Senate
7 March 1928

10^th Parliament · 1^st Session

SITTINGS OF THE SENATE
QUESTION
- TASMANIAN COMMUNICATIONS
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
- Canberra Sewerage
PAPERS
QUESTION
- DROUGHT PREVENTION
QUESTION
- NORTH AUSTRALIA COMMISSION
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH SHIPPING BOARD
QUESTION
- FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE IN CATTLE
QUESTION
- TRANSPLANTING WHEAT
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN BUTTER
TREATMENT OF CANCER
DEFENCE DEPARTMENT
- Number of Motor Cars and Trucks
QUESTION
- CARRIER PIGEONS
UNEMPLOYMENT
- Government Policy
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

The . President (Senator the Hon. Sir John Newlands) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3553

SITTINGS OF THE SENATE

Adjournment while Censure Motion is Debated.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Vice-President of the

I feel that in justice to the Senate and to honorable senators individually I should make a statement with regard to the events of last week, in view of an attempt that has been made in a section of the press to convey the impression that those who were not then in attendance were neglectful of their public duties. Last Wednesday -week the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives gave notice of a motion of censure. The Prime Minister accepted it, immediately moved the adjournment of the House of Representatives, and notified me, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, of what had’ taken place. When a government is challenged on a motion of censure, if the motion is bona fide and not merely put forward for the purpose of wasting time, the government under challenge does not proceed with legislation or with major acts of administration. That is the time honored custom in all countries where British parliamentary practice obtains, and in accordance , with it I moved the adjournment of the Senate. It was impossible for me to forecast what would be the probable length of the debate in another place; but as it was the desire of the Government that it should not occupy more than a week I moved that the Senate at its rising adjourn until the following Wednesday. The motion was carried and the Senate adjourned. In pursuance of their public duties honorable senators naturally watched proceedings in another place, and before the end of the week was reached it was obvious to them that the debate would extend over the following week, and in the performance of their public duties they took advantage of the opportunity to return to their own States. It must be remembered that all honorable senators do not reside in Canberra, nor do they all live in Melbourne. During the first week-end I received several telegrams from senators asking me if there was any necessity for them to return to Canberra by the following Wednesday. Irealized that if I replied in the affirmative I should be bringing them from their homes only to hoar the same adjournment motion moved - that there would have to be a further adjournment until the present week. That would have meant bringing them from their homes to Canberra although no business could be done. I, therefore, instructed the Government Whip to reply that there was no occasion for honorable senators to come to Canberra last week, and you, Mr. President, were good enough to say that you would not object to attending here each day and, if there was no quorum present, adjourning the Senate . until the following day. Those are the circumstances of last week. It seems to me that there is a desire on the part of some journals in Australia to use every opportunity, no matter how trivial, to belittle and cast aspersions on parliamentary institutions. There are two sections in this country very anxious to do this, and one of them is very anxious to do away with parliamentary government altogether. Journals that lend themselves to petty attacks on members of Parliament are thus doing their best to further the cause of those who believe in the abolition of parliamentary government and the setting up of some form of autocracy. In justice to the Senate and honorable senators individually and in order that the public might know the facts I felt that I should make this statement.

page 3554

QUESTION

TASMANIAN COMMUNICATIONS

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Western Australia · NAT

[3.6]. - On the loth December last Senator Sampson asked the following question: -

With reference to the statement made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate on the 13th instant with regard to Tasmanian shipping communications, will the right honorable gentleman say whether it is the’ intention of the Government, irrespective of the state of the tide and weather conditions, to make it obligatory that the vessels of the shipping company carrying out the proposed new mail contract shall make their terminus a point on the river Tamar, in the vicinity of Rosevears, and not Launceston; and, if so, whether the Government’s decision is in conformity with the report of the Public Accounts Committee?

I pointed out that the question should have been directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, but promised that the information required would be obtained and supplied to Senator Sampson. The matter was duly brought under the notice of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, and that department was asked to communicate direct with Senator Sampson. I am now informed that the Postmaster-General duly communicated with Senator Sampson on the 10th January last, and that he intended that this letter should be taken as a reply to the questions asked by Senator Sampson, though, perhaps, this fact was not made as clear as it might have been. The PostmasterGeneral’s letter reads as follows: -

Referring to your recent telegram and to your letter of 21st December, 1927, in connection with the proposed new contract for the Tasmanian mail service, urging that Launceston be specified as the terminus, the Government has given the closest consideration to this feature and to other matters relating to the service and has formed the opinion that much improved facilities could be given if the difficulty in connexion with the tides at Launceston were overcome by terminating the service at some point on the River Tamar near Rosevears, where there is deep water, and provision made for linking such point with the railway system of Tasmania or by road with Launceston. It is, therefore, the intention to adhere to the decision of the Government, which was announced by the Prime Minister in Parliament recently. The new service should considerably improve mail facilities, as it should be possible to give Hobart, as well as Launceston, a delivery of mails on the day of the arrival of the mail steamer.

page 3555

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Canberra Sewerage

Senator REID presented the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, together with minutes of evidence, relating to the proposed construction of a north-western intercepting sewer at Canberra.

page 3555

PAPERS

The. following papers were presented : -

Commonwealth Bank Act - Aggregate Balancesheet of Commonwealth Bank of Australia, at 31st December, 1927, together with Statement of Liabilities and Assets of the Note Issue Department; and Auditor-General’s Reports thereon.

British Phosphate Commission - Report and Accounts for year ended 30th June, 1927.

Commonwealth Shipping Board - Cost of Administration, Salaries Paid, &c, during the years 1924-25, 1925-26 and 1926-27.

International Labour Organization of League of Nations - Reports of Australian delegates to Tenth Conference (25th May to Kith June, 1927).

Audit Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1927, No. 158.

Land Tax Assessment Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1928, No. 16.

Public Service Act -

Appointments - Department of -

Health - J. R. Garnet.

Home and Territories - C. W. Allen.

Works and Railways - E. P. Bayliss, H. W. Crutch, and C. A. Skinner ; W. H. Knight and L. G. Weymouth ; . J. C. Macken zic.

Regulations amended, &c. - Statutory

Rules 1928, No: 11- No. 12.

Public Works Committee Act - Thirteenth General Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. New Guinea Act - Ordinances -

No. 40 of 1927- Mining (No. 2).

No. 1 of 1928 - Matrimonial Causes Jurisdiction.

No. 2 of 1928- Motor Traffic.

No. 3 of 1928 - Public Service.

Northern Australia Act -

Central Australia - Encouragement of Primary Production Ordinance - Regulations amended.

North Australia - Encouragement of Primary Production Ordinance - Regulations amended.

Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1927, No. 83.

Quarantine Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1928, No. 13.

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act -Ordinance No. 2 of 1928- Standard Time.

Cotton Bounty Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules, 1928, No. 15.

Lands Acquisition Act- Land acquired at Wyong, New South Wales - for Postal purposes.

Spirits Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1928, No. 14.

page 3555

QUESTION

DROUGHT PREVENTION

Investigations in Queensland.

Senator THOMPSON:
QUEENSLAND

– Some time ago I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir George Pearce) the conditions under which an area of land was offered by the Queensland Government for the purpose of conducting an investigation in regard to the prevention of droughts, and I was informed that the matter was receiving the careful consideration of the Government. Since then I believe the offer has been refused, and I now desire to ask if the Minister will, for the purpose of public information, give details of the reasons which actuated the Government in refusing it. As I understand that the reasons are sound, I trust that they will be made available to the Senate -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator is not entitled to debate the matter.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I do not know whether I can give the honorable Senator the information he desires in replying to a question. I can obtain the papers and allow him to peruse them. If, however, the honorable senator wishes a specific answer to his question, I must ask him to give notice of it.

page 3556

QUESTION

NORTH AUSTRALIA COMMISSION

Erection of Buildings at Alice Springs.

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the Government is building two cement houses at Alice Springs for the members of the Central Australian Commission that will cost approximately ?25,000?
What is the cost of cement landed at Alice Springs?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The answers are:

No. For the information of the honorable senator it is stated that the Government has let a contract at ?10,489 10s. for the erection at Stuart, , Central Australia, of Council Chambers and three houses of concrete block construction for the Government Resident, Stock Inspector, and clerks.
?29 10s. per ton.

page 3556

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SHIPPING BOARD

Administration Costs

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Min ister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What was the total cost, in connexion with the administration of the Commonwealth Shipping Board, for the years 1924-25, 1925-26 and 1920-27?
What was. the total amount of salary, allowances, &c, received by the members of the board for the same periods?
What was the total cost of the London office for the same period?
What was the total amount of travelling expenses and allowances received by the chairman of the board for the same periods?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

The answers are: -

page 3556

QUESTION

FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE IN CATTLE

Senator ANDREW:
through Senator Elliott

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Markets and Migration, upon notice -

Is it a fact, as reported in the press, that foot and mouth disease amongst cattle in the Old Country is serious and has affected no less than 27 counties and districts of England ?
If so, will the Minister have the necessary precautions taken to ensure that all cattle coming from England to Australia are clean and free from disease and are under proper veterinary inspection ?

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– The answers are -

Yes, although foot and mouth disease is prevalent over a wider area than indicated in the question.
Under the Quarantine Act the importation of cattle from England is prohibited - this being considered the only safe course while the disease is prevalent in England.

page 3557

QUESTION

TRANSPLANTING WHEAT

Senator ANDREW:
through Senator Elliott

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Markets and Migration, upon notice -

Has the Minister seen a published statement relating to a German method of transplanting wheat by machinery, which, it is claimed, increases the yield four -fold?
Will the Minister endeavour to obtain all available information on the subject for the benefit of Australian wheat-growers?

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

– The answers are -

Yes.
Information is being obtained and will be published for the benefit of Australian wheat-growers.

page 3557

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BUTTER

Use of Preservatives

Senator ANDREW:
through Senator Elliott

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Markets and Migration, upon notice -

Has the Minister seen a statement in the English press to the effect that large dealers in Australian butter have gone over to foreign makes on account of the inferior quality of the Australian product owing to the absence of preservativep ?
Will hecause representations to bo made to the Home Government with a view to the removal of the prohibition against the use of preservatives in butter exported from Australia to London?
Will the Minister also have full inquiries made and take such action as will permit of Australian butter being sold in the London market at the highest market rates?

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

– The answers are -

and 2. Owing to the British prohibition against the use of preservatives in butter certain shipments of unsalted butter from Australia arrived in a deteriorated condition. At thu time of shipment there was nothing to indicate any defect in the butter. By an alteration of the method of manufacture the difficultyhas to some extent been overcome, and it is hoped by means of research work to find a solution of the trouble. The British Government regrets its inability to accede to the Commonwealth Government’s request to remove the prohibition. .
The Commonwealth Dairy Produce Control Board and its London agency are endeavouring to secure the highest possible market price for Australian butter and have already achieved a considerable measure of success in this direction.

page 3557

TREATMENT OF CANCER

Senator ANDREW (through Senator

Elliott) asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -

Is it a fact that Dr. G. W. E. Paul, of Kangaroo Point, Queensland, who has recently returned from England after a study of Professor Blair Bell’s treatment of cancer by the intravenous injection of colloidof lead, brought with him a supply of the lead solution for the treatment of cases in the General Hospital, Brisbane, and also at Diamantina Hospital for Incurables?

If so, will the Minister cause inquiries to be made into the effects of the treatment, and, if it was successful, will he arrange for solution, as prepared by Messrs. Crooks, London, to be made available for cancer treatment in various centres of the Commonwealth?

It is understood that Dr. Paul brought from England a supply of colloidal lead.

This preparation is now being tried at the principal hospitals in Adelaide Melbourne and Sydney. The results of these investigations will be awaited with interest.

page 3557

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

Number of Motor Cars and Trucks

Senator GUTHRIE (through Senator

Elliott) asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

What is the number of motor cars and/or trucks owned by the department
What is the number of cars and/or trucks, in whole or part, of other than British manufacture ?

The number of motor cars and motor trucks owned by department - 192.
Number of motor cars and trucks in whole or in part of other than British manufacture - 31. A number of the motor cars and trucks of other than British manufacture are Fords, which have been on charge to the department since the war. Several of these are out of running order, and will shortly be disposed of. I may add that it is the policy of the Defence Department to purchase only vehicles of British manufacture.

page 3557

QUESTION

CARRIER PIGEONS

Senator BARNES:
through Senator Graham

asked the Minister for Defence -

Does the department reserve the right to commandeer all carrier pigeons
Is anything in the shape of bonus granted to breeders of such birds
If not, why not?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– The replies are -

No.
No.
In view of the large number of carrier pigeons in Australia, and their diminishing use for communication in war, the payment of a bonus to encourage breeding is not considered necessary from a defence stand-point.

page 3558

UNEMPLOYMENT

Government Policy

Senator VERRAN (through Senator

Foll) asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

What is the policy of the Government in respect to the unemployed in Australia?

page 3558

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Second . Reading.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this hill is to extend to other industries the same measure ofprotection as was approved by the Senate when it passed a tariff schedule in 1926. It also increases the preference given to Great Britain on a number of items, and provides for reduced duties on various articles not manufactured in Australia. Since the passing of the tariff schedule in 1926, the Tariff Board has investigated the circumstances of a number of industries, and the board’s reports concerning the industries dealt with in the schedule to this bill have been made available to honorable senators. The duties proposed cover a wide range of both primary and secondary, industries, some of which are of great national importance. The imports affected by the proposals are valued at £24,000,000 - of which £6,000,000 are British, and the balance, £18,000,000, foreign goods. It is believed that the new duties, if approved by the Senate, will result in a gain to Australian production of £6,000,000 per annum, and that British will displace foreign exports to this country to the value of £5,000,000 a year. It is not expected that any substantial increase in revenue will result from the higher ‘ duties proposed, as the decreased collections due to the reductions on many items must he set off against any increase. These calculations do not include the revenue which will result from the increased duties proposed to raise money for road purposes.

The deferred duties proposed are to encourage the establishment of certain projected industries, the principal being iron and steel tubes, leather cloth and linoleum. Reduced duties are proposed in a number of cases. These relate to goods which are in. everyday use in the household, or to articles of general utility, and which are not manufactured in Australia.

In the schedule now before the Senate, the principle of British preference has been maintained, in some instances amounting to 25 per cent., and averaging about 20 per cent. Preferences previously granted to British manufacturers are worth over £8,000,000 per ‘ annum. This will be increased under the present proposals by approximately £2,000,000. It is frequently alleged that our policy of protection, notwithstanding these substantial preferences, is injurious to British trade. It may be pointed out, however, that in 1901 the value of Australian importations of British goods amounted to £6 per head of population, while in 1925-26 we imported British goods to the value of £11 per head. Our population in the meantime had increased by over 2,000,000.

These figures must not be regarded as indicating a failure of the policy of protection to encourage Australian production, but rather as proof of the prosperity promoted by protection, and the consequent high-purchasing power of the people of this country. Even when adequate protection is afforded, it is not reasonable to expect that our own manufacturers will be in a position to supply forthwith the whole of the country’s requirements. In the case of new industries, before this can be done, capital has to be raised, factories have to be built and equipped, and employees trained. In many instances, consumers’ prejudices against Australianmade articles have to be overcome. The latter frequently is a costly and tedious process. The same difficulties have, in some measure at least, to he surmounted in connexion with the expansion of existing industries. In spite of numerous and serious obstacles, there has been a steady expansion in mo3t of our secondary industries during recent years, as the following figures indicate: -

The value added in process of manufacture during the year 1925-26, (£152,220,554), was equal to the value of over 600,000,000 bushels of wheat at 5s. a bushel.

The 1925 Tariff has stimulated the production of many commodities. In this way it provided employment for additional labour and capital, and kept in Australia much money which otherwise would have been spent overseas at a time when it was most important that it should he retained here. It has also induced British and other overseas firms to establish branch factories in the Commonwealth, thus increasing the working capital of the country and the employment of our people.

When the previous Tariff schedule was before the Senate fears were expressed that higher duties would further increase the cost of living. Investigations made by officers of the customs department have failed to discover any material increase in wholesale prices, while it has been ascertained that substantial reductions have been made in the prices of a number of commodities.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– What are they?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I shall give the honorable senator the details later.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The Minister has made a bald statement. We should have the details now.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– It is impossible to give all the details in a second reading speech. It was also contended that the increased duties would impose further handicaps upon the primary producer, but no evidence that this has occurred has been forthcoming. Australia has just passed through a severe drought, which has reduced both agricultural and pastoral production, but in Western Australia, where conditions were normal, last year witnessed the greatest increase in wheat area under cultivation and yield which has ever taken place in that State. So far from protection hampering our primary industries, it substantially contributes to their success by providing a large and profitable home market, the bulk of all our land products, with the exception of wool and wheat, being consumed within the Commonwealth.

In the settlement and development of the Commonwealth our flocks and herds, farms, orchards, vineyards, and mines are all of the utmost importance, but to assure the progress and prosperity of almost any country, it is imperative that primary production should be reinforced and buttressed by such secondary industries as are commercially possible. This is more especially the case where primary production is so much affected as it is in Australia by seasonal variations. Even in favorable circumstances, land industries involve much casual labour, and when production is seriously curtailed by climatic conditions, as sometimes happens, much unemployment ensues. It must be admitted that some of our secondary industries occasionally suffer from periods of depression, hut on the whole they afford fairly continuous employment, and maintain from year to year a steadily increasing volume of production. The value of this constant and increasing flow of work and wealth cannot be overestimated.

Protective duties, however, are not entirely confined to secondary industries. Many of our land products are protected by comparatively high duties, and in some instances also receive the benefit of a bounty on export. Under this bill it is proposed to increase the import duties on rice, potatoes, butter, cheese, and timber. In protecting the iron and steel industry a market is provided for iron ore from South Australia; limestone from Tasmania ; fluorspar from Queensland ; and iron ore, limestone, sandstone, and coal from New South Wales, in the mining and transport of which thousands of men are engaged in addition to the many thousands who are employed in operating the smelters. In such an undertaking it is impossible to separate the interests of the primary from those of the secondary industry, the whole being interwoven and interdependent. The position is very similar in connexion with most of our productive activities. That the Commonwealth’s policy of protection has not retarded the growth of our land industries is abundantly proved by the substantial increases which have taken place in most branches of primary production since federation. It is difficult to make satisfactory comparisons, owing to variations in seasonal conditions, hut the following statement showing maximum yields in a number of industries before and since federation is interesting and informative : -

Record Productions.

Prior to Federation.

Butter, 1000, 114,380,780 lb.

Cheese, 1896, 12,105,327 lb.

Wine, 1896-97, 5,336,161 gallons.

Wheat, 1900-1, 48,353,402 bushels (5,566,614 acres ) .

Wool, 1891, 543,495,800 lb.

Bacon and Hams, 1900, 32,388,029 lb.

Sugar, 1898-99, 192,834 tons.

Subsequent to Federation.

Butter, 1924-25, 313,952,291 lb.

Cheese, 1921, 32,053,003 lb.

Wine, 1925-20, 16,231,142 gallons.

Wheat, 1915-10, 179,065,703 bushels (12,484,512 acres).

Wool, 1925-20, 830,459,007 lb.

Bacon and Hams, 1925-26, 74,774,537 lb.

Sugar, 1925-26, 517,970 tons.

A frequent argument against the policy of protecting our secondary industries is that we are unable to sell our manufactured products on the world’s markets, and, therefore, profitable output is limited to home requirements. Unfortunately, this is also the case- with many of our primary products, the exportable surplus having to be sold ata loss. It is a mistaken idea that there, is an assured market at remunerative prices for every form of land production, which is increasing more rapidly than population in many countries. In the official report of the Economic Conference, held at Geneva in May last, appears the following: -

A general impression of the change which has taken place since the war can be gathered from the statistics which have been compiled of the world’s production of foodstuffs and raw materials. The figures show that, whereas in 1925 the world’s population was about 5 per cent, greater than in 1913, production of foodstuffs and of raw materials was from 10 to 18 per cent, greater. In other words, production and consumption, both in total and per head of the world’s population are greater than before the war.

This increased production of food and raw materials has, however, not been accompanied by a corresponding increase of international commerce, for the volume of trade in 1925 was only 5 per cent, higher than before the war.

The following extract from the last annual report by the Secretary of Agriculture in the United States of America describes the agricultural position in a country where conditions are somewhat comparable with those of Australia: -

On fewer acres, and with a farm population of 3,000,000 less than in 1919, the agricultural industry since 1923 has averaged a larger volume of production than in the year immediately following the war. … In the nine years since the world war ended, agriculture has undergone far-reaching changes that have materially increased the output of both land and labour. Tractors have replaced many horses and mules, releasing land -for other uses than the production of feed and forage. Improved harvesting machinery has come into wide use. The size of the average farm has increased. More productive crops have been planted. Livestock of increased productivity has become widely dispersed. Farm management has become more efficient, a better balance has been established amongst agricultural enterprises, and progress has been made in adjusting production to market requirements. The result is an increase in farm production more rapid than the rise in the coun try’s population.

From these official statements, overproduction of foodstuffs appears possible, if not imminent, and in view of such a contingency, it would be criminal folly to depart from the policy of endeavouring to make Australia as far as possible selfsupporting and self-contained.

I have refrained from discussing the details of the schedule, because this can be done more conveniently and usefully as the items come up for consideration in committee. The proposed amendments are the outcome of exhaustive investigation by the Tariff Board, and of most careful consideration by the Minister for Trade and Customs and by the Cabinet. They will, it is believed, if approved by the Senate, as they have been by the other branch. of the legislature, encourage the investment of Australian and overseas capital, stimulate production, and increase employment without adding to the cost of living or the burden of taxation.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

.- The Tariff is at all times a very interesting as well as an intricate subject. We have long since passed the stage at which there was any doubt in the minds of the people of Australia as to what should be the fiscal policy of this country. Many years ago the chief question that was debated either in Parliament or outside was that of freetrade versus protection, but for many years the different governments which have held office have, at the direction of the people of Australia, determined that in order to keep this country self-reliant and self-contained it is necessary to pursue a protective policy. My only objection is that our protective policy has not been sufficiently effective, and that the incidence of the different tariffs that have been in operation has not resulted in our being as self-contained and as self-reliant as the people wish.

The Labour party has consistently advocated a form of new protection - protection for manufacturers and their employees as well as for the consumers of the manufactured article. Unfortunately the Constitution presents an obstacle to the attainment of its desire in that direction. It would, however, be wrong for us to depend entirely on imports from overseas. Australia’s policy of protection has added to the number of our manufactories, and increased the number of persons employed therein. Although a young country - as a nation Australia is still in its swaddling clothes, we have made substantial progress, notwithstanding that the progress’ has been slow. At the outbreak of the Great War in 1914 there were 15,428 factories in Australia in which 331,000 employees were engaged, the annual wages bill being £34,146,000. By 1925-26 the number of factories had increased to 21,242, employing 450,920 persons to whom wages amounting to £86,724,000 were paid. I am reliably informed that in the short period which has elapsed since this amended schedule was tabled in another place four or five new timber mills have been established in Tasmania.

Notwithstanding these evidences of progress the tariff ,is not sufficiently protective, for we find that, despite the splendid increase . in our secondary industries our imports continue to exceed our exports by an increasing amount each year. In the Melbourne Age of yesterday there appeared a paragraph dealing with a report from the Commonwealth Statistician, from which I have taken the following extract : -

Statistics of the oversea trade of Australia with other countries during 1920-27 have been made available by the Commonwealth Statistician, Mr. C. H. Wickens. Comparative figures for the year 1925-26 have also been included in the tabulations. The total value of Australia’s oversea trade during 1926-27 was £309,011,777, as compared with £300,200,387. The value of imports increased from £151,638,178 in 1925-26 to £164,716,594 in 1926-27, which is the highest total ever recorded, while exports declined from £148,562,209 in 1925-26 to £144,895,183. Imports thus exceeded exports in 1926-27 by £19,821,411.

Senator Chapman:

– When the Massy Greene tariff was tabled we were told that it would mean a decrease of imports.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– That is because the tariff has not been sufficiently protective in its incidence. The same issue of the Melbourne Age contains the following report of a speech by Mr. Hogan, the Premier of Victoria: -

During 1927 the imports into Australia were valued at £164,000,000, and the exports at £144,000,000, which together with interest on Commonwealth and State loans, amounted to an adverse trade balance of £44,000,000. Mr. Bruce had said that the figures for the lost twelve years were quite satisfactory. He was astounded at the Prime Minister adopting such a shallow and superficial argument. The last twelve years included the war years, when imports were at a minimum and exports at a maximum, so the comparison was not fair. However, he would take those years and show how imports had grown. In 1915-16 the imports were valued at £64,000,000; in 1916-17. £77,000,000; 1917-18, £62,000,000; 1918-19, £102,000,000; 1919-207 £98,000,000; 1920-21, £163,000,000; 1921-22, £103,000,000; 1922-23, £131,000,000; 1923-24, ,£140,000,000; 1924-25, £157,000,000; 1925-26, £151,000,000, and last year, 1926-27, they were £164,000,000, the highest yet recorded. .

At this stage I venture the opinion that a great factor in bringing about the unemployment we have in Australia to-day is the adverse trade balance we have as the result of our borrowing overseas. By borrowing overseas we bring goods, instead of money, into Australia, and these are goods which could and should be made by Australians. We have not only the men and the material, but also the skill to produce them. Instead of being an importing nation to the extent I have just shown, we should be an exporting nation; or at least if we cannot be that, our importations should not be as heavy as they are..

Our manufacturers have to compete with manufacturers in parts of the world where labour is cheap, and where men are working under conditions that, under no consideration, would be tolerated in Australia.

Senator Duncan:

– One of our chief competitors is the United States of America, where wages are higher and the conditions of work better than, they are in Australia.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– In those countries people work longer hours, and receive less wages-

Senator Kingsmill:

– In America?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– No. It was Senator Duncan who referred to the United States of America. Although they are not as good as I should like to see them - there is still room for improvement - the working conditions which Australians enjoy are entirely due to the fact that there has been, and still is, an Australian Labour party. And if the worker of Australia is not getting the full measure for his labour to which he is entitled, he is, at any rate, in respect to working conditions, considerably in advance of his fellows in other countries from which we import annually millions of pounds worth of goods.

With adequate protection I dare say we might not have in our midst those pernicious trusts and combines which are so evident in other parts of the world, particularly in ‘ that country referred to by Senator Duncan. I am not foolish enough to say that we have no trusts or combines in Australia, but if it had not been for our legislation of the past that evil might be more rampant than it is. Until we have new protection we must do the best we can under our Constitution. Therefore, I welcome an amended tariff schedule which will help to protect the manufacturers of Australia and provide work for Australian citizens. The Minister has said that one of the results of this tariff will be the development of a foreign export to the extent of, approximately, £5,000,000 a year. I hope it will. I should like to see a more pronounced result, because £5,000,000 is a very small proportion of £20,000,000.

While I believe in a protective policy I am not a believer in . what might be termed unlimited protection which might tend to inefficiency on the part of the management of a factory.

Senator Payne:

– That is a very nice admission.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I do not say that it will have that tendency, but it might be the means of enabling some managers to postpone the installation of up-to-date machinery in their factories. In my opinion, we could get a larger output at a cheaper cost by the installation of up-to-date machinery in our factories. When in the Arbitration Court the employers were fighting against a proposed reduction of working hours from 48 to 44 a week, they contended that with the proposed reduction in hours the output of their factories would be decreased, but I think evidence was given to show that in many of our factories we did not have up-to-date machinery - an important factor in increasing output and at the same time reducing costs of production.

Some people say that new protection interferes with private enterprise. But private enterprise frequently comes to Parliament for assistance. Time and time again this Parliament has passed bounty bills to give assistance to private enterprise.

The Minister (Senator Crawford) referred to the wheat production of Western Australia. It is true that the Western State has increased its production. In 1903 it was importing . wheat ; but in the 1927 season it had a yield of 35,000,000 bushels. I am not prepared to admit- that this yield is the result of the tariff of the Bruce-Page Government.

Senator Kingsmill:

– It is in spite of it.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I say, unhesitatingly, that it is in spite of the tariff that Western Australia has had this yield. I was somewhat surprised to hear the Minister say that the increased wheat yield in Western Australia was one of the results of the tariff schedule that the bill now before us amends.

Senator Crawford:

– I did not say that; I said it was proof that a protective policy is not a handicap to primary industry.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– There may be room for argument in that regard. If in our tariff schedule we imposed a very heavy duty on agricultural machinery, it might handicap a State like Western Australia, which is in its infancy as a primary producing State. The primary producers have to sell their products in the markets of the world, and we should not make their conditions hard, particularly as they have to contend with the adversities which nature arrays against them.

I presume that before this debate concludes we shall have an expression of opinion from the representatives of the Country party in this chamber, and may find that even at this stage there is a freetrader in its ranks, I do not know whether the Country, party is still in existence, as its members are now so closely associated with the Nationalist party that they have almost lost their identity. When a private member the present Treasurer expressed very strong opinions concerning the tariff and its incidence which I shall quote.

Senator Chapman:

– He still holds strong opinions.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– -But he dare not express them, otherwise he would soon lose his present position. Since the Treasurer has been in office the revenue from customs and excise duties has increased to a remarkable extent, as the following figures show: In 1921-22 the revenue from this source was £27,630,000, and in 1926-27 it was £43,552,000, an increase of £15,922,000. During the same period the amount of customs and excise duties paid per head of the population rose from £5 0s. 3£d. to £7 2s. 6id., an increase of £2 2s. 3d. per head. When we remember the strong attitude adopted by the Leader of the Country party before he took office, it is difficult to understand why he should tolerate such a heavy increase of duties. On the 12 th October, 1922, the present Treasurer said : -

We wore told that the tariff was to be definitely protective: but the Treasurer is actually budgeting to secure more revenue from the tariff this year.

Later he said : -

If a protective tariff fulfils its functions the revenue derived must become less and less as industries are established within the country.

Our industries have not developed proportionately, but, as our customs revenue has increased to a remarkable extent, it suggests that the tariff is not sufficiently protective. The present Treasurer as Leader of the Country party also said : -

The Country party fought against these excessive duties all the time, and I regard the action of the Government in reducing the duties on wire netting and galvanized iron and fencing wire as a confession that the policy we advocated last year was a proper one.

The Dr. Page of to-day is entirely different from the Dr. Page of a few years ago.

If Senator Sir George Pearce wishes to honour his compact with the people of Western Australia when he was elected in 1925, he must oppose many of the items in the schedule to this bill. Both he and Senator Carroll agreed then to advocate a low tariff. Senator Pearce may or may not oppose the schedule. If he did, it would probably involve his resignation from the cabinet, and that would be a calamity to the right honorable gentleman himself. According to a paragraph in the Melbourne Age of the 13th March, 1926, the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart), in dealing with the agreement made by the two parties in Western Australia, said -

Before the last elections an agreement had been made by the National and Country Party that as the present high tariff was inimical to Western Australia the full strength of both parties should be devoted to a substantial reduction in the duties, and that as a reduction could only be secured through united representation, neither party should give endorsement to any candidate who was not in agreement with this policy. The primary producers and united parties agreed to co-operate and the former was to have one representative, for the Senate and the other party two.

I understand that Senator Pearce and Senator Carroll subscribed to that agreement and I am waiting to see the attitude they will adopt towards this bill, particularly as the customs duties have not been reduced since Senator Pearce was returned to this Parliament. I shall watch with interest the progress of the bill through the committee stages, and I hope that the duties adopted will give to Australia more effective protection than we have had in the past. Higher duties are necessary to help manufacturers who are providing employment for many of our people and assisting Australia to become a self-contained and self-reliant nation.

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

.- If there are still any freetraders in this chamber, which I very much doubt, I suppose they will have something to say concerning the schedule to this bill. Like the Leader of the Opposition (Senator

– Never is a long time. The man who claims to be able to foretell the future is an optimist. Because of our higher standard of living, and improved conditions of labour, we are not able to compete with overseas manufacturers in certain industries; but it must not be forgotten that we are building up industries under conditions dissimilar from, those obtaining in many other countries.

Senator Needham said that at one time the only question which was seriously discussed in Australia was whether our fiscal policy should be one of freetrade or protection. While I cannot go quite so far as that, it is true that no question has aroused more public interest or caused more bitterness and enmity than Australia’s fiscal policy. I have seen the Melbourne Town Hall crowded to the doors long before the appointed hour for the commencement of meetings to discuss the fiscal policy of the country; I have seen hanging from balconies banners advocating one policy or the other; and sometimes, when the opposing parties got into close quarters, the situation was so tense that I wondered what the outcome would be.

Senator Ogden:

– Now I suppose we are a happy family?

Senator FINDLEY:

– There is not today that bitterness in regard to fiscal matters that there was in the days of which I speak. More and more the people of Australia have identified themselves with the policy of protection, until to-day there are very few live freetrade organizations in this country. That even the Country party, some of whose members are opposed to protection, seems slowly, but surely, to be giving its support to that policy, is evident by the speeches made in another place by socalled representatives of that party in connexion with the schedule now before us. It would appear that a majority of Government supporters in this chamber favour that policy. It may be that they are not ready to go so far as I am prepared to go to give protection to Australian industries, but, in the main, honorable senators opposite are protectionists. It is true that there are grounds for doubting their wholeheartedness.

That charge cannot, however, be laid against the members of the Labour party. Although opposed to much of the Government’s policy the Labour party will assist the Government to give adequate protection to industries already established and to encourage new industries in Australia, thus providing further avenues of employment for our people. With more and more industries established, and consequently greater opportunities for employment, there should be a greater home market for our primary products. Foi that reason the primary producers and their representatives should do all in their power to establish secondary industries in this country.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

, - The Minister in charge of this bill (Senator Crawford) and his colleagues must be gratified at the preans of praise which have come from the Opposition to-day. First, we had the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham) singing the praises of the Government, and later Senator Findley, who in his concluding remarks said that however high the duties proposed by the Government the Labour party would support them. Such a position must be unique in the history of parliaments. I well remember the time when the then Leader of the Opposition in this chamber (Senator Gardiner) criticized the present Government because of its protectionist policy.’ He assured the Senate that if effect were given to that policy it would spell the ruin of Australian industries. But today those whom he at one time led say that the Government is doing right in increasing duties ; their only complaint is that the duties proposed are not high enough. Senator Findley has declared himself to be in favour of adequate protection. We have heard of scientific protectionists, reasonable protectionists, geographical protectionists, and more recently of new protectionists; but to-day a new brand has appeared - adequate protectionists.

Senator Findley:

– Senator “Duncan is a freetrader, revenue tariffist, and protectionist combined.

Senator DUNCAN:

– I shall have pleasure in telling Senator Findley where I stand in fiscal matters and explaining why it gives me a great deal of pleasure to support, almost in their entirety, the recommendations contained in this schedule. I regret that in one or two instances I may have to offer some opposition.

Senator Needham:

– Why complain?

Senator DUNCAN:

– I am not complaining; I am supporting this tariff as I was sent here to do.

Senator Needham:

– Then do it cheerfully.

Senator DUNCAN:

– I propose to do so. Indeed the task’ is not difficult, because of the lead given by the Opposition, which has made it clear that it finds no fault with the Government.

Having listened to honorable senators opposite, I find that some doubts which 1 previously entertained as to the wisdom of these proposals are disappearing. Like the poor who are always with us, we seem never to get entirely rid of tariff schedules. In the past when tariff schedules were introduced, we were told that the duties proposed were sufficient to establish various industries in our midst, and that no requests for higher duties would be made. But, unfortunately, our experience has been that almost before the ink on the schedule was dry, there was an agitation for further duties.

Senator Foll:

– To a great extent the States have been responsible for that.

Senator DUNCAN:

– I do not blame the unfortunate manufacturers for asking for higher duties. They have been forced to do so by reason of circumstances over which they have had no control. Having based their manufacturing costs and the future of their industries upon existing conditions, they have found that conditions in industry change more in Australia than in almost any other country, with the result that they have experienced difficulty in meeting not only the competition from overseas, but also, at times, that from within Australia.

Senator Thompson:

– One of their problems is that every increase in duty is followed by an increase in the wages of their employees.

Senator DUNCAN:

– That is one of the contributing factors; but other factors need only to be mentioned to show how difficult it is for manufacturers to meet changing conditions. Recently I had the opportunity to visit the Lustre Silk

Hosiery factory, one of the finest factories I have seen in this country, which manufactures a magnificent article. The tariff schedule now before us increased by 20 per cent, the cost of its raw material, notwithstanding that the duty on the finished article with which it has to compete was not increased. That increased duty may mean the difference between success and failure to that industry. Unfortunately, that state of affairs is not confined to the industry I have mentioned. The trouble is that the finished article of one industry is in many instances the ‘ raw material of another, so that any increased cost of the article produced by the one has to be borne by the other. For that reason we should consider carefully some of the proposals contained in this schedule.

Although to-day we have not the fights between freetrade and protection which we had in the past, there is by no means unanimity on fiscal matters. To-day the issue before this chamber is net whether protection should be given or withheld, but what degree of protection should be given to the industries mentioned in the schedule. Protection has become the settled policy of the Commonwealth, and the fight now is for ever and ever-increasing duties. Honorable senators of the Labour party have pointed to statistics which show that the importations of Australia are constantly growing, in spite of an ever-increasing tariff. But why is this so? The goods would not be sent to this country unless there was a sale for them here. Who buys them? The statistics of importations show that they are largely manufactured articles, made, as Senator Needham has said, iu countries whose workers are paid lower wages than are paid in Australia. They are sent here, and bought here because they are cheap, and the people who buy them are those who want cheap goods - the working people of Australia. In any of the 6d., 9d., and ls. shops which are now becoming the vogue, or in any other shops having big sales of imported goods, can be seen long queues of workers and workers’ wives, fighting and struggling to buy cheap imported articles. The muchvaunted policy of protection sounds all right; but unless it has behind it .the actual backing of the people who say they believe in it, it must fail, even if the duties are fixed at the 200 per cent, level supported by Senator Findley. The people who return the honorable senator to this Parliament will buy the imported article if they can get it at -Jd. or Id. cheaper than an article manufactured in Australia under decent conditions of labour.

These are facts which cannot be denied, and if honorable senators opposite have at heart the interests of the manufacturers of Australia to the extent they say they have, I urge upon them the advisability of going among their own people and telling them that they do wrong when they buy other than Australian-made goods, or when they look for cheapness instead of quality. It is not easy to do this. The unfortunate worker’s wife who finds herself at the end of the week with only a trivial sum of money with -which to do a very great deal for herself and her family, buys where she can get the most for what she has to spend. Is she wrong in doing so? She has either to do that or to allow some member of the family to go without something which is required. When one is faced with a problem like that, when one has either to go without something, or to buy imported goods because they are cheap, the scale always has a tendency to fall on the side of the imported article. Are we to blame the worker’s wife for taking a. course of action we should probably take in similar circumstances.

– The Tariff Board was opposed to the increased duty on

Oregon. Despite that, the Government is now sponsoring a tariff schedule in which it is not proposed to give effect to the Tariff Board’s recommendations.

Senator Needham:

– The Tariff Board has not the last word in tariff matters.

Senator DUNCAN:

– It made the fullest investigation.

Senator Payne:

– Did not the board recommend increased duties on Oregon?

Senator DUNCAN:

– Not nearly to the extent proposed

On the second reading of a Customs Tariff Bill it is customary for honorable senators to confine their remarks more particularly to general principles, and when the schedule is under consideration, to deal with the items in detail. With most of the proposals I am in entire accord, and with some I differ but I am not to be swayed by cajolery or threats of what may be done by certain individuals and interests if I do not see the light as they see it. In connexion with tariff matters it is most unfortunate that we should find our letter-boxes littered with letters, telegrams and printed matter circulated by certain persons solely in their own financial interest. I am not likely to be influenced in that way. I shall give my close attention to the consideration of the schedule, and trust I shall be able to justify every vote I record on the various items. In concluding I wish to point out that there are some industries to which the general principles I have referred cannot be applied. I have in mind key industries, which are of greater importance than ordinary manufacturing concerns; they are national necessities to any country. The iron and steel industry already mentioned in this debate has been referred to as a New South Wales industry. It is not an industry belonging to any State, but an Australian industry, the existence of which is absolutely essential if this country is to remain under our control. If Ave believe in a definite defence system the iron and steel industry is as essential to us as are battle ships, cruisers or aeroplanes.

Senator Payne:

– Or primary industries ?

Senator DUNCAN:

– Yes, but I am now referring ‘to manufacturing industries. If it is necessary to give a greater degree of protection to the iron and steel industry, even though it may mean a temporary increase in the cost of production, we ‘must be prepared to give it for the reasons I have mentioned. I shall have pleasure in supporting increased duties on certain items in the schedule. I join with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham) and Senator Findley in congratulating the Government upon introducing the bill, and am pleased to note that in this instance we are holding the same views - a state of affairs which I trust will long continue.

Senator CHAPMAN:
South Australia

– I wish to bring before the Government and honorable senators the fact that under the existing act the members of the Tariff Board have not been able to visit the distant States and take evidence to the extent that the residents in such States desire. Persons in South Australia have complained that they have had to come to Melbourne to give evidence, and when the interests of the States are in conflict, those in distant States are at a disadvantage. I understand this is due partly to the constitution of the board. One is almost staggered at the volume of evidence taken and upon which the reports are based.

I congratulate the hoard upon the exhaustive manner in which its investigations are conducted and the information contained in the valuable reports which it issues.

The Tariff Board, in its annual report for the year ended 30th June, 1927, dealt with the difficulty to which I have referred, and pointed out the necessity for amending the act, with a view to materially increasing the efficiency of the Board, particularly by way of expediting its operations. It points out that a sitting of the board has to be called for each occasion on which it is to meet, and that two members constitute a quorum. As honorable senators are aware the full board consists of four members. It has to be recognized that as Australia is a country of vast distances it is difficult to obtain evidence from interested persons in all States. This, indeed, has been found impossible and the board, in dealing with this phase of the question, says -

It is therefore suggested that the Act should be amended so as to make provision for the Board when, it is considered desirable, to be able to divide itself up and for two members, if necessary, to visit distant States and take evidence on oath with all the authority of the full Board. Incidental to this it would be necessary to provide that the members of the Board who remain behind and who would be reporting, and dealing with by-law applications, or preparing reports or inquiry cases already heard, should be able to be paid for their services.

At present the board can be remunerated only when an actual board meeting is held. The board recommends that two of its members should be allowed to take evidence, the other two members to undertake other work, and that they all be remunerated as if the full board had been sitting. As an amendment in this direction would be in the interests of the people resident in distant States, I trust the Government will give early attention to the Board’s recommendation.

It is not my intention to deal at length with the tariff proposals of the Government, as I know there are other honorable senators who have had longer experience in tariff matters than I have had. I wish, however, to touch upon one phase which has not as yet been mentioned in this chamber. I refer to the opinions expressed by the representatives of other nations concerning our tariff. I shall quote from the report of the International Economic Conference held at Geneva, and from the report of the League of Nations, and, in doing so, shall confine myself strictly to the resolutions and the opinions which have a direct bearing upon the Australian tariff. As honorable members are aware, Sir David Gordon, a gentleman highly esteemed in South Australia, and possessing’ extensive commercial, journalistic, and political experience, in company with Mr. Warren Kerr, who is well known to most honorable senators, attended the International Economic Conference in May, 1927, as one of Australia’s delegates. These two gentlemen placed Australia’s position before the conference, which was the greatest gathering of its kind ever held, and was attended by representatives of 50 countries, who were accompanied by 157 experts. There were also over 200 representatives of the world’s press present. At the conference the tariffs of different countries .were discussed. It soon became evident that, apart from other considerations, an earnest appeal was being made to it in the interests of humanity, because it was stated that the unemployed in Europe, with their dependents, numbered nearly 20,000,000.

Senator Crawford:

– From what portion of the report is the. honorable senator quoting?

Senator CHAPMAN:

– From page 5. In opening the conference the President took an early opportunity of indicating that the task before the -delegates was “to conduct a general inquiry, a broad survey of the main aspects of the world’s economic situation,, the economic causes of the present instability, and economic tendencies which may influence the peace of the world.” As the discussion proceeded it was evident that the conference considered that tariffs were a disturbing element in the economic system which might lead to war. Central Europe, it was said, is the cockpit of the economic struggle, but it was soon evident that other nations were vitally interested and must co-operate -in bringing about improved conditions. This was so apparent that Sir David Gordon was forced to state Australia’s viewpoint. It was possible that the League of Nations, as representing international opinion, might pass resolutions which would vitally affect our tariff. The discussion reached a stage at which Sir David Gordon found it necessary to state Australia’s position, and he did so in these words -

During the discussion it lias been urged that many of the European tariffs arc too high, and that in order to encourage interchange it will be necessary not only to reduce them, but to interpret them with more clearness. Several declarations of fiscal faith have been made, and it becomes necessary for me to point out that Australia is committed to a protectionist tariff on at least two grounds - the building up of essential industries in a commercially young country, and for revenue purposes. Whatever may be the necessities of Europe, the requirements of Australia and the policy of that country must be left to

Australians themselves….. Something has been said during the debate about prohibitions, and it was suggested that the resolutions would seek to deal with the practicability of prohibiting imports and exports. The right of prohibition on inward and outward goods was exercised in Australia during the war period, but oven then very sparingly; while at the present time with trifling exceptions, there is no prohibition on imports, while exports are practically free. The tariff applies equally to all countries excepting only certain preferential duties in favour of Great Britain, Canada, and New Zealand (all within the Imperial family), and these are mostly reciprocal, and, in many cases, are designed to benefit repatriated soldiers. … An appeal has been made for stability of tariffs, and while, no doubt, this is desirable, and would be a great advantage, it will always prove a. difficult matter to fix tariff rates for a period during which no alterations will take place. The last Australian general tariff was passed by Parliament in 1925, prior to which there had been a period of five years of stability, excepting in those cases where the Tariff Board had exercised its right of recommending alterations. Australia could not regard favourably any attempt at the limitation of its powers, either in respect of a tariff policy or the right to make periodical alterations.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir John Newlands). - Order! The honorable senator is not in order in reading extensively from the report of the Australian delegation to the League of Nations. That document does not deal directly with the Tariff Bill now under consideration. It is permissible for the honorable senator to quote from the report, but not. in extenso.

Senator CHAPMAN:

Senator CHAPMAN:

– My desire is to indicate the direction in which world opinion is moving, and to suggest that Australia should take notice of what is going on. The eighth Assembly of the League, which Senator Pearce attended, reported that it “ took note of the Report of the Economic Conference, trusts that the recommendations relating to tariff and commercial policy be put into effect, and invites the economic organization to prepare a summary of the replies of the various governments as to their attitude.”

I am much concerned about Australia’s economic position. I view with alarm the rising costs of production, and many recent visitors share my anxiety. The Tariff Board has also issued a warning with regard to the alarming increase in the production costs. Referring to the position in the textile industry, the board states in its report for 1926-27 -

This action of the Textile Workers’ Union seems to have been influenced by the judgment of Mr. Justice Powers, wherein it was laid down that his court could take no cognizance of the capacity of an industry to pay certain wages, but would fix what wage it thought necessary, and the industry would then have recourse to the Tariff Board, which had been created by the Federal Parliament to make recommendations for the granting of whatever protection wasneccssary. In this case the various unions appeared before the Tariff Board to assist the employers in obtaining necessary increases in order to make it possible to work the mills at a profit instead of at a loss, and then immediately approached the Arbitration Court for their share in these increases.

Thus it goes on. Employers and employees work hand in hand. When an industry receives tariff protection the workers engaged in it apply to the Arbitration Court, so as to get their share of the loot, and prices rise higher and higher.

Senator Reid:

– Does the honorable senator regard tariff duties as “loot”?

– All of the States joined in it.

Senator THOMPSON:

– Queensland certainly did not. I was particularly requested to oppose it, in the interest of the mining industry in that State. It was pointed out to me that, although Oregon was not used in the Queensland mines, if a duty were placed upon it, the price of hardwood would rise in sympathy and an extra straw would be added to those which had already been placed on the camel’s back. The position has undergone a change; unfortunately the camel’s back has been broken, and many mines are not now functioning. The question is, whether it is intended to destroy by the imposition of additional duties any chance the camel might have of recovering.

The position in regard to Oregon needs to be very carefully considered, and until I have heard the explanation of the Minister I shall not indicate the way in which my vote will be cast. I merely remind honorable senators that on a previous occasion I considered that it was wrong to impose a duty upon the Oregon which enters Australia.

There is one proposal of the Government with which I am not in sympathy. I refer to the preferential coffee duty. As honorable senators are aware, the duty has been removed from coffee which is imported from within the British Empire.

Senator Ogden:

– The Queensland coffee has not the necessary flavour.

Senator THOMPSON:

– I am afraid that my honorable friend does not understand the position. We are proposing to cut off our noses to spite our faces. I yield to no one in my desire to give preference to other portions of the British Empire. But we have to consider first the interests of our own people. We shall antagonize a customer in the Dutch East Indies with whom our trade is constantly expanding. At the present time we export to the Dutch East Indies considerable quantities of meat and butter. Queensland shares largely in that trade. There is also an appreciable trade in cattle and flour. I do not know that Queensland will be affected in regard to flour, although she has a large area under wheat. At all events, the disadvantages that are likely to accrue more than counter-balance the problematical benefit which will be derived by India and British East Africa.

I have received from Queensland two telegrams respecting the proposed duty on soya beans. Those who are interested in that commodity are so alarmed at the possible interference with the cotton and peanut industries, that they have sent two representatives to Canberra to express their views regarding the disadvantages that will result to Queensland. After I have heard their case I shall decide whether or not I should ask the Government to review this proposal.

A good deal of complaint is made with respect to the methods that are adopted in the department in the administration of the tariff. I am not now in business, therefore, I have no first-hand knowledge of the matter. Certain articles are not manufactured in this country, and there is no likelihood of their being manufactured here. In some instances they are protected by patents that are held in other countries. Importers of those articles are put to considerable trouble because the maximum duty is imposed, and all sorts of disabilities are placed in their way, when it ought to be possible for the department to come to an immediate decision to charge only the 10 per cent, duty. Although the matter is eventually settled to the satisfaction of the importer, the inconvenience and delay to which he is put are to be deprecated. I should like good feeling to prevail between the department and the importers. We do not want a reversion to the attitude which was adopted during the regime of the late Mr. Kingston, who considered that all importers were dishonest until their honesty was established. I contend that they should be regarded as honest men until the contrary is proved. Very few of them are shown to be dishonest. I take this opportunity to ask the department to exercise a reasonable discretion in dealing with these admittedly difficult matters.

– That is not done.

Senator PAYNE:

– From information in my possession it would appear that goods made in Great Britain from Australian wool are regarded as of foreign origin. I brought the matter under the notice of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Pratten), and he denied that that was so. I have accepted the Minister’s denial. I was interested in the Minister’s statement that the measure of preference given in this amended schedule is similar to that granted last year.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Senator PAYNE:

– In some instances the so-called preference to Great Britain, which the Minister claims is extended by the present bill, is not preference at all. If one were to erect two fences, one 8 feet high and the other 10 feet high, knowing that neither the Britisher nor the foreigner could jump over either, could one claim that the British competitor was getting a preference over the foreigner by having an 8-ft. instead of a 10-ft. fence to jump? Of course not. The fence would prove an impossible barrier to both competitors. At this stage I cannot refer to items in detail, but there is one line of goods on which the importer of the British manufactured article who has been paying a duty of 2s. will now he called upon to pay 6s. At the latter rate it will be absolutely impossible for the article to be exported from England and sold in Australia. It is nothing short of absolute prohibition. On another line of goods, where the duty on the British article has been 2s. 9d., it will now be 8s., which will also prohibit the export of the goods to Australia. In the general column the increases on these two lines are from 3s. to 10s., and from 3s. 6d. to 12s. respectively, making their importation impossible. Yet the Minister claims that the principle of preference to British manufacturers is being extended. It is a misnomer to call it preference when it really amounts to prohibition.

Senator Crawford:

– It may not extend the preference on those particular goods, but the concessions given on other items will more than counterbalance the increases referred to by the honorable senator.

– The working men do not raise any complaint.

Senator PAYNE:

– If the honorable senator would ask the working man’s wife he would soon find out whether or not there was any complaint, particularly if she knew that she had to pay 2s. for an article that she was able previously to get for ls. I object to the principle of applying a flat rate or an ad valorem duty, which ever yields the greater amount of revenue, because it does not apply fairly to all sections of the community. The Minister will realize this, when we come to the items in committee.

Senator Duncan maintains, quite correctly, that no matter what it costs, we should, do all we can by the imposition of customs duties to build up and maintain key industries in Australia. I quite agree with the honorable senator that a country like Australia, separated as it is by thousands of miles of ocean from the vest of the world, and from the principal manufacturing centres of the world, must be as self-contained as possible with regard to key industries. There are certain secondary industries which are essential to Australia and must be maintained. But it is equally essential that we should pay very close attention to our primary industries, which are the ‘ basis of our prosperity. There is one of them which has been allowed to go to the wall during the last few years. At the risk of being described as a very moderate protectionist at one time, and a high protectionist at another, I am prepared to support a proposal which will come before the chamber to give adequate protection to that industry. It is one of the most valuable we have in Australia. I refer to the timber industry.

Senator Reid:

– Good old Tasmania!

– They never were saleable at a profit.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– We are adopting the best method of insuring that they never will be. The tariff is one example which I quote.

– I do noi agree with the honorable senator. The principal competition, so far as our seaborne trade is concerned, comes not from countries that sanction the employment of black labour on ships, but from Sweden.

We have heard a lot about the scientific nature of the tariff. I have also heard applied to the schedule certain other adjectives which I should not care to repeat in this chamber. If by “ scientific “ is meant the intention to incur the enmity of those who should be our best customers, then indeed the tariff is scientific. We should have an important trade in the Near East and in Java. Those countries should be our best customers. They should buy largely of our flour, our meat, .our fruits and many other commodities. But what has happened ? By imposing a heavy duty on bananas we have entirely alienated trade relations with Java, and have lost our trade with Fiji. The latter might not occasion much concern to an older country, but I should say that it means a great deal to Australia. Besides offering an affront to neighbouring peoples, we inflict a pecuniary loss upon ourselves. Therefore, if the term “ scientific “ as applied to the tariff is synonymous with the word “foolish,” without a doubt our tariff is scientific.

Let me cite another instance, bearing on the same point, that came before me the other day. In the State which I assist to represent in this chamber, we have a great asset in the blackboy, better known in the eastern States as the grass-tree. There are millions of tons of it available for commercial use. As a national asset it is in the same category as important coal deposits in some countries; that is to say from the point of view of its potential value. Not long ago certain people approached me with a proposition that I should endeavour to secure tariff protection for the manufacture of acetic acid and acetate, which is a constituent of the blackboy. I told my friends that while it was not part of my political faith to advocate the imposition of duties, I would, nevertheless, put their proposal before the Minister. It may not be known generally that acetic acid is manufactured in both Sydney and Melbourne from acetates imported, not from Great Britain, but from America and Germany. In the circumstances one would have thought that since the tariff is supposed to be scientific in its incidence, some measure of protection would be given to this projected industry in Western Australia. Instead, however, of encouraging the people in that State to make use of a valuable convertible asset, the Minister for Trade and Customs, I presume on the advice of departmental officials, declined to give the measure of protection asked for. Can it be urged that this is a scientific way of building up industry? If to neglect the gifts of nature for the purpose of encouraging the trade in countries outside the British Empire, is scientific, then we may apply that term to our present tariff.

This leads me to the consideration of another aspect of the tariff which might very well engage the attention of honorable senators and the Department of Trade and Customs. I refer to the procedure sometimes adopted not by the Commonwealth or State Governments, but by business men in the eastern

– It could be if the local manufacturers had a fair chance against eastern competitors.

I doubt whether, without infringing the Standing Orders, which have been punctiliously observed during this debate, I could say much more concerning this bill, though possibly I may be permitted to make some observations on the schedule. I am much afraid that in our effort to make Australia self-contained, we shall make the cost of production so high that, instead of Australia being selfcontained, it will be cut off from the rest of the world. It appears to me that by means of successive increases in our tariff schedule and in cost of production, we are building around Australia a wall so high and so strong that this country will become isolated long before she is ready to be placed in that position unless we are content to produce for the home market only and are prepared to allow our people to pay almost any prices for our products. I venture to say, however, that, at’ this stage in our history, with only 6,000,000 of people, we cannot afford to do that. Under present conditions, with every modern facility to encourage intercourse between nation and nation, it would be almost impossible for any country to adopt that course. I earnestly pray that that may never come about; but I fear there is very grave danger of it. I speak not alone for Western Australia, but for Australia as a whole. I believe that this piling of tariff upon tariff, and production costs upon production costs, and this placing of legislative obstacles in the way of the efficient and economical performance of the tasks that lie to our hand, will make -Australia, not the envy, but the laughing-stock of the nations. As an Australian first, and, secondly as a Western Australian, I shall certainly do all that I can to counteract any tendency in that direction, in view of the danger which lies before us. I support the second reading of the bill, but I shall endeavour to prevent the schedule from being passed in the delightfully symmetrical, if unscientific, form in which it has been presented to us.

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

– In discussing this measure, we should remember that we are Australians, and no one should endeavour to bolster up what is of particular concern to his own State. If it is a good thing to protect an industry in Tasmania, it is equally a good thing to protect it in all other parts of

Australia. We should keep that in mind and try to do our best for Australia. We have been taught to be protectionists almost since the advent of federation. When the Constitution was being framed, there was no question of Liberalism versus Labour; the fight was then waged on the relative merits of freetrade and protection, and protection won. So long as Australia is a nation, it will adhere to that policy.

– When recentlyI was consoling a nephew of mine, a law student who had failed to pass an examination, I said that the law had always had a fascination for me, and that I had made up my mind that if I ever had any money to spare before I was too old, I would take a spell and study the law. He said, “ Yes, I think you would do well at it. If you knew all the damn fools who are doing well at the law, I am sure you would have no misgivings about the matter.” I suppose the Honorary Minister has the same sort of mind about me.

Just before I took my seat in the Senate the Customs Tariff Bill was under review, and a clever little movement was made to alter the system of levying duties on sheet glass from so much per square yard to so much per lb. What appeared on the face of it to be a slight alteration reducingthe rate of duty, actually increased it by 500 per cent. The rate, which was previously 2s. 6d. and 3s. 6d. per square yard, wasaltered to11/2d. and 2d. per lb. About the same time the Australian Glass Company held its annual meeting, and Mr. Grimwade, the chairman, of directors, showed that it had made a profit of £169,000 for the year. After paying a dividend of 10 per cent, the company carried forward £50,000 to profit and loss and wrote off a considerable amount of depreciation.

Senator Thompson:

– That is not much profit for a trading concern.

Senator CARROLL:

– No ; but the chairman of directors of the company said that if they could not get increased protection on some of the lines which they were producing , it would be necessary for the company to close down some of the works and dismiss some employees. He said that for the first time in his life he had been guilty oflobbying, inasmuch as he had taken some of the sheet glass manufactured by the company and exhibited it to members of Parliament in the Queen’s Hall at Parliament House, Melbourne. To my mind that statement proves that I am correct when 1 declare that many manufacturers’ secure increased protection when, in reality, they are not financially in need of it.

I am not one of those who, during the war,went about advocating that every one should go to the front and swearing by all that was holy that never again would Australia trade with Germany or any other enemy country. There was some mention of German goods this evening. They can be secured to any extent in the capital cities of Australia. Retailers sell German goods because they can buy them cheaper than British goods, and the preference that Australia gives to. the British manufacture is to a large extent nullified. As Senator Duncan said, the fault lies with the buying public. Everyone knows that at least 90 per cent, ofthe buying public are the workingpeople of Australia. They constitute 90 per cent, of the total population, and can control any buying that is done. No one imports goods merely to see how pretty they look on a shelf. When goods are imported, buyers have to be found for them. Many years ago when

I worked on the mines in Kalgoorlie, it was a favourite recreation for all the “ free and independent “ to get on a lorry at the corner of Hannan-street and Maritanastreet on Saturday nights and to indulge in heroics until the cows came home, about trading only ‘with white men. At the same time their wives were engaged in buying from the ‘dagoes, as they were called, who were selling at Id. per lb. cheaper than the British traders. That that is not invention on my part is known to any one who lived on the gold fields in those days. The same spirit is abroad in Australia to-day. We talk largely about preference to Great Britain and all sorts of patriotic stuff’ but when we have the silver to spend we leave it with the foreigner. ‘

We have been told to-night that we ought to look at this tariff from a broad Australian viewpoint. I believe that the correct expression is “broad national viewpoint.” That is a fine fruity phrase which reads well. It is like that other phrase “ adverse trade balance,” which, when repeated often enough, looks so imposing in the press, but really means nothing. After all what we really need to do is to look after the interests of our own States, which, of course, dovetail into those of other States. It is not always an advantage to see what another State does or should do. Sometimes it reminds us too readily of some of the difficulties of our own’ States, and that is not always conducive to the promotion of a brotherly spirit. I think it will be admitted by all that, from a developmental standpoint, Western Australia is the most backward State. It has certainly, as the Minister has said, come rapidly to the front as a wheat producer, but it had to do so or admit that it was downandout.

Senator Thompson:

– Western Australia has had a succession of good seasons.

Senator CARROLL:

– Certainly, and for this the Almighty has had a little of the credit, but the recent progress of the States is largely due, we are told, to the fact that it has had a good Labour Government in office. At least that is the impression I have gathered from the literature issued every now and then by that Government.

In order to carry out its developmental work Western Australia is now embarking upon extensive agricultural water schemes. It has not the rivers that the eastern States have, and it is thus necessary for it to conserve water in the agricultural districts in a way that has not to be done in some of the other States. The State Government is therefore a buyer for hundreds of miles of water piping to run water from the different reservoirs to the farms served by them. The schedule before us to-night will hit it very severely. One item alone will add about £20,000 to the cost of the water piping. Furthermore, in order to develop and encourage the agricultural industry, the State- Government has in hand a big railway building scheme to the cost of which this Tariff Bill will make such a tremendous difference, that it will be obliged to reduce the mileage that could have been built before the schedule was imposed. That may not appear to be a very big item, but it is a big item to a State like Western Australia, where the farmers who are out on new agricultural areas have been hoping against hope for several years past that they would get a railway to transport their produce -to market at a reasonable rate.

I notice that several speakers in another place have accused the Government of setting out to annihilate the iron and steel industry of Australia. I cannot help recalling the statement made by Mr. Delprat, Managing Director of the Broken Hill Proprietary Limited, -at a banquet which was given when the company first commenced to manufacture steel rails at Newcastle. He said that the company was getting the comparatively small bonus? of 12s. on steel rails and did not want a duty because it was able to carry on without one. We now find that the company is not satisfied with the duties already imposed and it is said that the whole iron and steel industry is on the point of annihilation, because it cannot get a duty of more than £3 a ton on steel rails.

Senator Thompson:

– There have been a few award variations since Mr. Delprat made that statement.

Senator CARROLL:

Senator Ogden:

– What guarantee has one that everything one buys is Australian? -

Senator GRAHAM:

– I make sure that my suits are Australian made because I obtain the tweed from the mills. As for the principle of preference to goods of British origin, it is doubtful if, in every instance, imports from Britain are British made. Prior to the war there was a considerable importation of German goods branded as British. There is every probability, therefore, that the same practice now. obtains. Australia has not, so far, reaped the whirlwind of the war. We have not yet experienced the full economic effects of that terrible conflict between the nations. It is important, therefore, that we should do all that is possible to encourage Australian industries.

I do not wish to weary the Senate, but I should like to place on record certain figures dealing with imports of commodities the bulk of which could be manufactured in Australia. The following were among the list of imports for 1926-27 : -

The imports for 1926-27 showed an increase of £13,106,749 over those for 1925-26. It is not too much to say that 90 per cent, of the goods mentioned in the list quoted could be produced in Australia. If our secondary industries were developed along these lines we should not have the spectacle of 100,000 persons out of employment at the present time.

Senator Thompson:

– How does the honorable senator explain the depression in the United States of America, the most prosperous country in the world? There are some millions of unemployed there. - Senator GRAHAM. - I am not in a position to answer the honorable senator’s question. I do know, however, that effective protection built up the secondary industries in that country and made it a self-contained nation. Why should not we follow the example of Uncle Sam and start to properly protect our industries so as to become self-contained?

Senator Foll:

– America became great because she did not restrict migration.

Senator GRAHAM:

– Nor is there a desire to restrict migration in Australia provided we can be sure of the profitable employment of all those who come here. Unfortunately, many migrants have very bitter experiences. Only, to-day the newspapers reported the case of two men who had been encouraged by officials of Australia House to go on the land in Western Australia. They were advised that if they knew nothing about farming they would get all the necessary instruction and, therefore, need have no fear. One man who came here with £800 lost every penny of it, and a day or two ago was wandering about Perth demented. Is this the proper way to deal with migrants? There are scores of instances of men who come to Australia and. lose every penny they possessed when they landed on our shores.

I was interested in Senator Chapman’s rather startling suggestion for the solution of the unemployment problem. His proposal was a ridiculous one. The honorable senator referred also to the difficulty experienced by producers in his State in disposing of their wine and dried fruits overseas. His complaint was really an indictment of the Development and Migration Commission. It is possible, of course, that the fault lies with the- producers themselves. When Sir Victor Wilson returned from the Wembley Exhibition he stated that on one occasion tins labelled as pears proved, when opened, to be pineapples; and similarly tins branded as pineapple conserve proved to be tins of peaches. Carelessness in the packing and branding of products may be, in some measure, responsiblefor difficulties experienced in marketing them abroad. I have a lively recollection of a conversation which I had with a gentleman who came fromChicago about nine months ago. He told me that one of the storekeepers in that city, desiring to encourage Australian trade, displayed in his window a notice advising his customers to buy Australian fruits. He filledhis shop with Australian products, but within two hours was compelled, by his angry customers and the general public, to shift it all out and stock American products. They insisted upon getting the Cali.fornian products. ‘ “Wo want something of the same spirit in Australia. We should see that all Australian products intended for export are in good condition. What is the good of exporting primary products if they are not up to the necessary standard? There must be something wrong with the packing at this end if out fruits do not find favour with the people of other countries, because they will bear comparison with those produced in any other part of the world. The same applies to meat, wool, wheat, butter, and cheese. We must secure wider markets overseas. Although canning factories are established in Australia, it is a common sight to witness displays of Californian tinned fruits in our retail establishments. Is that an encouragement for those who are endeavouring to earn a living from the soil? Every town should have an Australia day upon which all retailers would exhibit only those goods that are produced in Australia. The middleman now calls the tune, and the consumer is obliged to dance to it. In nine oases out of ten he does not ask whether the goods which he purchases have been made in Australia or

J apan.

We must make Australia selfcontained. Up to “the present we have been relying for our protection largely upon the Mother Country. The time has arrived for us to demonstrate our ability to protect ourselves. . We should not have battleships built in Scotland to relieve the unemployment in that country when our own artisans and mechanics are walking the streets looking for work. The only obstacle in our path recently, when we decided upon the construction of two cruisers, was a roller ‘to roll the plates. Certainly it would have cost £1,000,000; but consider the .millions of pounds that are sent abroad for commodities that could be manufactured ‘ in Australia ! We are relying too greatly upon other countries for goods that we should produce ourselves. Senator Chapman read a report of the League of Nations to the effect that we should exercise care in regard to tariff imposts lest international complications ensue, and a disagreement arise with some other nation. I say, “ Let it come.” We must stand on our own, and do all that we can to benefit not only our own people, but also those who are coming from Great Britain to assist us in making Australia the nation it should be. We should not be afraid to stand up in defence of our country.

Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 10.1 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 March 1928, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1928/19280307_senate_10_117/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 7 March 1928

SITTINGS OF THE SENATE

QUESTION

TASMANIAN COMMUNICATIONS

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:Vice-President of the Executive Council · Western Australia · NAT

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Canberra Sewerage

PAPERS

QUESTION

DROUGHT PREVENTION

Senator THOMPSON:QUEENSLAND

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

QUESTION

NORTH AUSTRALIA COMMISSION

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SHIPPING BOARD

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

QUESTION

FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE IN CATTLE

Senator ANDREW:through Senator Elliott

Senator CRAWFORD:Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

QUESTION

TRANSPLANTING WHEAT

Senator ANDREW:through Senator Elliott

Senator CRAWFORD:NAT

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BUTTER

Senator ANDREW:through Senator Elliott

Senator CRAWFORD:NAT

TREATMENT OF CANCER

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

Number of Motor Cars and Trucks

QUESTION

CARRIER PIGEONS

Senator BARNES:through Senator Graham

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

UNEMPLOYMENT

Government Policy

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Senator CRAWFORD:QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator NEEDHAM:Western Australia

Senator Chapman:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Duncan:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Payne:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Hoare:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Payne:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Payne:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Crawford:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Ogden:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Ogden:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Payne:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Crawford:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Chapman:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator OGDEN:Tasmania

Senator Needham:

Senate
7 March 1928

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Western Australia · NAT

Senator THOMPSON:
QUEENSLAND

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDREW:
through Senator Elliott

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator ANDREW:
through Senator Elliott

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

Senator ANDREW:
through Senator Elliott

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

Senator BARNES:
through Senator Graham

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

Senator CHAPMAN:
South Australia

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT