Senate
9 August 1921

8^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PAPERS
QUESTION
- SUPERPHOSPHATES
QUESTION
- PIANOS
QUESTION
- NAURU
QUESTION
- EASTERN TRADE COMMISSIONER
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
NEW SENATOR
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 8 p.m., and read’ prayers.

page 10780

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Audit Act -

Regulations amended. - Statutory Rules 1921, No. 141.

Transfer of amounts approved by the- GovernorGeneral in Council- Financial Year 1920-81- Dated 3rd August, 1921.

Land Tax Assessment Act. -Regulations amended.- Statutory Rules 1921, No. 142..

New Guinea. - Ordinance No. 10 of 1921. - Supply’ (No. 1) 1921-22.

page 10780

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATES

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

– On 4th August, Senator Pratten asked the following question : -

Whatwere the total imports of manufactured superphosphates into Australia in the five-year periods ended 30th June, 1910, 30th June, 1915, 30th. June, 1920, and for twelve months ended 30th June, 1921 -

Iamnow in a position tofurnish the honorable senatorwith the following information relative to the imports, of superphosphates - nodistinction being made in the departmental - statistical classification between manufactured and unmanufactured superphosphates: -

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Then these figures include phosphatic rock as well as superphosphates!

Senator RUSSELL:

– Yes.

page 10780

QUESTION

PIANOS

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– On 4th August, Senator Pratten asked the following question : -

What were the total numbers of pianos- imported into Australia in the fire-year periods ended. 30th June, 1910,30th June, 1916,30th June, 1920, and. for twelve months ended 30th June, 1921-

I am now able to supply the honorable senator with the following information. ; -

page 10780

QUESTION

NAURU

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the. Leader of the Government, upon notice -

When and under what authority did Nauru become a Territory under the authority of the Commonwealth?
When and in what publication has it ever been notified that Nauru so became such a Territory!

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Particulars in connexion with the Commonwealth’s participation in theadministration of Nauru are contained in the Naru Island Agreement Act No. 8. of 1919.

page 10781

QUESTION

EASTERN TRADE COMMISSIONER

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– I hope to supply to-morrow the information asked for by Senator Pratten in the questions he has set down on the notice-paper regarding the appointment of a Commonwealth Trade Commissioner in the East.

page 10781

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 5th August, vide page 10779):

Schedule. divisioniv.-agriculturalproducts andgroceries.

Item 75 -

Milk (including cream) -

Upon which Senator Gardiner had moved -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-items (a), and (b), British, free.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I desire to obtain from the Minister (Senator Russell) some information in regard to sub-item a, which provides for a duty of 2d. per lb. under the British preferential Tariff, 2½d. per lb. under the intermediate Tariff, and 3d. per lb. under the general Tariff on sweetened and unsweetened, preserved, condensed, and concentrated milk. I find that the 1914 Tariff imposed on sweetened milk a duty of only l½d-. per lb. under the British preferential Tariff and 2d. per lb. under’ the general Tariff, and duties of1d. and l¼d. in respect of unsweetened milk. We have had no explanation from the Minister in justification of this large increase. I understood the honorable senator to say on Friday that the industry had become so firmly established here under the old Tariff that the great bulk of its product was now being exported. If that is so, why should these additional duties be neces sary unless they will directly benefit those engaged in the primary industry of dairying. If the increase is solely to enable those engaged in the manufacture of concentrated and condensed milk to make larger profits I am not disposed to support it. We must not overlook the principal use to which condensed milk is put in Australia, and where it is most largely consumed. Honorable senators will agree with me that condensed milk is most largely sold in mining camps and among those living outside big centres of population. If the increased duties will mean an increase in the price of condensed milk to Australian consumers, and will not confer any corresponding benefit on the suppliers of the raw material, and so enable dairymen to cope more successfully with the difficulties of their industry, I shall not support them. I take it that no honorable senator will support an increased duty unless it is necessary to build up or stabilize the industry or will give some direct benefit to’ the primary producer. The price of condensed milk is high enough already, and I think the Minister should be asked to justify the proposed increases.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– I regret that Senator Payne compels me to repeat information which I placed fully before the Committee on Friday last. There is no reason why we should import any condensed or concentrated milk, since Australia is largely exporting those commodities at the present time. The object of these duties, is to induce the people of Australia to use the Australian product, which is equal, if not superior, in quality to the imported’ article, and is certainly much cheaper. The importations of condensed milk over a number of years have been as follow: - 1913, sweetened, 120,786 lbs., valued at £2,913; unsweetened, 1,029,261 lbs.,, valued at £23,652; 1914-15, sweetened, 1,086,460 lbs., valued at £24,134; unsweetened, 1,091,322 lbs., valuedat £28,816; 1915-16, sweetened, 1,617,833 lbs., valued at £39,354; unsweetened, 1,931,949 lbs., valued at £60,091; 1916-17, sweetened, 39,482 lbs., valued* at £1,305; unsweetened, 1,287,391 lbs., valued at £48,361; 1917-18, sweetened; 7,271 lbs., valued at £232 ; unsweetened, 101,931 lbs., valued at £10,554; 1918-19, sweetened,. 15,657 lbs., valued at £478; unsweetened, 9,912 lbs., valued at £307; 1919-20, sweetened, 37,876 lbs., valued at £1,263; unsweetened, 464,362 lbs., valued at £16,062.

Senator Payne:

– So that our imports are becoming less and less.

Senator Crawford:

– Are they not confined to ships’ stores used on the coast?

SenatorRUSSELL. -We are practically supplying pur wants, with the exception of ships’ stores.

Senator Payne:

– That is my point. I say that under the old Tariff the industry has ‘become so well established that it is supplying the needs of the people.

SenatorRUSSELL. - There is still a prejudice against the local article. The following are the average prices per lb. of the imported condensed milk and dried milk, as shown in the official statistics : -

It will be seen from these figures that there is no reason for admitting unsweetened milk at a lower rate of duty than is imposed on sweetened milk. The high value of importations of unsweetened milk in 1917-18 was due to importations from “Norway, which were, no doubt, of a special kind, probably tinned cream.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- Although the figures given by the Minister are very interesting, they do not touch upon the point that I have made, namely, that in view of the fact that industries have been successfully established in Australia for the manufacture of condensed milk, and have proved very profitable to their proprietors, there is no necessity for increased duties. Already the local article has pushed the foreign product out of the market, and I quite agree with SenatorRussell that we ought to be in a position to supply our own needs in this direction. As a matter of fact, we are doing so. The figures quoted by the Minister show that the foreign milk has gradually been pushed out of the local market.

SenatorRussell. - That was merely during the war, hut now the products of foreign countries are coming into our markets very rapidly.

Senator PAYNE:

– The last figures quoted show that the importation is now very small as compared with previous years. I am anxious to refrain from imposing a heavy duty unless it can be shown to be necessary, in the interests of some Australian industry. If it can be shown that the condensed milk factories of Australia cannot furnish a wholesome article without further protection, I am prepared to favorably consider giving them that protection ; but, so far, it has not been proved that our factories are not able to carry on their operations eminently satisfactorily under the rate of duty contained in the old Tariff. On the other hand, they have demonstrated that they can supply a wholesome article, which is so much appreciated by the Australian public that importations have practically ceased, and we have evidence that largequantities of condensed milk are exported from Australia. There would be some reason for imposing this extra duty if the dairymen were to gain some benefit from it, but there is no indication that the additional impost has been placed in the Tariff for that purpose, and I am not prepared to vote for a higher duty simply to provide for the possibility of an immediate increase in the price of a commodity so largely used in Australia, particularly, by people who live so many miles from the centres of population, and where fresh milk is unobtainable.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– During the last four years, when overseas producers of condensed milk failed to keep Australia supplied, certain local companies spent their capital and extended their factories for the purpose of providing the people of the Commonwealth with condensed and unsweetened milk. The industry thus became well established, not because of the protection afforded by the Tariff, but because of the great difficulty of getting supplies from overseas. But overseas producers are now beginning to export condensed milk to Australia, and the possibility is that eventually, when conditions become more normal in other countries where this article can be pro- duced more cheaply than in Australia, the Australian manufacturers, if we do not afford them effective protection, must be prepared to sacrifice the capital they have spent. At any rate, they must face the fiercest and keenest of competition from other countries. Surely what they did for Australia during the war period ought to be appreciated by us to the extent of giving them reasonable protection against that keen competition ! Our policy in this regard should be to stick to those who stuck to us in our hour of trouble.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

– It would be a grave mistake in the circumstances of to-day to reduce any duty unless very strong reasons are advanced in favour of doing so.

Senator Payne:

– No one proposes a reduction of the old Tariff, but we are anxious to know why the new Tariff shows an increase.

SenatorCRAWFORD.- The Tariff we are now discussing has been in operation for a considerable time. In view of the fact that we have a number of condensed milk factories, and that during the war period we built up a considerable export, there is no danger whatever of unfair advantage being taken by the manufacturers of the protection afforded to them in the present schedule. We know that the conditions of the world are very unsettled. There is over-production in many directions, and in a number of countries manufacturers are experiencing great’ difficulty in finding a profitable market for their products. It may be that there is a danger of having condensed milk dumped here. At any rate, it is our duty to see that our local manufacturers’ trade is not likely to be dislocated by large quantities of other countries’ products being suddenly dumped into our market. We were able to build up a big export trade during the war because the manufacturers in Australia were getting their sugar at half the price paid by manufacturers abroad. I am told that our export trade in condensed milk represents about 30 lbs. of sweetened to every lb. of unsweetened milk.

Senator Payne:

– Our imports were larger during the war period than they are now.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– That may be, but we have to remember that during the war period, after a few months had elapsed, there were thousands of soldiers returning to Australia; and I presume that the milk they required on their homeward voyage had to be purchased abroad. It would be impossible to calculate to a few cwts., or even to a few tons, the milk required on such a voyage, and, consequently, on our troopships a considerable quantity of condensed milk, along with other ship’s stores, would be brought into Australia. This milk, I understand, was calculated as having been imported, although it might be re-exported the next week or the next month. The Committee should hesitate to interfere with the existing duties. The trade conditions of the world are unstable at the present time, and, although at present our industries are flourishing in the absence of interference toany extent, they may be in. a very different position a few months hence. Very shortly we may hope to have the Tariff Board in working order, and that should be able to protect the public from exploitation by the manufacturers of condensed milk or other products.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– This is another instance of the theoretical formula for the imposition of Customs duties, or for the increase of them, being stretched to an extraordinary degree.

The- Age on the following day contained this- -

The parent Nestle and Anglo-Swiss Company, which was formed’ in Switzerland in 186$ at few weeks ago issued 2,000,000 £1 8 per cent, cumulative preference shares at par, and these were fully taken up. Its manufacturing business in Victoria and other parts of the Commonwealth is already large, and it carries, on extensive undertakings on the- Continent, in England, Canada,, and the United States.. Profits for 1920 have not yet been notified’, but for- the preceding seven years they averaged £839,903’, and for the fourteen years’ to 31st December, 1919,. dividend was never below 15 per cent. At the latter date the value of the assets was. £7,071,250..

It ia quite clear that this is not a totter^ ing industry so far as the Commonwealth is concerned; on the contrary, this one company is stretching out im all directions and acquiring the interests* of other existing companies. Yet the Government propose to give this growing company increases of duty represented by 50 and 100 per cent., although, so far as I can learn, these increases have not been- asked for. The figures I have given are sufficient, without any comment, to warrant the Senate in rejecting the proposal for the increased duties. According to1 the Minister’s own figures, imports have dwindled almost to an invisible point’; indeed, as I said by way of interjection, they could all be carried on one spring, dray. But the exports- of which the Minister told us nothing, have increased in the five years’ .period, as I previouslyquoted, from something in the neighbourhood of 70,000 lbs. in 1016 to 1,500,000 lbs. last year. Is it not time we called a halt in this mad career? Is it not time we stopped giving unnecessary protection to an industry -which is not only firmly established, but is holding its own in the markets of the world. T move -

That the House of Representatives, be requested to make the duty, sub-item (a), general, 2d.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I wish to move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, general, 2½d.

Senator Russell:

– The increase is not 100 per cent., as said by the honorable senator, but only from 30 per cent, to 40 per cent.

Senator LYNCH:

– The proposal is that the duty on sweetened condensed milk shall be increased from 2d. per. lb. under .the general Tariff of 1914 to 3d. per lb. - that is an increase of 50 per cent. - and that the duty on unsweetened milk, which was 1 1/4 d. per lb. under the general Tariff of 1914, shall be increased to 3d, per lb., which is an advance of more than 100 per cent. The Minister should be sure of his facts before he contradicts me, since I always endeavour to keep my feet on solid ground. The tendency on the part of some honorable senators to impute to others parochial motives is of no avail. Such tactics have been worn threadbare.’ Senator Pratten has alluded to the parochialism of representatives of Western Australia. My answer to him is that five of the six representatives of Western . Australia in the Senate in 1908 voted for a Protective Tariff, which threw into the lap of New South Wales millions of pounds; whereas the six representatives o’f that State at that time were pledged to oppose Protective duties. Five of ,the six representatives of Western Australia in 1908 supported a fiscal policy which by no stretch of the imagination was favorable to that State, but was highly advantageous to New South Wales. My votes are on record, and so are those of the representatives of New South Wales in the Senate at that time, so that it does not lie in the mouth of Senator Pratten to say that honorable senators from Western Australia are influenced by parochialism. I ‘ shall conclude by asking honorable senators not to lose their heads, but to recognise that this- industry has been amply protected under the lower duties imposed by the Tariff, of 1914, and that, as Senator Drake-Brockman has said, all the facts and figures are opposed to the increased duties for which this Tariff provides. The Government, in these circumstances, have resorted to the prop that manufacturers of condensed milk were induced to establish the industry here under a promise that increased duties would be imposed. I invite the Government to produce the record of any such promise. It seems to me that it is very much on a par with the date-grower in Queensland to whom reference was made last week by Senator Crawford - a date-grower who cannot be produced nor his address given. Is it not time that the representatives of the Government attempted to do justice to the intelligence of the Senate ? We “want something more than a mere vague statement that such a promise was given. The facts are that the manufacturers of condensed milk here have been securing a return of 15 . per cent., while at the same time they, have been adding to their assets, and that they have converted our huge import trade in preserved milk into a huge export trade. . This, then, is only a proposal to “grease the fat pig,” and I am against it.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- WhenI asked this afternoon for further information concerning this item, I did not think that I would open up such a lengthy debate as we have had. I find that when the Tariff was before another place,no information was given by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Greene) as to the reason for these increased duties. He was absolutely silent on the point. The only information I have been able to obtain in support of the plea for higher duties in respect of this item is contained in the Australian Tariff Hand-book, which has been published and distributed amongst honorable senators by a Protectionist organization that is anxious to place before the Parliament reasons why increased protection should be granted to various industries. In an article on the preserved milk industry,which appears in this publication, it is stated that -

The first attempts to manufacture in Australia were made twenty or more years ago; but it is only during the last decade that they can be said to have been successful. The imposition of the duty of 2d. per lb. by the Tariff of 1908 has made all the difference between a possible paying industry and a barely existing or losing one.

That refers to the duty of 2d. per lb. on sweetened milk. My proposal is that the duty shall be the same in respect of both sweetened and unsweetened milk. The article continues -

The duty of lid. per lb. on unsweetened condensed milk compares very unfavorably with that on the sweetened article, and is wholly inadequate. . . . It is to give protection against post-war competition from countries like America and New Zealand that the trade feels itself justified in asking that the duty should be at least1¾d. per lb. That would still be a trifle less per cent. than the duty on sweetened condensed milk. If the two duties were made uniform, viz., 2d. per’ lb., there is no doubt whatever that the manu facture of unsweetenedcondensed milk would be given a great and needed impetus.

It will thus be seen that the duty I am proposing is slightly higher than the rate advocated in this Protectionist publication.

Senator Lynch:

– Why give those engaged in . the industry more than they want ?

Senator PAYNE:

– My object is to give the slightly additional protection necessary to meet the reduction that has taken place in the natural protection enjoyed by the industry during the war period.

Senator Elliott:

– The Australian Tariff Hand-book, from which the honorable senator has quoted, was published in 1919. Since then wages have increased very considerably.

Senator PAYNE:

– That point is met by the higher rate which I propose, as compared with the rate advocated in the Tariff Hand-book.- According to this article, a duty of 2d. per lb. on both, sweetened and unsweetened milk would afford the industry adequate protection.

Question - That the request (Senator Lynch’s) be agreedto-put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 16

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived:

Request (by Senator Payne) proposed -

That the House of Representativesbe requested to make the duty, sub-item (a), general, per lb. 2½d.

Request agreed to.

Request (by Senator . Payne) agreed to-

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (a), intermediate, perlb. 2d.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (a), British, free.

I hope that Senator Russell will also regard my request in an amicable spirit. The loss of revenue would not be very great.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– I accepted the proposal of Senator Payne because it received the practically unanimous support of the Senate, but I have heard no voice supporting Senator Gardiner’s proposal, and therefore cannot accept it.

Question - That the request beagreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 3

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Progress reported.

page 10793

NEW SENATOR

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon.

Federal Government House, . 9th August, 1921

Sir,

I have the honour, by direction, to inform you that His Excellency the Governor-General has received a telegram, lodged at Adelaide at 1.30 p.m. this day (9th August), from His Excellency the Governor of South Australia, which, de-coded, reads as follows: -

At joint sitting. Legislative Council. House of Assembly this day Edward Charles Vardon was chosen to hold the place now vacant in the representation of South Australia, in the Senate of the Commonwealth.

I have the honour to he, &c, (Signed) J. H. Starling,

Official Secretary to

H.E. the Governor-General..

This advice has also been confirmed by a telegram I have received from His Excellency the Governor of South Australia.

Senator VARDON made and subscribed the oath of allegiance.

page 10793

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed).

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– It is quite clear that by retaining the British rate of 2d. unaltered no preference will be given over the intermediate* rate. I think the Government ought to take steps to establish a preferential rate for British articles, but’ in order to save them the trouble of doing: so, and because of the assistance they have afforded me. in my endeavour to turn out a Tariff creditable to the Senate, I move -

That the House of Representatives be re- quested to make the duty, sub-item (a), per l b., British,1½d.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– The honorable senator will realize that the intermediate rate will apply only to Allied countries or other Dominions with whom we establish reciprocity. But, in any case, the duty which he seeks to reduce will hardly affect Great Britain, because our importations of preserved milk from that country are very small. The same may be -said of the other Dominions.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I wish the Government would come round to a common-sense method of dealing with trade. We are placing’ a bar in the way of New Zealand and Canadian goods coining to this country. But such goods will’ not come unless we require them; firms do not ship goods to other countries except in return for orders, accompanied with money or good credit. It does nob matter a snap of the fingers to these rich milk firms what the Tariff is; what they desire is the Australian trade. If we, by means of the Tariff, make it difficult to trade, with other countries, these companies, being world-wide in their operations, will . supply from elsewhere. All we are really doing is to interfere with trade by bolstering up a few people, whom we imagine will in some way or other benefit Australia. According to Senator Lynch, the balance-sheets of the company that has been, referred to show dividends of 15 per cent. for the last fourteen years.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That is not in Australia, but has reference to the European branch.

Senator Lynch:

– How do we know that the profits are not much greater here ?

Senator GARDINER:

– In any case, I do not see why we should go out of our way to make their profits still more. The Minister (Senator Russell) apparently is afraid- of New Zealand and Canadian competition, but, personally, I am not afraid of any such competition. I am sorry to say that these great companies, or Combines, being world-wide, set the markets for the different branches, and all that we do here amounts to so much humbug. We know that for months in the year Canadian cattle have to be handfed and sheltered in artificially heated houses, whereas in Queensland, which is also a cattle-raising and milk-producing State, the climate is practically as good in the winter as in the summer. In these circumstances, why, should these firms be nursed and coddled at the expense of the community?

Senator Russell:

– Denmark, which is similarly circumstanced to Canada, produces the best butter in the world.

Senator GARDINER:

– Quite so, but instead of our trying to compete with those countries by using the intelligence there displayed, we shut competition out. There is anything from. 20 to 30 per cent. protection afforded by the . freightage, and, moreover, we have the advantage of climate and of pastures rich beyond the dreams of those engaged in this industry in the countries I have referred to. At the same time, some of these big milk companies here, as soon as the Protectionists in another place impose a duty on timber which gives a little advantage on the side of importing the timber necessary for the cases, send huge orders abroad; they are not Protectionists, but

Free Traders, when it is a matter of obtaining the materials they require. They do not fail, however, to take advantage of every dot and comma in the Tariff-, and we make milk1d. or½d. per quart dearer to enable them to carry on a business which for fourteen years has returned them dividends of 15 per cent.

Senator Lynch:

– For the benefit of foreign shareholders!

Senator GARDINER:

-Chiefly. The new slavery with which we are faced is that represented by’ these great companies and Combines obtaining control of the food supplies of the people; and we are helping them by shutting out competition, including that of New Zealand, Canada, and Britain. And what do we get in return? I dare say good employment is afforded for some of our own people; but what, at the same time, do we shut out. We take away employment from all those wharf labourers, shipping people, and others, who would be engaged in trading with other nations. This is the first time I have had an opportunity to say this, and I- could not refrain from taking advantage of it. By these proposals in the Tariff, we are really enriching an already very rich company or monopoly that is world-wide in its operations, and on whose behalf it is openly said that the Tariff makes no difference so far as it is concerned. Why the Government should go out of its way to make these people richer, I cannot understand.

Question - That therequest (Senator Lynch’s) be agreed to - put. The Committe divided.

Ayes . . . . . . 11

Noes . . . . . . 12

Majority…… 1

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

. -Last Friday, when we were discussing the item of malted milk, I submitted a request which I thought would meet the position so far as it relates to infants’ and invalids’ foods. I now move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend sub-item (c) by inserting after the words “Malted milk” the words “when not used for infants’ and invalids’ food “.

There are rather more proteids in Horlick’s than in the local product, but there are less carbohydrates; and the moisture in the imported food is greater. Altogether, the best expert advice is to the effect that the twolines are practically identical.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The proposal of the Government is a new one. It is that the various infants’ and invalids’ food products shall be gathered up under the heading of malted milk, and be made dutiable. This means very much to those who are dependent upon such foods. Underthe Customs by-laws, the following arere garded by the Department as infants’ and invalids’ foods -

– Is Horlick’s malted milk produced in England ?

SenatorRussell. - There are three factories in America and one in Great Britain.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not think that we can regard the present, as abnormal times. If people- insist upon getting the imported article, evidently they areunshakeable in their belief that it is superior. Of course, the Minister brushes’ this assertion aside by saying that there is a ‘ prejudice against the Australian product. ‘ If there is any such prejudice, it has been, catered for to some extent ‘ by the practice of branding some Australian products as British or foreign. It has been asserted, and the assertion has been unchallenged by the Minister, that the imported article is selling, at a higher price than the local product, proving, as I have already said, that the only effect of the duty is to make local consumers pay a higher price for the article they insist upon having. But, after all, do we want to get revenue out of invalids and infants? - Has the Commonwealth Government come down to this level? Of course, this is Protection run mad. As a matter of fact, we had Protection run mad many years ago. It never was ‘ a Bane policy. I cannot understand why, in the case of this commodity, which is so much required by infants and invalids, there should be any desire on. the part of the Government to make it dearer by the imposition of a duty. If consumers can get the local product more cheaply, but still prefer the imported article, we have no right to make it dearer by means of the Tariff. The local manufacturers are in a position to market their product in a much fresher condition, and if they are protected to the extent of at least 20- per cent. in freight on the overseas product, what occasion is there, by ‘means of a duty, to restrict the use of this infants’ and invalids’ food ? I intend to support Senator Pratten’s amendment, which represents a common-sense view of the position, It should be our duty to enable those people who need this . commodity most to get it as cheaply as possible.

Question - That the request (Senator Pratten’s) be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 12

Majority…… 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

– Not many infants would consume a ton of milk food; but in the aggregate a good many tons of milk products must be consumed in Australia. The Minister has handed me to taste a glass of locally-preserved milk, which seems to me’ excellent. Perhaps, after the ‘dinner adjournment, we shall be able to sample the imported product, so that we may compare the two. But if an article as . excellent as that which I have just tasted cannot hold its own on the Australian market, we shall, be unwise in trying to break down- by, force the prejudice against it. Assuming that there is such a prejudice, there is no good reason for compelling those who are influenced by it to’ purchase the Australian article, or to pay more for the imported article. Parliament should interfere as little as possible with the individual likes and dislikes of the community. The position might be different if ‘the profits of the manufacture were wholly retained in Australia. The industry which we are protecting is, however, controlled by companies operating all over the world, and making big profits because of their immense production, their customers being numbered by millions. I appeal to honorable senators to Bay that they are. prepared to trade with Great Britain.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– I should be glad if Senator Gardiner would temporarily withdraw his request, since I have a prior one to submit.

Request, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator SENIOR:

– I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to. make the duty, sub-item (c), general, per lb., 4d.

If this proposal be agreed to, I shall then move a request, to reduce the duty under the intermediate Tariff from 7d. to 4d. so that the two duties will harmonize. My proposal is that the duties on malted milk shall agree with those on milk dried or in powder form which have already been passed. The present duty of 8d. per lb. under the general “Tariff is equal to £314s. 8d. per owt., or nearly £75 per ton.

Senator Crawford:

– That is a little more than, the duty on dried prunes.

Senator SENIOR:

– And more than the duty on’ sugar. Having regard to the fact that malted milk is used largely by invalids and children, the duties as they stand are altogether unreasonable. In their overweening anxiety to protect the industry, the Government seem to have lost sight of the fact that such duties as these must enhance the price of malted milk to the consumer. Surely we have not lost our sense of perspective. The people will have to pay these duties.

Senator Elliott:

– I hope that they will not have to do so.

Senator SENIOR:

– I have already shown that the price of the local article has been increased to the extent of 20 per cent. since the introduction of this Tariff, so that there is no reason to believe that the honorable senator’s hope will ever be realized. I think it only reasonable to reduce the duty under the general and intermediate Tariffs to the rate applying to milk dried or in powder form.

Question - That the request be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 13

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to, subject to requests.

Item 76-

Mustard, including French mustard, per lb., British, 3d.; intermediate, 4d.j general, 5d.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the. House of (Representatives be requested to make the item, British, free.

– I -should like to know something as to their wages sheets and as to the kind of article they are producing. Even if such factories exist in New South Wales, I shall vote to make the imports under the British preferential Tariff free. I have no time for an industry that requires the pennies of the poor to keep it going. The average man no sooner employs a hand or two than he feels called upon to complain that the workers are “going slow,” but as soon as a Tariff is introduced we always find that the Government of the day is so subservient to the interests of the wealthy classes as to collect the pennies . of the poor to enable these people to conduct their businesses. If we were - to “pass the plate” round, and tell the people that we wanted assistance for local manufacturers of mustard to enable them to compete with Colman and Keen, I do not think, we would get a threepenny piece.

– The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 77-

Mustard seed, free.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I would like to know why this item has been made free whereas in previous Tariffs there was a duty of½d. per lb.?.

Senator Russell:

– An attempt was made to establish the growing of mustard seed in Australia, but it proved a failure.

None is grown here now.

Item agreed to.

Item 78 -

Nuts, edible.

Coconuts, whole, for the manufacture of coconut oil and oil cake, and other substances, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, free.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- Protectionists and Free Traders must agree with me that the words in sub-item a, “as prescribed by departmental by-laws,” are objectionable.

– That may be so, but I do not know that there is any inconsistency in that. I was as innocent then as most honorable senators are now; but when we see a company refusing to give up an advantage, and using departmental by-laws for its own purposes, it does not matter what was done in 1914, we ought not to permit the same thing to be done in 1921. However, the Government have large enough majorities in both Houses to fix duties, and the responsibility should not be thrown on the officers of the Department.

Tariff and departmental by-laws lead me to believe, from the representations that have been made to me, that it would be as well to eliminate, wherever possible, the reference to the departmental by-laws, and to set out what we mean in clear, simple, unmistakable, English. I do not suppose that anything in the Tariff has given so much trouble and caused so much inconvenience, and, at times, loss, as the constant alteration of departmental bylaws. I think I can speak for the Sydney commercial community, and I can say that time after time complaints have reached me that goods, once free under departmental by-laws, have suddenly become dutiable on the recommendation of some one inside the, Department, indorsed by the Minister. These matters never come before Parliament; in fact, extra taxation is thus raised through the Customs House on the dictum of the Minister and not on the dictum of Parliament. These words “ subject to departmental by-laws “ occur in scores, if not in hundreds, of cases ; indeed, on the next two leaves of the Tariff there are five distinct repetitions of the words. What would be wrong in substituting the word “ regulation “ for the words “ departmental by-laws ?” In those circumstances the regulations would have to be laid before Parliament; and, unless they were objected to within a certain period, they would become law. The important consideration is that members of Parliament would be given opportunties of knowing what was going on . and could intervene.

SenatorKeating. - The honorable senator’s purpose would be served by retaining the words, “As prescribed.” That phrase, under the Acts Interpretation Act, would involve the framing of regulations rather than the mere gazettal of by-laws.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Lynch:

– While in others they have gained a reduction of duty

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I think there may have been a few cases of remission of duty by departmental by-law. I de not know of any, personally. But there have been many instances in the other direction which have come within my own knowledge.

Request, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I am sorry the request has been withdrawn. I was about to point out that departmental by-laws cut both ways. Until I interjected, Senator Pratten had studiously refrained from referring to the other side of the case. The stand which I take with respect to the phrase “ as prescribed by departmental by-laws” is just as determined as that adopted by Senator Pratten, but for opposite reasons.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– Although the request has been withdrawn, I have not withdrawn my opposition to the phrase as a whole. The amendment suggested was so plainly protective of the rights of Parliament that I cannot understand why the Minister (Senator Russell) should not have accepted it immediately. The effect would have been most important. Any departmental alteration proposed, no matter upon what item, would have to be made by way of regulation, which procedure would bring the administration of the Department, where it went beyond the scope of the Tariff schedule, within the control of Parliament. The business of Customs collection would be in no way delayed or interfered with if the present system of prescribing matters by by-laws were changed to the gazettal of regulations. And if Parliament were not sitting, the procedure would not be delayed for one moment. The regulation would be valid until Parliament had met, and had considered and rejected it. At present a departmental by-law is a secret affair. Nobody is likely to know anything about its incidence until some importing firm has come up against it. From what the Minister has just said, it would seem that these departmental regulations are much more numerous than I had dreamed of. If the Minister is afraid of overworking the Governor-General by requiring His Excellency to sign innumerable Customs regulations,; I can imagine the state of affairs existing in the commercial community. The Minister has given Senator Pratten a promise. After mature con- sideration he may came to the conclusion that he cannot accept; any change in the departmental system. Where will this Committee be then ?

Senator Russell:

– I must be given- an opportunity of learning what the’ amendment requested would involve. The point is important, and it has been suddenly raised.

Senator GARDINER:

– The Tariff has not come upon us suddenly, and I am opposed to departmental officialsfilching this power from Parliament’ and imposing taxation which should be imposed by Parliament. The words “as prescribed” would leave the power in the hands of the Minister, and if any alteration in the Tariff were necessary a regulation would be prepared and laid upon the table of the Senate. If that . were done, an honorable senator could object . within, fifteen days of the meeting of Parliament, and that would give Parliament an opportunity to allow or disallow. . the regulation. The Minister spoke of the huge number of departmental regulations that had to be framed and signed, and if there are a large number it is very necessary to take the power from the Department and place it in the hands of Parliament. The Department will always consider the most expeditious way in which its operations can be carried out without paying any regard to the interests of those who are vitally concerned. At the moment, I cannot recall any particular -regulation, but I have heard of numerous -complaints in connexion with departmental by-laws which have been so strained as to inflict gross injustice upon commercial men, who had not the slightest redress. After this Tariff has been finally adopted, I do not suppose we shall have to consider another “ scientific “ Protective Tariff for many years. In the meantime, we can regard itas a sop to -those already highly protected industries that desire to take -still more money out of the- - pockets . of the people. During the next ten or twenty years the departmentalofficers will go on issuing’ regulations - I do not. -knowif they- are gazetted, but I suppose- they , are - and Parliament will not be consulted.

am not . sure whether ; we’ have prescribed the period during which regulations shall be gazetted. Perhaps the Minister can informme.

Senator Keating:

– If they are gazetted, it isnot under any statutory obligation, but merely for the purpose of giving ‘information’, as is done in connexion, with the issue of a proclamation. -

– Does the honorable senator call it butter?

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes ; but it is not butter, similar to that produced from the milk of the cow. Some of this material might be coming into Australia, and a person interested in the butter trade might submit that its introduction free of duty would interfere with his business. The officers would be approached - in the correct form, of- course- by interested persons, who would say that the introduction of this, product free of duty was detrimental tohis business.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! As the honorable senator’s time has expired, I ask him’ to submit his ‘request.

Senator GARDINER:

– I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend sub-item (a) by leaving out the words “as prescribed by departmental bylaws.”

Senator EARLE:
Tasmania

.- I do not desire to in any way assist in depriving Parliament of its authority, but by adopting the suggestion made by Senator Pratten and Senator Gardiner serious difficulties may result. In dealing with a commercial enterprise it may be necessary for the Government to act promptly, without waiting for the approval of Parliament. Some genius may be able to produce a new commodity from the coconut, and after doing so would approach the Government and inform them that a syndicate had been formed in which there was a prospect of investing, say, £25,000 or £30,000 for the development of an industry. Insuch circumstances, he would ask the Government if they would be prepared to assist by allowing a product ofthe ‘ coconut to be admitted ‘ free, and the Minister, af ter consulting his officers, would probably agree, because there would be the prospect of establishing a new industry. On the other hand, if a regulation had to be framed and submitted to Parliament for its approval, a delay of six months might elapse, and members of a proposed syndicate might not be prepared to go on, because investors would not be willing to subscribe capital under such conditions. That is the main objection to framing regulations for dealing with Customs matters. I have no knowledge of instances in which departmental by-laws have been put into operation to protect tax dodgers, or those who were avoiding legitimate duties. I believe it is necessary to have the departmental power to deal with such persons; but, in connexion with the question now under consideration, grave difficulties might arise, and the establishment of important industries be interfered with simply because the’ Government would not be’ able, on the spur of the moment, to give ‘ the assurance desired. The present practice is not unreasonable.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

.- The request under consideration raises a question as to the point at which Parliament must in- the nature of things delegate its power to some other authority. Parliament cannot directly execute its will in connexion with all the minutus of industrial and commercial life. A parliament of archangels . could not do that. Granting this, the question is at what point shall the immediate responsibility of Parliament in such matters cease and be transferred to some other authority. There is provision in this Bill for the imposition of a duty on canary seed, and of another duty on meat-skewers, but there are matters “connected with the industrial and commercial life of the community in connexion with which responsibility for seeing that the will of Parliament is given effect must be left to some other authority or instrumentality- of government, and that authority must be the Minister in charge of the Department concerned, and no one else. . Senator Gardiner has said that officers of the Department are responsible for this, that, and the other, and has sought to attach blame to a body of men who cannot justly be called upon to bear any blame at all. “We are all aware of the tendency of politicians and public men in this country, instead of facing the difficulties squarely and tackling the Minister in charge of a Department, to throw the .blame for something that has gone wrong upon the departmental officers. They prefer to leave the Minister alone and to blame some other persons who, in the circumstances, are powerless to take up the cudgels on their own behalf. I am not that kind of public man, and never will be. I blame the Minister for anything that goes wrong in his Department. If anything wrong is done in giving effect to this provision of the Tariff, to which exception is now taken, it is the Minister and not the departmental officers whom we should blame. The Minister will not be worth his salt if he is not prepared to accept responsibility for what is done by his officers, and critics of what is done are not worth their salt if they do not hold the Minister responsible. I am sure that Senator Gardiner only wants this brought under his notice. I know of officials who try to do their duty honestly ‘and uprightly, and who often have a very hard time because some public man hopes to make a reputation by scoring off men in a position in which they are powerless to defend themselves. It is not equity or justice for any public man to indulge in that kind of criticism of Government officials; I believe that what I have said requires to be emphasized. There are some politicians who are never satisfied unless as Cousin Jack said, they are a-pulling down or’ a- tearing up something. The: sub-item refers to coconuts imported for the manufacture of coconut oil and oil-cake “ and other substances.” They might be introduced for the manufacture of a variety of substances, and it is suggested that on that account we should overload this Parliament with regulations affecting the infinity of purposes for which coconuts might be’ used. Whilst Parliament should be very jealous about surrendering its powers, and it is well that the reserve power of Parliament should be held in terrorem over those who might abuse’ their privileges, I remind honorable senators that in ‘ connexion with other legislation passed by this Parliament provision similar to that . to ‘ which ex- .ception is sow taken has been made. There is always the understanding that if a Minister departs from public policy to such an extent as to warrant censure, it is an easy matter in. this or any other Parliament to make him answer for his conduct. I can well imagine that if there were any departure by the Minister for Trade and Customs from approved public policy in the administration of this measure, Senator Gardiner would not be casting about for an opportunity to censure the Minister. His only trouble .would probably be that he would not have sufficient votes to support him. If the Minister steps aside from public policy, there is power in this, as well as in the other branch of the Legislature, to call him to account for it, and’ make him the subject of a motion of censure.” It is very hard to decide where the immediate control of Parliament should cease, but in connexion with every act of legislation there must be some power of devolution of responsibility. So in my view, whether this matter should be dealt with in the way proposed in. the Bill, or by regulation laid on the table, is as broad as it is long, whilst Parliament has all the time the power to call to account any. Miniates who has defied . publics opinion in the administration of. the Department. In my opinion, the request represents merely a desire for something new. I agree that Parliament should jealously guard, its powers, but how is that to be done by overloading Parliament with the. responsibility for trivial things with which it would, be humanly impossible for. it to deal? It is easy to mention a grievance; it is more difficult to find a remedy. Most people in this world can find fault, but feware prepared with remedies for grievances of which they complain. I think that we would be well advised to leave this provision in the Bill as it stands, knowing that if the Minister for Trade and Customs in giving it effect does anything which justifies censure, he can be easily brought to book.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– The very serious statement by Senator Lynch that I have made reflections upon departmental officers cannot be allowed to go unchecked or unchallenged. I have been a long time now in the public life of the country, and I challenge. Senator Lynch ‘ to point to any occasion on which I used’ my position to’ attack persons in the Public Service. I wasattacking a system which, in- my opinion, is rotten. Senator Lynch says, “We need not worry about this; wecan let this business be done by departmental by-laws “and hold the Minister responsible.” Whynot let this Bill be operated wholly by departmental by-laws, and hold the Minister responsible? Why are we kept here day after day arguing whether there should be a duty of1d. on this article or½d. on another, when by adopting Senator’ Lynch’s proposal we might let the whole business be done by departmental by-laws, and then we could manfully . attack the Minister for Trade and Customs if anything went wrong? Senator Lynch’s argument is, “Let the Department do it. Why should we take the trouble?” One reason why we should take the trouble is that from the institution of Parliament we have been taught that our liberty dependsupon Parliament keeping control over the purse-strings. This is a. matter in connexion with which there should be parliamentary control, because we are concerned about the revenue tobe derived, from Customs duties: I should like to be a member of a -Senate that would let the Minister take the re. sponsibility for everything, that would let Ministers carry on the business by departmental by-laws, and make. them, pay for it if,in our opinion, they did any. thing wrong. That would’ be a glorious: Senate to be a member of: We might, as members of such a ‘body, spend most of our time growing, wheat; or in some’ other useful. occupation, and allow Ministers to conduct all these affairs. The public after long experience: havedecided that the experimentof parliamentary government shall continue. ‘ I realize that it is only an experiment, but it is a continuous experiment, and I should like to assist to make it as perfect as possible. I do not desire to give away anything that was secured to Parliament before I became a member of it. I should like, when I leave Parliament, to be able to say that no power which Parliament possessed when I entered it has been lost without my resisting it. The position would be different if the intelligence of the community decided that Parliament should leave these matters to be dealt with by departmental by-laws.

Senator Lynch:

– Does not Parliament delegate its power ina thousand different ways ?

Senator GARDINER:

– The continual delegation of power, and, the handing of responsibility over to some one else, is what I am protesting against, and I shall continue to protest against it. Senator Earle gave us a very lucid illustration of the operation of. a. regulation as compared with a departmental by-law. He suggested that some genius might invent a new process, that the Government might immediately issue a regulation that would have the force of law, but that Parliament might later upset their decision, and he asked us whether any one would be likely to enter upon a- business under such a condition. Under a departmental by-law, some speculator might come ‘along and enter upon a -business, and - there would be no check by Parliament because- Parliament would have given to the Minister power to admit free the. raw material, he required for his industry. Parliament would net interfere in any . matter, of this kind unless for very grave reasons! Under the provision . for the settlement of the matter by departmental by-laws, it is taken out of the power of Parliament to interfere. That is a most excellent reason for objecting to this provision, and substituting for it a provision for statutory regulations. The Minister is up against the hard fact that that would not prevent him from doing immediately what he wished to do. If Parliament were not sitting, a statutory regulation would have the force of law until Parliament rejected it, if it saw fit to do so. I am not proposing that any power should be taken from the Government, but that we should retain a power which properly belongs to Parliament. I realize that the matter which we are at the moment dealing with is a comparatively trivial one, but I raise my objection on principle. On some small matter a new system of bureaucracy may come into vogue, and the people may then have to fight for their privileges, just as Parliament fought, two or three centuries ago, against the prerogative of the King. Alert minds can see that the Government Departments in this and other countries are encroaching in this way upon parliamentary privileges, persistently cribbing where they can prerogatives which properly are exercisable by Parliament, and in other respects strengthening their hands by the exercise of authority. The officials holding important positions in the Public Services have, by reason of the laws which have been passed, more power than a Czar, because’ the latter always has to take the risk of an enraged populace, whereas departmental officials are supported by authority given to them by Parliament. That is what this Tariff item means. It means the handing over of a little more power to departmental officials, and there will always be the possibility of this authority being used to annoy the people for the sake of some trivial advantage to the revenue of the country. Departmental officials so placed may soon get into the habit of believing that it is their duty to extract, by means of regulations, the last shilling from the trading community, without any thought as to the effect of their action upon business concerns. I think I have replied to Senator Lynch’s suggestion that in attacking this system I was attacking departmental officials, but I realize that departmental officers are, after all, only human beings. The history of Tariffs is a history of corruption, for the simple reason that a Tariff is an instrument by means of which certain individuals expect to get substantial benefits at the expense of the community.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Buzacott:

– I must ask the honorable senator not to get away from the item under discussion.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am under the impression that anything which I may have been’ privileged to say on the second reading is in order in the debate on an item of this description, which leaves the whole Tariff open to departmental by-laws.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Nobody will take away the honorable senator’s right to speak.

Senator GARDINER:

– I shall take good care that nobody does. In this connexion, I am pointing out that the purpose of the requested amendment is to take away from departmental officials power to frame by-laws in connexion with any Tariff items. Unfortunately, we have only a limited time at our disposal to discuss these items, as I understand the Government desire to get the Tariff through before Christmas; but there are about 400 items which will permit of about 4,000 requests for amendment if honorable senators desire to move for amendments to each item. But I am not going to do that. As soon as my time for retiring comes, I shall go home and allow the Government to give departmental officials all the authority they wish to give them. If the Government think the Department should’ have the right to make by-laws in this way - by-laws which will have the scant publicity afforded by the Government Gazette- why not deal with the whole of the Tariff in the same way? This course would save Ministers and the Parliament a lot of trouble. Why not agree that the remainder of the Tariff shall be imposed “as prescribed by departmental by-laws,” instead of having a discussion on every item? That is the idea behind Senator Lynch’s argument, because he says that this matter could be left to departmental by-laws and we could hold the Minister responsible.

Question - That the request (Senator Gardiner’s) be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 3

NOES: 19

Majority . . … 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

– To my mind, it is not wise to tax a good article more heavily than a bad article. I would like the Minister to propose specific rates for all these things. Then the better articles would be at an advantage. Even the most enthusiastic Protectionist cannot wish for the importation of inferior articles. What is of poor quality, and perhaps even dangerous to health, should not be at an advantage over an article of good quality, manufactured with exceeding great care. To test the feeling of the Committee, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the item, British, free.

This is the line that I intend to take on all these items. I have no wish to delay the Committee unnecessarily, but, as the Minister (Senator Russell) will not accept reasonable suggestions for expedition, and seems determined that the schedule shall pass without the alteration of a line, or even of a comma, I shall try to induce honorable senators to make some alterations.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 80 -

Onions …. per cwt., 6s.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– As an article of food, the onion holds its own with all other vegetables. There are good oniongrowing districts in New South Wales, the rich flats’ of the Hunter . and Macquarie rivers being particularly suited to the cultivation of the plant.- But onions can be grown only at certain times of the year, and as we cannot supply the market all the year round with fresh onions,’ and have not discovered any method . of preserving onions, except by pickling, it is unwise to prevent our population from obtaining onions from abroad when the local supply has been exhausted. The uses of the onion are manifold. It is employed in a surprisingly large number of dishes, and is used in every wellmanaged home. The Government in preparing the Tariff decided, after careful consideration, that a duty of1s. per cwt. in respect of British imports under this heading was sufficient, but when the schedule was before another place, some enthusiastic Protectionists there determined that it should be increased to 6s. per cwt. They probably have a few Chinese onion patches in their electorate. I do not wish to infer that they took that action merely with a desire to catch votes. I should like a quorum present to listen to my remarks. [Quorum formed.’] I dare say that New South Walesproduces more onions than does any other State.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Victoria produces far more than any other State.

Senator GARDINER:

– I should be glad if the honorable senator would furnish the Committee with the statistics relating to onion production in Australia. I am certainly surprised to hear that the “ cabbage patch “ produces more onions than does a great State like New South Wales. The duty was increased in another place to 6s. per cwt. under the British, intermediate, and general Tariffs. That is altogether too high. I think that a considerable quantity of Italian and Spanish-grown onions are imported into Australia when onions are out of season here, so that it can scarcely be said that they enter into competition with the local product. Onions will not keep for any great length of time, and by means of importations during the off-season the people are able to obtain a continuous supply of this splendid food.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Senator Gardiner expressed a desire to obtain information as to the production of onions in the various States. I have the figures here. New South Wales, despite all the honorable senator’s talk, produced last year only 784 tons, whereas the little garden State of Victoria produced 71,74.5 tons. The figures for the other States are: - Queensland, 221 tons; South Australia, 1,948 tons; Western Australia, 318 tons; and Tasmania, 127 tons. Eighty per cent. of the onions produced in Australia are grown in Victoria.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I am much obliged to Senator Guthrie for the information which he has supplied to the Committee. I am rather pleased to learn that Victoria can, at all events, grow onions. It is quite possible that Great Britain may be able to produce some for export, and as one of the outposts of the Empire, we should be prepared to say to Great Britain that when the price of onions here is sufficiently high to make it profitable for British growers to export them to this country, we will not impose a duty on them. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the item, British, free.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 81 -

– I hope the request moved by Senator Pratten will be carried. I have had communications, more particularly from the lemon-growers of New South Wales in and around Sydney, and I am informed that to-day hundreds of tons of lemons are rotting on the trees because it does not pay to pluck them. This is a most undesirable state of affairs ; and the proposal before us is an attempt to apply a remedy. Around Sydney, and in other parts of Australia, there are hundreds of families growing lemons ; and unless some steps are taken to save the lemons now wasted, it will be only .a matter of a short time before these people will be put out of business and obliged to compete with the other wage-earners for whom Senator Gardiner is so solicitous. This, of course, would only make confusion worse confounded; but the proposal of Senator Pratten, if carried, would mean additional employment in the preparation of lemon skins, which at present is confined to Italy. From a comparative statement which has been supplied to me I find that the cost of labour in reducing Australian lemon skins to the condition of imported lemons is £22 2s. 3d. per ton, whereas a duty of 2d. is equal only to £21 per ton, showing a difference in favour of Italy of over £2. It is obvious that the duty proposed in the Tariff is quite inadequate, and that without an increase there will be no inducement for people to invest capital in the industry. The great majority of the growers have small areas, on which they work long hours struggling for an existence. They do not have the easy conditions that many larger primary producers enjoy; and, if possible, it is our duty to afford them some additional protection-. I believe that a duty of 3d. will just about meet the case, although the opinion of the growers is that 4d. is necessary; at any rate, it is certain that 2d/is not sufficiently high, in view of the price at which Italian skins can be imported. The proposed additional duty will give the growers hope and enable them to look forward with a greater degree of confidence than would be possible if they were forced to compete in a possibly overcrowded labour market.

Request agreed to.

Item agreed to, subject to a request.

Item 82 (Pickles, sauces, chutney, olives, and capers).

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– There is quite a number of duties proposed in this item, and it seems to me that it is nonsense to talk about British preference. What difference does it make to Britain whether or not we charge France or Germany 3d. more than we do British manufacturers? The hardship and wrong is in charging any duty on British goods. I see that the British duty on quarter pints and smaller sizes is 9d., and this, of course, is largely a revenue duty. Many old English firms produce very excellent products of this kind, but in all our own cities we find up-to-date businesses competing with them. I move - ‘

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (a), “ Quarterpints,” British, free.

Request negatived.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (b), “ Half -pints,” British, free.

The imposition of a British preferential Tariff is a curious form of inducing trade with the Motherland. If we want British products we should be prepared to buy them without either inducement or hindrance, and the Government should not attempt to enforce trade by a differentiation in the rates of duties.

Request negatived.

Senator GARDINER (New South Wales [10.27]. - I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (c), “ Pints,” British, free.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Will the honorable senator not- agree to take the fate of his previous request as a reasonable test?

Senator GARDINER:

– There should be no question of handicapping trade with Great Britain. The intermediate Tariff will apply, I understand, to importations from New Zealand. Why should such an unfair barrier be raised against our neighbour Dominion ? I know that there is, and has been for years, a suggestion to convene a Dominions Conference at which some policy of preferential treatment may be framed.

Senator Russell:

– Meanwhile, if the other Dominions will not meet us with special preference, why should we give anything of the kind?

Senator GARDINER:

– That is not the spirit in which to bind the Empire in commercial ties. Australia might well set an example, and naturally and inevitably the other Dominions would fall, into line.

Request negatived.

Request (by Senator Gardiner) negatived -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (d), “ Quarts,” British, free.

Item agreed to.

Item 83 (Potatoes) agreed to.

Item 84-

Rennet -

In liquid form, per gallon, British, 6s.; intermediate, 7s.; general, 8s.
N.E.I., ad val., British, 25 per cent.; intermediate, 30 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– Under previous Tariffs rennet could be imported free ; what is the reason for such heavy impositions upon it as rates of 6s., 7s., and 8s. per gallon? It has been stated that sufficient rennet can be procured in Australia to render importations unnecessary. Those engaged in the manufacture of cheese are divided in their views regarding the advisableness of placing a heavy duty upon rennet. Some say that the imported product is much superior to anything obtainable locally. The cheese industry has been built up at great expense, and has considerably expanded. If that has been due to the fact that a superior rennet has been procurable from overseas, it would be suicidal to make the duty prohibitive. There should be undoubted evidence, before heavy duties are agreed to, that a local product of equal quality is being manufactured.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– Owing to the impossibility of securing imported rennet during the war, the export of cheese materially suffered; indeed, if local rennet had not been procurable, very little cheese would have been sent away. Attention has recently been given to the production of veils, and I understand that the Sydney Abattoirs, which are under the control of the New South Wales Government, are now in a position to meet the Australian requirements of rennet. An adequate supply of rennet would be of great assistance to the cheese industry, and would enable it to export considerable quantities of cheese. Two shipments of Danish rennet, each of 200 gallons, were imported into Victoria, valued at 15s. 5d. and 19s. 5d. per gallon respectively. Taking an average price of 17s. 6d. per gallon, the general duty of 8s. per gallon would be equal to 45 per cent. I have been informed that in the Western Districtof Victoria a cooperative company wassupplying rennet at 27s. 6d. per gallon. The local rennet is sold at 30s. per gallon. If we desire to export cheese we should be careful to do nothing that would curtailthe supply of rennet, and as a duty is imposed for the purpose of encouraging the production of this commodity, I trust the Committee will allow it to remain.

Senator Payne:

– Does it not involve the unnecessary slaughter of calves?

Senator RUSSELL:

– I understand that calves are not slaughtered merely for. the purpose of obtaining rennet.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– For the information of the Committee I desire to read the following: -

There are not sufficient calf veils obtainable in Australia, for the reason that the dairyman does not as a rule kill all his calves. He invariably keeps the best heifer calves, and if the. price of stock is a payable one he will not kill the steer calves either; and even when he does kill them he will not bother about saving the veils, as the price obtainable for these is so “low.

The cheese industry is largely dependent upon the rennet imported from countries where it is not of such importance to preserve the lives of the calves as it is in Australia. We ought to be very careful before we encourage the unnecessary slaughter of stock, and should also be sure that our cheese manufacturers can obtain rennet of a quality sufficiently satisfactory to enable them to successfully carry on the industry. If we impose a duty of 8s. per gallon it will make the price of the imported rennet prohibitive, and before we agree to such an impost we should be satisfied concerning the quality of the local product, and whether it is wise to encourage the slaughter of stock.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

.” - Calves are not destroyed merely for the purpose of obtaining rennet, and, as I have already explained, the work now being undertaken by the Sydney Abattoirs will be the means of providing an adequate supply. During the war period we were unable to obtain rennet, and the cheese-making industry was in consequence considerably hampered. It is very desirable that we should not be dependent upon other countries for the supply of this commodity, and as the imposition of a duty will be of assistance to the primary producers, I trust the proposed duty will be allowed to stand. I am informed that the rennet produced locally is of a highly satisfactory quality.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– Mr. James Cameron, representative in London of the Victorian Butter Factories Association, says -

The price of good imported foreign rennet is fully 10s. per gallon cheaper, and almost twice the strength of the local manufacture. The latter can be proved by evidence of the principal manufacturers of cheese. Even if the locally-manufactured article could be made of the same strength there is not anything like enough to supply the requirements.

Senator Russell:

– I admit that in the past the supply has been inadequate, but arrangements nave now been made to meet the demand.

Item agreed to.

Item 85 -

Rice -

N.E.I., including rice meal and rice flour per cental, British, 3s.; intermediate, 3s.; general, 3s.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I do not know why rice meal and rice f our should not be admitted free. It is true that some employment may be given in cleaning and grinding rice; but that is no reason why the price should be increased to those who desire to use it. It will be a long time before rice will be successfully grown in Australia, because at present our energies are devoted to the growing of other crops. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (b) free.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– Nearly all the rice imported into Australia is uncleaned, and a good deal of work is given in Australia in connexion with the cleaning of it. I will not say that it is a very important industry, but it is well established. I think we should not now remove the duty on rice and thus destroy the value of the property of those who have established the industry of cleaning rice in Australia. There is no increase proposed in the duty.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I think it should be as widely known as possible that this duty is a considerable reduction on those which existed before the introduction of this Tariff. In the Tariff of 1908-11, duties of 3s., 4s., and 6s. per cental .were imposed. The same duties were imposed in 1914, and now, in 1921, a duty of only 3s. per cental is imposed, whilst under sub-item a for the first time in many years uncleaned rice is admitted free.. This should meet with the approval of Senator Gardiner, and I have much pleasure in supporting the Government proposal.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– My surprise is that Senator Pratten did not propose an increase in this duty, as that would be in keeping with what the Committee has done with many items up to the present. The cleaning of rice is an important industry in a flourishing state, and has apparently warranted the Government in departing from their beaten track in the past to the extent of reducing the previously existing duties by one-half. I am sorry that they did not adopt a similar course in dealing with a number of other articles included in the Tariff. If they had done so, many of the items we have already considered would have received my support instead of my opposition.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 86 (Rice root) agreed to.

Item 87-

Sago and tapioca -

Packed for household use, per lb.,1d.
N.E.I., free.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I should like to know whether sub-item a covers sago and tapioca packed for household use in packages of 1 lb. weight and no more; or those articles imported in bulk to be afterwards served to customers as they require them.

Senator Russell:

– The intention is to secure that the packing be done here.

Senator LYNCH:

– In the same way as tea?

Senator Russell:

– Yes.

Item agreed to.

Item 88-

Salt, and -table preparations thereof, in packages of any description, not exceeding 14 lb. net weight; ad val., British, 20 per cent.; intermediate, 25 per cent.; general, 30 per cent.

Item 91-

Seeds and nuts, for the manufacture of oils, oil cake and other by-products, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, British, free; intermediate, free; general, free.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

.- I notice that in this item there are again the words “ as prescribed by departmental by-laws.” The Minister has promised to consider what may be done in connexion with this provision, and I wishto know whether his promise in the matter applies to all the items in which this provision appears.

Senator Russell:

– Yes.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend sub-item (a) by leaving out the words “ as prescribed by departmental bylaws.”

In view of the principles Ihold, I cannot permit an item, to pass that contains these words.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Why not let it go till to-morrow?

Senator GARDINER:

– Because I have no faith in the promise of the Minister. He will simply say that he has given the matter consideration, and that he thinks it advisable to let it stand. I want it on record that I proposed the rejection of the principle, and that Senator Pratten and other honorable senators did not support me.

Request negatived.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I notice that in sub- item b, canary seed, hemp, and rape, also mixtures in which seeds predominate, the British Tariff is 6s. percental. Why should we impose any penalty on youngsters who wish to keep canaries?

Senator Russell:

– Because Queensland is growing a lot of this seed.

Senator GARDINER:

– All I can. say is that Queensland has a wonderful capacity for the production of these commodities.

Item agreed to. .

Item 92 -

Seed - Cotton, kapok, and’ sesame, percental, 4s.

SenatorGARDINER (New South Wales) [10.58].- I think it is about time we had a vote on the question of British preferential Tariff again, so that we may see how many honorable senators are prepared to trade with Great Britain. Therefore I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the item (British), free.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 93 -

Seed- Lucerne, per lb., British and intermediate, (6d. . . . . general, 9d.

Senator ROWELL:
South Australia

– Is this a new duty on lucerne seed ? Lucerne is grown ‘ extensively throughout the Commonwealth, and I. think there should be . some good reason for the imposition of this duty.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

.-The Hunter River district of New South Wales grows a fine sample of clean . lucerne seed, and the introduction of impure seed from South- Africa, where it is grown by black labour, is doing more injury than good to theproducers of the Commonwealth. It. is the desire of the Government to protect our producers by insuring clean seed.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- The Minister’s statement is too thin. There are ample methods available for the protection ofour producers. If imported seed is impure it should be kept out altogether. I have had some experience in regard to lucerne seed. A friend of mine was growing it in the Hunter River district, and although he was prepared to sell it for1s. per lb., ho could not find a market. At that time the market price was 2s. 6d., but when I approached those who controlled the commodity and told them that my friend was prepared to sell’ it to them at1s., they informed me that they had made their own arrangements for buying, and did not want his seed. Although my friend tried hard in a number of towns as well as in the cities, he could not get the wholesale buyers to take his seed, for the simple reason that they had made their own arrangements for supplies.

Senator de Largie:

– Is that cheap . seed still available?

Senator GARDINER:

– I am speaking of what happened a couple of years ago, but I shall be glad to give the address of my friend to any one who is interested. He was prepared to sell his seed at1s., but could not find a market for it.

Item agreed to.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 11.3 p.m .

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 August 1921, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1921/19210809_senate_8_96/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 9 August 1921

PAPERS

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATES

Senator RUSSELL:Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator RUSSELL:

QUESTION

PIANOS

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

NAURU

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

QUESTION

EASTERN TRADE COMMISSIONER

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Senator PAYNE:Tasmania

Senator RUSSELL:VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

Senator Payne:

Senator Crawford:

Senator Payne:

Senator PAYNE:Tasmania

Senator PAYNE:

Senator RUSSELL:VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

Senator CRAWFORD:Queensland

Senator Payne:

Senator Payne:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator LYNCH:Western Australia

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Crawford:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Russell:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Duncan:

Senator RUSSELL:

Senator Duncan:

Senator RUSSELL:

Senator Payne:

Senator RUSSELL:

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:TASMANIA

Senator Gardiner:

Senator PAYNE:Tasmania

Senator Lynch:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Lynch:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Lynch:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Lynch:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator PAYNE:Tasmania

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:Western Australia

Senator Elliott:

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator Lynch:

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:New South Wales

Senator Russell:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Russell:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Russell:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Russell:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator EARLE:TASMANIA

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Lynch:

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Fairbairn:

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Lynch:

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Russell:

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator ELLIOTT:Victoria

Senate
9 August 1921

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:
TASMANIA

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

Senator EARLE:
TASMANIA

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

Senator REID:
Queensland

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT