Sulphur Bounty Bill just passed amended the Sulphur Bounty Act. {: #subdebate-70-0-s0 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD:
Ballarat .- I am pleased that the Government has seen fit to introduce into this legislation a provision to safeguard the employees, while at the same time protecting the industry itself. This is an expanding industry in Australia, and gives employment to a large number of men. Last year, 455 complete tractors were made in Australia, and there is no reason why we should nol make all of the tractors we "need. In Ballarat two firms have been manufacturing tractors for many years, and they have treated both their clients and their employees in a reasonable way. When times were good, they gave credit to purchasers, and when the price of wheat fell, they did not make severe claims upon their debtors. All manufacturers in Australia have not such a good record. Some have not been as fair either to their clients or to their employees as have those in Ballarat. 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 2248 {:#debate-71} ### WIRE NETTING BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 1939 {:#subdebate-71-0} #### Second Reading **Mr. JOHN** LAWSON (Macquarie- Minister for Trade and Customs) [11.13].- I move- >That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is similar to that of the other bills which have just been passed. {: #subdebate-71-0-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- Theoretically, this bill should meet with the wholehearted approval of members of the Opposition in that it proposes to safeguard the working conditions of employees engaged in an industry that receives the benefit of a Commonwealth bounty, but I am not satisfied that the workers will, in fact, receive much protection. A similar provision was included in the Iron and Steel Products Bounty Act, but it has been demonstrated that a great deal depends on the way in which the act is- administered. When bills of this kind are before the House there is always a suggestion that the bounty is paid to assist some struggling industry, but I find that the wire netting bounty is being paid to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited through its subsidiaries. There are three companies engaged in the manufacture of wire netting. Lysaghts and Rylands of Newcastle, and the Western Australian company. I known that Lysaght Limited and Rylands Limited are both subsidiaries of Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, and I understand that the Western Australian company is also. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- Not unless it happened very recently. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- The Labour party supports the granting of assistance to industries that are in need of it, but we should examine every proposal of the kind in order to determine whether the industry concerned does, in fact, need assistance. Last year the Broken Hill Proprietary Company made a profit of £1,500,000, and it seems very strange that it should be allowed to rake in some more thousands in the form of a bounty on wire netting. Bounty payments under the Iron and Steel Products Bounty Act are limited to £250,000 in any one year, but it is provided that if the industry does not produce sufficient to entitle it to its full quota in one year it may produce an additional quantity the next year to entitle it to take up the whole of the bounty which would have been available over the two years. Thus, though a company may limit production in one year it may, by increasing production the following year, suffer no reduction of the amount of bounty it receives. The provision relating to labour conditions appeared in the original bounty legislation, but it did not afford the protection to the workers that it should. A labour dispute occurred at Lysaghts' works in 1938, not because the workers were seeking increased rates of pay, but because the company had reduced piece work rates by amounts ranging from 20 per cent, to 50 per cent. The Government, instead of using its power under the bounty -legislation to enforce justice for the workers, gave permission for the importation of 25,000 tons of galvanized iron, thereby assisting the company to impose unjust terms upon the employees. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- Most improper ! {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- I agree. The Government refused permission to import bar steel which the Broken Hill Proprietary Company could not supply, so that allied industries were held up, but when the industrial dispute occurred, it permitted the importation of 25,000 tons of the finished article. It is one thing to include certain provisions in a bill of this kind, but it is another thing to ensure that they are carried out. Anybody who has been through Lysaghts' works at Newcastle and inspected the conditions under which the men work will realize that they had a just grievance in 1938, particularly the men employed in the pickling section, when they protested against the reduction of their wages. At that time the employers contended that the wage rates were very high. The employees replied that the rates might appear to be high, but there were very many occasions when the men were not able to work a complete week. Owing to the effect of acid fumes the health of the men was seriously affected. They contended that even the old rates were not unusually high having regard to the effect of the work on their health. The acid fumes, I understand, loosen the teeth of the men and destroy their hair, causing baldness. Despite these conditions the government of the day did not exercise its power to ensure that the men were paid reasonable rates. It failed to take one step in order to protect them. However, when a bounty bill is introduced, certain baits are held out to honorable members generally in order to obtain their support for the measureIt is argued, for instance, that, irrespective of the wages and conditions to be observed in the industry concerned, it is far preferable to establish the industry and thus provide more employment in this country. On such occasions the Government also guarantees to prevent exploitation of the consumers. I know of no instance in which the Government has exercised that power effectively. In order to prevent profiteering the Government has power to examine the books and accounts of any company whose operations are the subject of complaint. A fair margin of profit is deemed to be 15 per cent, over costs. Under this system, however, no regard is paid to the fact that, companies can hide their, real profits, by having enormous sums placed in reserve and further sums set aside for taxation. I do not agree that that is the proper way to arrive at a fair profit. Consequently, I shall not build up the hopes of the workers in this industry, or give them any reason to expect any additional protection with regard to their wages and conditions, as the result of this measure. Provisions of this kind can be effective only when they are administered by a government sympathetic with the workers concerned; and it is because we hope that at some time in the future a Labour government may have an opportunity to administer this provision to the advantage of the workers in the industry, we offer no abjection to this measure. {: #subdebate-71-0-s1 .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY:
Swan .- No doubt the Government is pleased with the reception given to this bill, which is being introduced for the purpose of placating Labour. It should deal as sympathetically with the primary producers as the principal users of wire netting. I have pointed out on more than one occasion that Lysaghts' and Rylands' quotations not only provide for wholesale, but also stipulate retail prices, and that these firms penalize any retailer who sells their products at prices below those stipulated. This abuse should have been inquired into by the Tariff Board when, on a previous occasion, I produced figures showing that in South Africa the wire netting of the British manufacturer, despite the fact that he has to meet Belgian, Dutch and Germany competition, and pay a duty of 15 per cent., is from 30 per cent. to 35 per cent. cheaper than it is in Australia. In 1910, in Western Australia, I bought 10 miles of imported rabbit-proof netting at under £20 a mile. The average price over a number of years up to three years ago was £44 a mile , for a most inferior item. When I was last in Western Australia, i found that in some districts, which had experienced heavy rain, miles of Detting had been destroyed. One man who had just erected six miles of netting lost half of it in that flood. Some time ago the Labour Government in Western Australia imported from Great Britain 352 miles of rabbit-proof netting when a bounty of £3 9s. was being paid to our manufacturers. Although the British product is supposed to be duty free, a dumping duty of £1,970 was charged on that shipment. I cannot understand why legislation of this kind is rushed through in the closing hours of a session merely in order to satisfy certain demands by Labour, while at the same time, the Government is not prepared to protect the primary producer. The manufacturer should be compelled to sell his product to every trader at a uniform price, and should be prevented from dictating the price at which the product shall be retailed. {: #subdebate-71-0-s2 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Balaclava .- One or two misunderstandings appear to have arisen in connexion with this bounty in respect of which the total allocation for this year will amount to approximately £2,000. This sum is being made available to help a Western Australian industry. The measure is a great testimony to the enterprise of a small firm which has been carrying on in that State under tremendous disabilities. {: .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr Curtin: -- It will be the only firm which will be entitled to the bounty. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- Yes; because the bounty is to be paid only to companies which can show that their profits are less than 6 per cent. In that way the bigger companies will be excluded. I assure the honorable member for Swan **(Mr. Gregory)** that British wire netting is duty free, neither is any primage, dumping duty or sales tax paid on it. The Australian industry can hold its own against British wire netting, although there is a duty of £5 a ton on foreign wire netting. As Germany was the chief supplier of wire netting of foreign origin, we can congratulate ourselves that the pressure put on the Government, and on me in particular, for a trade agreement failed and we have not provided Germany with credits which would have been used against ourselves. There are few secondary industries in Western . Australia, and the manufacture of - wire netting in that State has been carried on under difficulties. As has been pointed out, most of their raw materials come from the eastern States. The honorable member for Swan should support the industry which has been established in his own State, particularly as wire netting is as cheap in Australia as anywhere else in the world, if it is not cheaper. {: #subdebate-71-0-s3 .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr CURTIN:
Leader of the Opposition · Fremantle -- It is true that, for some years, a bounty was paid to all of the producers of wire netting in Australia, and that the greater part of the money was distributed among companies operating in the Eastern States, particularly at Newcastle in New South Wales. By an amendment of the law, the bounty was restricted to those manufacturers of wire netting whose profits are shown not to exceed 6 per cent. From discussions which I have had with men responsible for the Western Australian enterprise, I know that they expect that the whole of the bounty to be disbursed during the present financial year will be paid to them. {: .speaker-KZZ} ##### Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP -- Lysaghts Limited and Rylands Limited have informed the Government that they do not intend to claim the bounty this year. {: .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- We have reached the stage in secondary industries in this country that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited is now independent of customs protection. Its desire now is not for added protection, but for lower wages than formerly and no reduction of the hours of labour. It believes that it is able to stand on its own feet, provided that it can secure the labour conditions that it desires. That is true of the wire-netting industry in the eastern States generally, but it certainly is not true of the enterprise in Western Australia, which has existed in the face of great difficulties only because of the persistence of its promoters. Were it not for their determination to succeed, I venture to say that the enterprise would have ended long ago. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- That is so. {: .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- In a variety of ways the Government of Western Australia has assisted that enterprise. Without such aid, it could not have survived. The purpose of the bill before us is to ensure that the company, which is manufacturing wire netting in Western Australia, will satisfy the Minister that it has observed award conditions and local standards before receiving assistance from the Commonwealth Government. I say to all manufacturers and other persons who are in receipt of bounties from the Consolidated Revenues of this country, that one of the conditions attaching to such assistance should be that the industry concerned pays award rates and observes reasonable labour conditions. The bounty is not paid to them for their own personal advantage. I say that as definitely to the farmers in respect of wheat production as I do to the manufacturers of wire netting. Any industry which claims that it. cannot exist without aid from the consolidated revenue of the Commonwealth has a case for consideration ; be- ennpe this nation needs industries; but an industry which is assisted by bounties should not expect its employees to work under conditions which are inferior to the general standard. I congratulate the Government on having introduced this provision into legislation of this character. {: #subdebate-71-0-s4 .speaker-KZZ} ##### Mr JOHN LAWSON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP -- *in reply* - This bill and other similar measures have been introduced not for the purpose of placating the Labour party as the honorable member for Swan **(Mr. Gregory)** suggested, but in order to ensure that, as far as practicable, the payment of bounties will be subject to the observance of reasonable wage standards and working conditions in the industries affected. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- Is that not covered by the Arbitration Act? {: .speaker-KZZ} ##### Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP -- Not in re- ' spect of all industries. There is no need to apologize for legislation of this kind. I do not know what the honorable member for Swan meant when he said that we should do something for the producers. I remind him that no duty is payable on wire netting from the United Kingdom, and I refer him to the report of the Tariff Board; which shows that after citing certain statistics relating to prices in other countries, that body said - >Whilst no definite conclusions as to the relative prices of competitive goods supplied from different countries can be drawn from these statistics, they seem to confirm in some degree the view that Australian prices are at present the cheapest in the world. In the light of that statement, there is no ground for the charge that Australian manufacturers of wire netting have exploited the users of that commodity. As the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Cur tin)** has pointed out, the legislation in respect of bounties which operated until September of last year was amended, and in future only the firm which, is operating in Western Australia will enjoy its benefits. The decision of Rylands Limited and Lysaghs Limited not to claim a share in the bounty should reassure honorable members. As to ensuring that award conditions are observed by the recipients of bounties. I inform the House that, before any bounty is paid, customs officers make frequent close checks and satisfy themselves that the provisions of the law are observed. The introduction of this class of legislation should convince honorable members that the Government is endeavouring to ensure that the workers in industries which arc assisted by bounties shall be properly treated. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Ratesof wages and conditions of employment). {: #subdebate-71-0-s5 .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY:
Swan -- I wish to refer to the statement made a few moments ago by the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. John Lawson)** to the effect that the Tariff Board had expressed the opinion that wire netting prices in Australiawere the lowest- The **CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).Remarks** on that subject will not be relevant to the clause. Clause agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third time, {: .page-start } page 2252 {:#debate-72} ### NEWSPRINTING PAPER BOUNTY BILL 1939 {:#subdebate-72-0} #### Second Reading **Mr. JOHN** LAWSON (Macquarie- Minister for Trade and Customs) [11.43]. - I move- That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this measure is similar to that of the bill which has just been passed. {: #subdebate-72-0-s0 .speaker-JNX} ##### Mr BARNARD:
Bass . -This bill seeks to amend the Newsprinting Paper Bounty Act 1938 by inserting in it a clause designed to protect the rates of wages and conditions of employment of the men engaged in the industry. This is an entirely new industry and I am glad that the Government has seen fit to introduce this provision in regard to it at this early stage in its history. It is remarkable that the clause was not included in the principal act originally. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr Archie Cameron: -- Probably the Labour party failed to ask for it. {: .speaker-JNX} ##### Mr BARNARD: -- If the Leader of the Country, party **(Mr. Archie Cameron)** will refer to the *Hansard* report, he will see that we did ask for it and in no half-hearted way either. I congratulate the Government upon taking this step. It has already been found that in some respects certain employees associated with this industry on a piecework basis have been unfairly treated. The Opposition will support the bill. {: #subdebate-72-0-s1 .speaker-JXL} ##### Mr FROST:
Franklin .- I also support the bill. In reply to the interjection made a few moments ago by the Leader of the Country party **(Mr. Archie Cameron),** I wish to say that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Forde)** made a strong endeavour to obtain the insertion of a clause of this character in the Newsprinting Paper Bounty Bill 1938, but at that time the Government was not prepared to accede to the request. Since the provision of the bounty on newsprinting paper, very active steps have been taken to establish the industry in Tasmania. I hear an honorable member ask: "Where is Tasmania"? It is the smallest and most persecuted State of the Commonwealth, but the establishment of the newsprinting paper industry there will mean a good deal to it. The company which has. embarked on this enterprise will spend £1,000,000 on capital equipment. The industry will supply a long-felt need in Australia. I understand that the newspapers are already experiencing some difficulty in obtaining newsprint, and we may look for smaller issues in the near future. I. have no doubt that before very long the production of newsprinting paper will be undertaken in other States than Tasmania. I am sorry that the Tasmanian company has not actually reached the production stage. Had it not been for the provision of the bounty, the industry could not by now have been established. I visited the works a few weeks ago and found hundreds of men in employment there. The necessary buildings are in course of construction. When the bounty bill was before the House last year, the manager of the company, who was present in Canberra, said that noobjection would be offered by his organization to the inclusion in the bill of a clause of the kind now before us. The company, he added, intended to do the very best it possibly could do for its workers. We have been given to understand that a good housing scheme will be provided as soon as the company gets its works into operation, for itdesires the people working for it to be contented and happy. The company will also assist in co-operative forestry work. Unfortunately it has been the custom in Australia to destroy forests. This company undertakes to cut out the forest and to use all timber of suitable age. It has no objections to this amendment. I have reason to believe that the Minister would have been prepared to accept it when the original bill was before the House some time ago but for some legal difficulty that arose in connexion with it. {: #subdebate-72-0-s2 .speaker-KUO} ##### Mr SPURR:
Wilmot -- I support the bill, realizing the very great importance of this industry to Tasmania in particular. In granting a bounty to assist an industry the Government should go one step further and provide that it shall be paid only to those companies which provide decent working conditions for their employees. It is because I realize that, under this bill, the wages paid to the direct employees of the company can be controlled that I have pleasure in supporting it. I should like, however, to direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that I have received information of what practically amounts to sweating conditions which are imposed by some contractors employing cutters in the forests in Tasmania. *As* honorable members know, many hundreds of thousands of tons of wood are used annually in the process of making paper. The cutting of a great deal of this timber is done by contract. I have been reliably informed to-night by one of the contractors engaged in this work in Tasmania, that, during some months of the year, only very good woodcutters employed by some contractors can earn from 35s. to £2 5s. a week. I wish it to be understood that I am referring now, not to those directly employed by the paper manufacturing companies, but to the employees of the contractors. {: .speaker-JXL} ##### Mr Frost: -- No wood, is being cut now for the company engaged in the manufacture of newsprinting paper. {: .speaker-KUO} ##### Mr SPURR: -- I am referring to some employees of contractors supplying timber to the Burnie Paper Pulp Works. I should like the Minister to see if something cannot be done to compel any company which is to benefit by this bounty to insert a provision in any contract it makes for. the supply of timber or wood that the contractor must undertake to pay fair wages to his employees. . A number of complaints have already been made in regard to this very important matter, and I feel sure that no honorable member will say that the Commonwealth Government should pay a bounty to any company which permits the indirect employment of men at such low wages. Information regarding this unsatisfactory state of affairs in the industry came to me to-night, not from the workers employed by a contractor, but from one of the contractors who realizes the injustice rneted out to many workers and also the unfair position in which he is placed in having to compete with other contractor? who pay such meagre wages. The Minister should closely investigate this complaint in the interests of all sections of the industry. I trust that this bill will be speedily passed and that its provisions will be administered sympathetically in the interests of those employed in the industry. Question, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time and reported from the committee without amendment or debate; report adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third time. *Sitting suspended from 11.56 p.m. to 12.80 a.m. (Thursday).* *Thursday, 7 December 1939* {: .page-start } page 2253 {:#debate-73} ### TRADE AGREEMENT (BRAZIL) BILL 1939 {:#subdebate-73-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-73-0-s0 .speaker-KZZ} ##### Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. I wish to emphasize that the notes exchanged between the High Commissioner in London and the Brazilian Ambassador were signed on the 19th July, 1939. The notes together form a simple type of most-favoured-nation agreement. No specific tariff concessions arc provided for in the agreement, which simply guarantees that Australian goods imported into Brazil and Brazilian goods imported into Australia will receive treatment not less favorable than that granted to goods fromany other foreign country. On the part of Australia, the agreement was designed principally to secure the most favorable conditions of entry of Australian wool into Brazil,the trade in which was showing a promising degree of expansion. Honorable members will appreciate that the events which have taken place since the signing of the agreement may affect the export of wool to Brazil. Nevertheless, I do not consider that that fact should prevent formal approval from being given to the agreement. I shall, therefore, deal as briefly as possible with the reasons which led to the exchange of the notes which constitute the agreement. Brazil has a double-columned tariff providing minimum and maximum rates of duty. The lower tariff rates are applied to imports from countries which have entered into trade agreements with Brazil under which Brazilian goods receive most-favoured-nation treatment. At the present time, imports of Brazilian goods into Australia are subject to the general tariff rates of duty, and consequently Brazil applies the maximum tariff rates to Australian goods imported into that country. The agreement now before the House will remove any competitive disadvantages to which Australian goods are subject in Brazil. The Brazilian import duty on wool under the maximum tariff is 1.680 milreis per kilogramme gross weight, plus 10 per cent. of that duty, equivalent to approximately 3d. per lb. gross weight in Australian currency. The minimum tariff is 1.360 milreis plus 10 per cent., equivalent to approximately 2½d. per lb. The wool textile industry in Brazil has been expanding rapidly in recent years. It already supplies the bulk of the domestic demand for the coarser types of fabrics woven from locally grown and spun wool.For the manufacture of finer weaves of textiles the industry has been dependent to a large extent upon imported yarns, but this trade is gradually being displaced by the increasing output of the Brazilian spinning industry using imported raw wools of fine counts. Australian exporters have been evincing a keen interest in this development. Brazilian statistics show that imports of wool in 1938, including raw wool and wool in all stages of manufacture up to yarns, were valued at the equivalent in Australian currency of approximately £664,000. The value of Australian wool exports to Brazil has increased considerably since 1934-35, and, as Australian wool is subject to slightly higher duties than wool from competing sources, it was anticipated that the removal of the differential margin would encourage a more extensive use of Australian staple. A trade has recently developed in the export of Australian essential oils to Brazil. These goods will receive the benefit of a reduction of duty of approximately one-fifth by the application of the minimum tariff. Brazil has a favorable trade balance with Australia. This is due to the fact that Brazil supplies a number of commodities which are raw materials for Australian industry, such as carnauba wax, edible nuts, cocoa beans and cocoa butter. The goods imported from Brazil are not of a kind on which tariff concessions have been granted by Australia in trade agreements negotiated with other foreign countries. The extension to Brazil of most-favoured-nation treatment will not, therefore, result in any measurable increase of imports from Brazil, or any loss of revenue. The agreement contains the usual stipulation by which preferences granted by Australia to British countries are to be maintained. On the other hand any special advantages granted by Brazil to neighbouring countries for the purpose of facilitating frontier traffic, or the advantages or favours resulting from any customs union to which Brazil may become a party, are exempted from mostfavourednation treatment. Honorable members will observe that the agreement is to come into operation on a date to be fixed by mutual arrangement. This provision was incorporated in order that the agreement would not become effective until after approval by Parliament. I therefore submit the bill to this House with every confidence that it will meet with the approval of honorable members. {: #subdebate-73-0-s1 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Capricornia -- As this bill provides guarantees that Australian goods imported by Brazil, and Brazilian goods imported to Australia, will receive most-favoured-nation treatment, the Opposition will not oppose it. It is desirable to remove the present trade disadvantages suffered by the two countries. {: #subdebate-73-0-s2 .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports -- Whilst I do not oppose this measure, I consider it advisable to express our opinions in regard to the principles involved. To-day I heard over the air that the people of the United States of America are preparing the way for recasting international relations as soon as a peace treaty is signed. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- The war has not yet been won. {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY: -- But I am hoping that an armistice will be arranged before Christmas. A complete alteration of international relations would mean the scrapping of the most-favoured-nation treatment, which has always been a cause of irritation. I often wonder whether Australia gains anything by entering into trade agreements of this kind. Every time we grant trade advantages to certain nations., we hurt the feelings of others. We add nothing to world trade by means of these arrangements. We merely redistribute trade among different nations, and, whilst we may make good friends of some countries, we irritate others.. I hope that some day all countries, apart from the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, will be on the same footing, as far as trade with us is concerned. Countries which purchase our wool take it, not to oblige us, but merely because it suits them to buy it; similarly, we purchase nuts from Brazil because they are of a kind that we cannot obtain elsewhere. Trade rivalries lead to wars between nations. Great Britain has always purchased large quantities of Australian wool of a quality that it cannot get elsewhere, and it sells wool to Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Armenia and Palestine. At a profit, Great Britain sells our wool to the Arabs for manufacture into mats and other products. In return it buys from Arabian countries figs, dates, carpets, &c. When we make these tuppenny- halfpenny most-favoured nation treaties, we may get a little more direct trade, but in doing so, we lose a corresponding quantity of trade with Great Britain, and, in the last analysis, there is not very much in them. I do not think that very long will elapse before we shall come to the conclusion that we should scrap the lot and say to the world that, after we have given preference to our own people, no nation is more favoured in our eyes than any other. I suppose that this bill will be agreed to unanimously, but we must recast our thoughts in the manner I have indicated if we are to obtain the collective security that we all hope will emerge from this war. This war is a terrible curse now, but in the long run it may prove to be a blessing, because from it we may obtain that which we all hoped to get from the League of Na tions. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr Anthony: -- Provided we win it. {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY: -- Does one ever win anything by going to war? {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr Archie Cameron: -- Ask the Germans who won the last war? {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY: -- That is the bigoted and orthodox way of looking at the last war. I hope that out of these difficulties we shall achieve collective security. After the countries lay down arms and negotiations start, I hope that there will arise in the world something which will give the results which we all thought would come from the League of Nations. {: #subdebate-73-0-s3 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Balaclava -- The way in which the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Holloway)** has addressed himself to this matter should not be allowed to pass unnoticed. Just what is he driving at? The honorable gentleman spoke about international peace and freer trade. Is he opposed to the policy of Empire preference ? {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr Holloway: -- I said that I was in favour of Empire preference. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- Well why make these pious generalizations? Is the honorable member opposed to protection in Australia? Certainly not! The honorable member shows that he is not, whenever tariff matters are before the House. He should not belittle a bill which is brought forward in order to increase our trade and broaden trade throughout the world, because he should know that the result of mostfavourednation treatment has been to increase the flow of international trade. When nations offer us such terms as were offered by Brazil, we should accept their offers. This policy achieves that very aim of which the honorable member is thinking. Universal free trade can never be achieved until all the resources of the nations, physical and material, are equal and until national bound ariea no longer exist. The honorable member should realize that without protective tariffs Australian industry could not hold out against Japan; I think that the honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Brennan)** asked me what I thought about Empire trade. **Mr. Brennan.** - No, free trade. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- My idea of Empire trade which I should deal with first, is that we should have the greatest possible flow of trade within the Empire as an example to the other nations of the world of the worth of co-operation, and in order to show that a community of nations can live in peace and friendship and enjoy a high living standard. Free trade, I think, could never come unless the conditions were as I have just specified, and unless all countries had uniform taxation, hours of work and rates of pay.Why, therefore, at this juncture, should the honorable member for Melbourne Ports rise to talk about a just peace and a changedworld? There is a big enough task in front of us now. Let us first concentrate on winning the war by giving the greatest possible support to Britain and its allies. We can keep at the back of our mindsthose other matters which the honorable member has brought forward as being of such great importance. I support this little bill. We do not buy much from Brazil. {: .speaker-KZZ} ##### Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP -- We buy from Brazil more than it buys from us. The balance of trade is in Brazil's favour. Nevertheless last year we sold to that country £15,000 worth of wool. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- Yes. Collectively these trade agreements are well worth having. Last year we concluded a little one with Switzerland. South Africa did not give us most-favoured-hation treatment until two years ago. These arrangements make for expansion of trade and although this a small measure it is a worthy one. {: #subdebate-73-0-s4 .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BarkerLeader of the Country party -- I should not have spoken but for the speech of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Holloway).** {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr Holloway: -- I am glad that I have shocked the honorable member into thought. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON: -- The honorable member has not shocked us into thought. On the contrary he has made us realize that there has been a stirring of the intellectual dead bones of the Opposition. The honorable gentleman had a bit to say about international trade and the necessity for it to be freer, and about the necessity for collective security. I have vivid recollections of the last time when collective security was an active issue. The Opposition, with the exception of the honorable member for Bourke **(Mr. Blackburn),** was absolutely opposed to collective security. {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr Holloway: -- But that involved sanctions. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON: -- At this hour of the morning and in the last month of the year I do not propose to enter into what would be an interesting debate on this question, but the honorable member for Melbourne Ports can rest assured that his speech to-night will not be forgotten and that on an occasion next year a few of us will have some interesting observations to make about that speech. {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr Holloway: -- I have not run out of powder yet. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON: -- The real point to-night is that the Minister did not profess that this new trade agreement, from the viewpoint of cash value, was important, but the fact stands out clearly that anything that can be done to increase the sale of Australia's greatest export, namely, wool, is helpful to our economy. Therefore this measure should be supported by every member of the House. {: .speaker-JUQ} ##### Mr Clark: -- There was no thought of that aspect when restrictions were placed on goods from Japan. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON: -- My stand in respect of trade with. Japan is all light, and I know where I stand in regard to the wool industry. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports mentioned the sale of wool to Armenia and Arabia. Not much wool goes to Arabia. {: .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr Holloway: -Wool goes to Arabia from England which takes figs in return. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON: -- Very little. But if we can establish a demand in South America for Australian fine wool it will be an excellent thing, and, to the extent to which this Government hopes that this trade agreement will assist towards that end, it is desirable that this measure should receive the endorsement of every honorable member. 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 2257 {:#debate-74} ### TRADE AGREEMENT (NEWFOUNDLAND) BILL 1939 {:#subdebate-74-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-74-0-s0 .speaker-KZZ} ##### Mr JOHN LAWSON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. Honorable members will observe that the exchange of notes embodying the agreement between Australia and Newfoundland provides for the grant by Newfoundland of exclusive tariff preferences of 1 cent. per lb. on Australian butter and 10 per cent. ad valorem on Australian canned fruits, while Australia accords admission under the British preferential tariff of Newfoundland newsprint. At present goods from Newfoundland on importation into Australia are subject to most-favoured-nation treatment. Similar treatment is accorded to Australian products on importation into Newfoundland. The rate of duty now levied in Newfoundland on butter is 8 cents, approximately 5½d. per lb., and on canned fruits 40 per cent, ad valorem. No preference on these commodities is accorded by Newfoundland to any country, either British or foreign. Newfoundland newsprint imported into Australia is at present dutiable under the general tariff at £4 a ton, whilst newsprint originating in the United Kingdom and Canada, which are Australia's principal sources of supply, is admitted free of duty under the British preferential tariff. Australian trade with Newfoundland has up to the present been negligible, and it is hoped that the preferences granted by Newfoundland to Australia alone may have a beneficial effect on our trade with that country. On . the other hand, Australia will undoubtedly benefit from the establishment of an alternative Empire source of supply of newsprint. Australian newspaper interests have already had difficulty in obtaining an assurance of future supplies from the United Kingdom. It is not proposed to substitute indiscriminately Newfoundland newsprint for that manufactured in the United Kingdom. The agreement has the support of the United Kingdom Government, which is at present administering Newfoundland under a Commission. {: #subdebate-74-0-s1 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Oapricornia -- Although this measure is not of great importance, I believe that it is a step in the right direction, and consequently the Opposition will not oppose it. Some years ago the Scullin Government negotiated a very satisfactory trade agreement with the dominion of Canada which conferred considerable benefits on the primary producers of this country. Under that agreement dried fruits and numerous other primary products were placed on the Canadian markets, and in return Australia purchased a number of Canadian products without interfering with our secondary industries. I do not support all agreements entered into between the Commonwealth and overseas' markets, because I can recall some introduced by previous Ministers for Trade and Customs which cut right across Australia's protective policy, and under which concessions were granted that militated against secondary development without conferring any commensurate benefit on the primary industries of the Commonwealth. This agreement will not inflict any hardship upon Australia and will provide preferential rates in respect of butter, canned fruits and other commodities, and in return we are to give British preferential rates on newsprint produced in Newfoundland. {: #subdebate-74-0-s2 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Balaclava .' - I - I challenge the statement made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Forde)** that some trade agreements entered into by previous Ministers for Trade and Customs have cut right across Australia's protective policy. The honorable member knows very well that the industrial development in Australia at the period to which he referred, whether based on the number of employees, the number of factories or the amount of the wages paid, was the greatest which Australia has ever experienced. I invite the honorable member to quote one agreement that had the effect he alleged. Mr.Forde.The Ottawa Agreement is one. **Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).Order!** . The honorable member must discuss the bill before the House. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- We are discussing trade agreements generally. {: #subdebate-74-0-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- That is not so. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a definite statement, and I should be allowed to reply. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may have made such a statement; but the honorable member for Balaclava would be clearly out of order should he reply to it at length. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- With due respect, sir- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- It is quite . possible that at times the Chair may ignore an irrelevant reference, but should it do so an honorable member who speaks subsequently cannot on that ground claim the right to debate the subject. Trade agreements made in the past cannot be debated under this measure. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- I have no intention now to do so. The Government's policy is to provide for two-way traffic, and the object of this agreement is to assist that policy. I am glad to have had an opportunity to deny the wild statement made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I support the bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* The bill. {: #subdebate-74-0-s4 .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN:
Batman -- This agreement between the Com- . monwealth and Newfoundland is, in accordance with the prevailing fashion, supposed to be taken at a single gulp. Newfoundland now appears to be designated " Nufundland ", which is quite out of harmony with my teaching. I propose to- deal with the question of trade agreements generally. The bill invites specific and meticulous examination, for example, of the Ottawa Agreement. The **CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).The** honorable member is not in order in discussing that matter, even though the bill is being taken as a whole. He must confine his remarks to the effect of the clauses. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- There can be no principle applying to this trade agreement which may not properly be compared with the principles that apply to other trade agreements. There is no principle of trade, reduced to writing as a trade agreement, which, for purposes of illustration and comparison, may not properly be examined when we are considering this billas a whole in committee. {: #subdebate-74-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member must recognize that the references in the various clauses of the bill are specific. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- I apprehend that you would concede something less in a discussion of a bill as a whole in committee than you would be prepared to concede in a discussion on the motion for the second reading of the bill. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- That is so. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- As a matter of fact, if I succeed in establishing the point that any interference with the right of honorable members to discuss trade agreements in general during the secondreading debate on a bill would be quite improper interference with the rights of Parliament I shall be satisfied. Now, having to my own satisfaction, and the satisfaction of other honorable members, irrespective of the lateness of the hour and the comparative unimportance of trade agreements with Brazil and Newfoundland, established that the rights of honorable members still remain intact, I should like to make a few general observations in support of some remarks passed by my friend, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Holloway)** . I am not referring to a recent debate in this House, because I know that there are all sorts of ways of impinging upon the rights of honorable members if they seek to do anything of that kind. A few days ago, however, I had a conversation with the honorable member for Melbourne Ports on the subject of trade agreements, and I heard from him an expression of opinion which was marked by that common sense that characterizes everything he says. He stated that, on the whole, these patchwork agreements, though they might in special circumstances {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member is not in order in making a second-reading speech at this stage. He must confine himself to the three clauses of the bill, together with the schedule. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- I am doing so, and I take leave to say that I heard an opinion expressed recently by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports that the method of entering into agreements, now with one State and now with another, was unsatisfactory, and had the effect of creating animosity and jealousy among nations that ought, as far as possible, to be avoided. It has been suggested that, as we accept the principle of Empire preference in trade, there is justification for entering into this agreement. I do not propose to discuss the general principle of Empire preference other, than to say that it is based on the assumption that the Empire is an integer. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member is aware that his remarks are inconsistent with the Standing Orders. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- I do not question your right to call me to order, **Mr. Chairman,** and I shall accept your direction, but if you presume to tell me that I am insincere, and do not believe what 1 am saying, I resent it. I will not accept such an imputation from you or any other man. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member surprises me if he insists that he, with his experience, really believes that his remarks are in orderduring this stage of the bill. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- I take it that agreements of this kind should be entered into only in very special circumstances, and to a limited extent, and that, in principle, they are to be deprecated on the ground which I have already stated, namely that, on the whole, the small gain to be obtained is more than offset by the consequent jealousies, trade bickerings and lack of reciprocity to which they give rise. Therefore, while I accept the bill for the reasons given by the honorable member for Capricornia **(Mr. Forde),** an experienced former Minister for Trade and Customs, who, as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, has acted throughout in a wise and judicial manner. I do so with the qualifications which I have stated. Bill agreed to and reported from committee without amendment; report adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2259 {:#debate-75} ### TARIFF PROPOSALS 1939 {:#subdebate-75-0} #### Customs Tariff (Newfoundland Preference) {:#subdebate-75-1} #### In Committee of Ways and Means: {: #subdebate-75-1-s0 .speaker-KZZ} ##### Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP -- I move - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. That, on and after a time and date to be fixed by Proclamation, duties of Customs at the rates for the time being in force under the British Preferential Tariff be imposed on the goods specified in the Schedule hereto which - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. are the produce or manufacture of Newfoundland; 1. comply with the laws and statutory regulations for the time being in force affecting the grant of British preference; and 2. have been shipped in Newfoundland to Australia and {: type="i" start="i"} 0. have not been transhipped; or 1. have been transhipped and the intended destination of which, when originally shipped from Newfoundland, the Collector of Customs is satisfied was Australia. 1. That the duties of Customs imposed on any goods in accordance with this Resolution be in lieu of the duties (if any)' imposed on those goods under the Customs Tariff. 2. That the duties of Customs imposed by this Resolution be charged, collected and paid to the use of the King for the purposes of the Commonwealth of Australia on all goods subject to those duties which are imported into Australia after the- commencement of the Act passed to give effect to this Resolution, or are imported into Australia before, and are not entered for home consumption until after, the commencement of that Act. 3. That, in this Resolution, unless the contrary intention appears - " British Preferential Tariff " means the rates of duty set out in the column headed: "British Preferential Tariff" in the Schedule to the Customs Tariff, in respect of any goods in relation to which the expression is used; " Customs Tariff " means the *Customs Tariff* 1933-1939 and includes that Act as amended from time to time and any Act passed in substitution for that Act, or for that Act as so amended; " Proclamation " means a Proclamation by the Governor-General, or by the person for the time being administering the Government of the Commonwealth, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, and published in the *Commonwealth of Australia Gazette.* This motion is complementary to the Trade Agreement (Newfoundland) Bill, and is designed to give effect to the tariff changes necessary as the result of the trade agreement concluded with the Government of Newfoundland. The duties proposed will not operate immediately, but will take effect from a date to be fixed by proclamation. This course has been adopted because parliamentary approval to the trade agreement is necessary before the related tariff changes may be operated. The proposals involve only the customs duties on newsprinting paper the produce or manufacture of Newfoundland, when of the class covered by item 334 cl in the Customs Tariff 1933-1939. This paper is now dutiable at £4 a ton - the general tariff rate embodied in the Customs Tariff. The purpose of the proposals is to apply the British preferential rate incorporated in that tariff. As newsprinting paper covered by Customs Tariff item 334 c 1 is at present admitted free of customs duty under the British preferential tariff, the proposals represent a reduction of £4 a ton of the duty on newsprinting paper, the produce or manufacture of Newfoundland. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported. Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted. {:#subdebate-75-2} #### Ordered - >That **Mr. John** Lawson and **Mr. Perkins** do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution. {: .page-start } page 2260 {:#debate-76} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF (NEWFOUNDLAND PREFERENCE) 1939 Bill brought up by **Mr. John** Lawson, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 2260 {:#debate-77} ### RAW COTTON BOUNTY BILL 1939 Order of the Day - Raw Cotton Bounty Bill 1939, second reading, resumption of debate - read and discharged. {: .page-start } page 2261 {:#debate-78} ### RAW COTTON BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 1939 Message recommending appropriation reported. *In committee* (Consideration of Governor-General's message) : Motion (by **Mr. John** Lawson) agreed to - >That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend the Raw Cotton Bounty Act 1934-1938. Resolution reported. Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted. *Ordered -* >That **Mr. John** Lawson and **Mr. Perkins** do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution. Bill brought up by **Mr. John** Lawson, and read a first time. {:#subdebate-78-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-78-0-s0 .speaker-KZZ} ##### Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. The bill provides for an amendment of the Raw Cotton Bounty Act 1934-38 to extend the period of the bounty on raw cotton for one year from the 1st December, 1939, at the rate applicable during the last two years, that is a basic bounty of 4¼d. per lb. when the spot price of American middling cotton at Liverpool is 6d. per lb. The actual amount of bounty paid will depend, as hitherto,on the actual Liverpool spot price. For each weekly variation of the Liverpool price up or down of one-hundredth of a penny per lb. from 6d. per lb. during the ginning of the Queensland crop, the bounty on raw cotton produced in that week will be onehundredth of a penny per lb. less or more than 4¼d. per lb. Honorable members will note that the bounty now proposed is1d. per lb. higher than that provided in the bill which I introduced last September. The original bill was in accordance with the Tariff Board's recommendation, which was based on peacetime conditions. However, after further consideration of the . position of the Australian cotton industry and more of the importance of cotton in wartime as a raw material used extensively for civil and military purposes, and because so much of it has to be imported, the Government has decided that it is not desirable at present to reduce the existing bounty. As the result of the Governments announcement a few weeks ago that it would renew the bounty at the existing rate, the issue of seed to growers by the Queensland Cotton Board for planting has already increased from the equivalent of 30,000 acres to 46,000 acres, and may increase still further. The latter acreage will, under satisfactory climatic conditions, yield some 13,000 bales of raw cotton. The Commonwealth Government has assisted this industry with marked generosity. From 1923 to 1925, it paid £170,900 to cotton producers in order to cover losses under the then system of guaranteed prices and, from 1926 to the 31st October, 1939, bounty payments have amounted to no less than £1,021,099. The extension of the present rate of bounty for one year will enable the Government to consider the usual long range policy for assisting the industry. This consideration will involve careful attention by the Government to the urgent need for a substantial improvement of efficiency in the cotton-growing industry which was stressed by the Tariff Board. The yield of cotton to the acre in Queensland has declined to a rather alarming extent. The Tariff Board reported that the best methods of cultivation and rotation were not generally practised, and that scientific research for the purpose of overcoming pests and diseases, and of breeding cotton plants which will give economic yields of types of cotton suitable for Australian requirements, should be accelerated and improved. It seems especially necessary to produce cotton in Australia under suitable methods of irrigation, by which the average yield could probably be increased threefold. By the adoption of improved methods there is no doubt that the cost of producing cotton in Australia could be substantially reduced, thus enabling a material reduction of bounty payments without causing any disability to the growers of cotton. The people of Australia are entitled to expect the utmost efficiency from all industries which are protected by bounty or tariff. The Government therefore hopes that satisfactory arrangements will be made immediately for the institution by the Queensland Government and those engaged in the cotton industry of a comprehensive plan for putting the industry on a sound economic footing as early as possible. The adequacy of that plan will largely determine the incidence of any long-range policy by the Government for assisting the cotton industry after the termination of the proposed legislation, which . 1 now submit for the favorable consideration of the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Forde)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2262 {:#debate-79} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : - Gold Tax Bill (No. 2) 1939. Gold Tax Collection Bill (No. 2) 1939. Customs Tariff (No. 3). Excise Tariff (No. 2). {: .page-start } page 2262 {:#debate-80} ### TARIFF BOARD REPORTS **Mr. JOHN** LAWSON laid on the table reports and recommendations of the Tariff Board on the following subjects : - {:#subdebate-80-0} #### Barometers and Barometer Movements; Bolts. Nuts, Rivets, and Metal Washers, n.e.i.; Screws with Nuts or for use with Nuts: Engineers set screws; Fishbolts; Raildogs or Brobs, Spikes. Cordage of the type used in manufacture of pneumatic tyres. Cord fabric being piece goods of the type used in the manufacture of pneumatic tyres; Cotton Canvas and Cotton Duck - not waterproofed ; Canvas and Duck - other than cotton canvas and cotton duck - not waterproofed; Canvas and Duck - waterproofed; Cotton piece goods for manufacture of men's or boys outer clothing; {:#subdebate-80-1} #### Curtains; {:#subdebate-80-2} #### Dental Instruments and Appliances; Glycerine; {:#subdebate-80-3} #### Lifting Jacks for Motor Vehicles; Spring Hinges: Thermostatically controlled cookers; {:#subdebate-80-4} #### Tractor Cylinder Sleeve Assemblies and Pistons ; {:#subdebate-80-5} #### Tractor Engine Units. Road Roller Engine Units ; {:#subdebate-80-6} #### Woodworking Machinery ; Hoods other than of felt; hat forms of braid and similar material. Hoop pine for export butter boxes. Metal hinges, butt and tee. Ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 2262 {:#debate-81} ### PAPERS The following papers were presented : - . Audit Act - Finance - Treasurer's Statement of Receipts and Expenditure for year 1938-39, accompanied by the Report of the. Auditor-General. Ordered to be printed - >Commonwealth Railways - Statement giving *resume* of inquiries into administration by W. H. Sharwood. > >Defence Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1939, No. 160. > >National Security Act - Regulations amended, &c. - Statutory Rules 1939, Nos. 162, 104. New Guinea Act - Ordinances of 1939 - No. 26- Land (No. 2). No. 26 - Lands Registration. No. 27 - Native Labour. Sugar Agreement - Eighth Annual Report of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee, for year ended 31st August, 1939. Taxation - Twenty-first Report of the Commissioner, dated 15th October, 1939, together with statistical appendices. House adjourned at 1.25 a.m. (Thursday). {: .page-start } page 2262 {:#debate-82} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS *The following answers to questions were circulated: -* {:#subdebate-82-0} #### Compulsory Military Training {: #subdebate-82-0-s0 .speaker-KUO} ##### Mr Spurr: r asked the Minister for the Army, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On what date will the first' drafts under the compulsory training scheme enter camp, and for what period? 1. What will be the rate of pay for trainees? 2. What amount of allowance will be paid to wives of trainees? 3. Is it proposed that trainees shall do a period in camp each year; if so, how long will the period be? 4. In the event of an emergency, will those who have received training be the first to be called up for service? {: #subdebate-82-0-s1 .speaker-KVN} ##### Mr Street:
UAP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The dates upon which the first drafts under the compulsory training scheme will enter camp are under consideration in the respective Army Commands, but have not yet been fixed. In general they will be about the end ot January, 1940. The period of training will be eleven weeks. 1. The rate of pay for trainees will be 6s. a day. 2. Wives of married trainees will receive 3s. a day separation allowance provided that the soldier makes an allotment of 3s. a day from his pay. An additional ls. a day will be paid in respect of each child under sixteen years of age. 3. Yes. The periods are at present under consideration. 4. Yes. {:#subdebate-82-1} #### Wheat Industry {: #subdebate-82-1-s0 .speaker-KRH} ##### Mr McHugh: h asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce, upon *notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. With reference to the statement regarding the important wheat industry, is it a fact that the 2s. Gd. advance for bagged wheat and the 2s. 4d. advance for bulk wheat will probably be the full price received by the farmer this year? 1. Will he instruct the Wheat Board to analyse every known method of storing wheat and to adopt the best, in order to protect the huge stocks which will probably remain in this country for a long time? 2. Will the Government bring in a moratorium to protect farmers, storekeepers and others from insolvency due to the price of wheat as indicated by the Government, which will be at least ls. a bushel' under the cost of production? {: #subdebate-82-1-s1 .speaker-KV7} ##### Sir Frederick Stewart:
UAP -- The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following information : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No forecast can be made at the present time. The honorable member's attention is invited to the recent statements on this subject by the Prime Minister. 1. Both the Government and the Australian Wheat Board are impressed with the seriousness of the storage problems, and the Wheat Board is giving it special attention. 2. It is not considered necessary to bring in a moratorium at the present time. Rates of Military Pay in Empire Countries. {: #subdebate-82-1-s2 .speaker-KOQ} ##### Mr McCall:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES l asked the Minister for the Army, *upon notice -* >What are the rates of pay, in Australian currency, for (a) single, and (i>) married, privates in infantry units in Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia, for (i) home service and (ii) after embarkation? {: #subdebate-82-1-s3 .speaker-KVN} ##### Mr Street:
UAP -- The rates of pay in Australian currency for single and married privates in infantry units in Australia, *New* Zealand and Canada are as follows : - >No information is available regarding the rates of pay in South Africa or of the afterembarkation rate applicable to the Canadian forces. {:#subdebate-82-2} #### Department of Civil Aviation: Radio Operators {: #subdebate-82-2-s0 .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: y asked the Acting Minister for Air, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that certain employees on radio stations at Karumba, Port Moresby, Cooktown and Groote Eylandt when Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited controlled the stations were taken over by the Civil Aviation Department when it took over the stations from that company? 1. Is it a fact that when employed by that company they were paid at the rate of time and a half for all overtime worked and for all work on Sundays, and double time for holidays, and that now they are not being paid anything at all for overtime or for work on Sundays and holidays ? 2. Is it a fact that the travelling allowances paid to these employees by the company were from 25 per cent, to 50 per cent, higher than are now paid by the department ? 3. Will he see that these employees are brought into line with other servants of the Government and of private employers and paid for overtime, work on Sundays and holidays, and given an adequate travelling allowance? {: #subdebate-82-2-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt:
UAP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. It is understood that payments by Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited for overtime, Sunday and holiday work were at the rates mentioned. The Public Service Board has now approved of similar conditions and payments to these operators as employees of the Civil Aviation Department and payments are being made retrospective to the dates when the employees were taken over from the company. 2. Of the stations mentioned inNo. 1 transport allowances are involved only at Port Moresby and Cooktown. Pending investigation by the Public Service Board to determine whether existing Public Service rates of travelling allowances are appropriate, the provisions of the Public Service Regulations are being applied at Port Moresby and a temporary allowance of £88 per annum has been approved at Cooktown. At Port Moresby the operators' transport allowance payment will approximate £52 per annum. Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited paid a transport allowance of £100 per annum and a disability allowance of £25 per annum. The reduction of allowances is compensated by an increase of salary (£73 per annum ) and the operators' total remuneration approximates that which was paid by Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited. At Cooktown the temporary transport allowance granted is £6 lower and the District Allowance £4 lower than the respective Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited rates but these reductions are compensated for by increase and the operator's total remuneration is the same as that previously paid by Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited. 3. See answer No. 2. Loading ofWheat at Fremantle. {: #subdebate-82-2-s2 .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr Curtin: n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce, *upon notice -* 1.What is the procedure which the Fremantle Lumpers Union has to adopt in order to submit a quotation for the loading of wheat in bulk in ships at Fremantle? {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Will he have the information supplied to the union? 1. Is it a fact that the union applied to the State Wheat Committee and was referred to the Australian Wheat Board, and that the Australian Wheat Board referred the union back to the State Wheat Committee? SirFrederick Stewart. - The Ministor for Commerce has supplied the following information : - >An inquiry which the Fremantle Lumpers Union made to the State Wheat Committee was referred to the Australian Wheat Board. The Wheat Board is arranging for the Lumpers Union to submit a proposition for examination by the Wheat Board's Superintendent at Fremantle, and subsequent consideration by the Wheat Board. Canadian Wheat. {: #subdebate-82-2-s3 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: e asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, *upon notice -* >Will he state in terms of sterling and Australian currency the price paid by the > >United Kingdom Government for wheat purchased from Canada since the beginning of the war ? {: #subdebate-82-2-s4 .speaker-KZZ} ##### Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP -- The Minister for Commerce has already informed the honorable member, in answer to a question *upon notice,* that no contract for the sale of wheat has been made between the Governments of Canada and the United Kingdom. Since the war, the United Kingdom Ministry of Food has purchased Canadian wheat from time to time at current market prices. {:#subdebate-82-3} #### Memorial to King George V {: #subdebate-82-3-s0 .speaker-JNX} ##### Mr Barnard: d asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, *upon notice -* 1.What is the total expenditure to date upon the proposed memorial to His late Majesty King George V., and what was the expenditure each year? 2.What is the contemplated expenditure during the year 1939-40? {: type="1" start="3"} 0. What form is this proposed memorial to take? 1. When is it expected to be completed? {: #subdebate-82-3-s1 .speaker-KXY} ##### Mr Perkins:
Minister without portfolio administering External Territories · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP -- The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following information : - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. £14,800. 1. The design for the memorial is that submitted by the late G. Rayner Hoff, sculptor, of Sydney, and its main features are a statue of His late Majesty King George V. and an equestrian figure of St. George, arranged on opposite sides of a pylon, which stands on a platform with suitable approaches. The statue is to be in bronze and the remainder of the structure in stone. The memorial will be placed upon the main axis of the City of Canberra, in the open space in front of Parliament House. 2. The date for completion of the contract is the 30th June, 1940. {:#subdebate-82-4} #### Exports of Apples to Netherlands India {: #subdebate-82-4-s0 .speaker-JNX} ##### Mr Barnard: d asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce, *upon notice -* 1.What quantities, in metric tons, of apples were exported to Netherlands India during the five years ended the 30th June, 1939, and what was the value? {: type="1" start="2"} 0. With u view to helping the apple industry, can the market for this product be improved in the Netherlands, and is action being taken to that end? {: #subdebate-82-4-s1 .speaker-KV7} ##### Sir Frederick Stewart:
UAP -- The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following information: - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The market for apples in Netherlands India is constant but limited. Australia has steadily increased its share of the market, and in 1938 supplied 55 per cent, of the total importations. The balance is supplied by northern hemisphere countries, whose fruit comes on the market when the Australian export season has finished. Indications are that the total market capacity under present conditions has been reached, although it may be possible to secure a slight increase of Australia's share. There are certain restrictive factors, however, notably those due to the lack of refrigerated transport to islands other than Java. A survey of the Eastern markets for Australian fruit is being prepared for the guidance of the Apple and Pear Board, which is considering the whole question of the disposal of the 1940 crop. Inquiries are proceeding with the Australian Government Commissioner in Netherlands India regarding the possibilities of the disposal of other apple products in Netherlands India. {:#subdebate-82-5} #### Public Debt {: #subdebate-82-5-s0 .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: y asked the Acting Treasurer, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the amount qf the public debt of the Commonwealth that is free of State taxation ? 1. What is the amount of the public debt of the Commonwealth that obtains specific remission of Commonwealth taxation? 2. Is it proposed that in future loans the partial remission from taxation will be continued ? {: #subdebate-82-5-s1 .speaker-KUG} ##### Mr Spender: -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 'The public debt of the Commonwealth at the 30th September, 1939, was £395,975,000. Interest on the whole of this is free of State taxation. 1. Of the total public debt of the Commonwealth, an amount of £217,079,000 represents internal debt, the interest on which is subject to Commonwealth income tax, but the rates of such tax are limited to the rates of tax in force in 1930. Interest on overseas debt is subject to Commonwealth income tax at' current rates, where such interest is received by residents of Australia, and where it is . not taxed overseas. Where such interest is paid tQ overseas security holders it is not subject to Commonwealth taxation. 2. This is a matter for the Loan Council to determine.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 6 December 1939, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1939/19391206_reps_15_162/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant