Senate
8 March 1928

10^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PAPERS
QUESTION
- REDUCED COMMONWEALTH EXPENDITURE
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH AND COMMONWEALTH BANK EMPLOYEES
CANBERRA
- Footpaths and Gutters
QUESTION
- COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING
QUESTION
- SHEEP INDUSTRY
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
- Second Reading
EAST-WEST RAILWAY
QUESTION
- PENNY WIRELESS MESSAGES
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

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

page 3651

PAPERS

The following papers were presented: -

Anglo-Egyptian Treaty - Documents relating to the proposed Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of Alliance and Friendship.

Financial Agreement between the Commonwealth and State Governments. - Correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Premiers of the States.

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. - Nos. 3 and 4 of 1928 - Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union of Australia. No. 5 of 1928 - Commonwealth Storemen and Packers’ Union.

Defence Act - Royal Military College of Australia - Report for year 1928-27.

Northern Australia Act -

Central Australia - Ordinance No. 2 of 1928- Brands.

North Australia - Ordinance No. 2 of 1928 - Brands.

page 3651

QUESTION

REDUCED COMMONWEALTH EXPENDITURE

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Is it a fact that the Treasurer recently issued instructions that departments had to curtail expenditure for the present financial year?
If so, will the Minister supply, for the information of senators, a statement setting out -
1. The amount of money that it is expected will be saved in each department?
2. Details of the works that will be effected, showing the savings expected to be made on each item?
3. The number of men that will be or hare been, put out of employment as regards each of the works?
Will any of the works that have been stopped during this financial year be proceeded with next financial year?
If so, will the Minister give particulars of same?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow: -

Yes, such instructions were issued by the Treasurer, in accordance with the decision of Cabinet.
(a)In respect of revenue votes departments have been called upon to exercise the greatest possible economy, but no specific sum is laid down for any department. In the case of loan estimates the savings to be made by the respective departments are as follow: -

The allocation of the savings to particular works is a matter for the respective departments, and cannot yet be fully determined. 3 and 4. All works in progress will be proceeded with as soon as funds are available, but until the budget for next year is framed it is impossible tosay what particular works will be proceededwith next year.

page 3652

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AND COMMONWEALTH BANK EMPLOYEES

Senator OGDEN:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What is the number of males and females respectively who are employed in (a) the Public Service of the Commonwealth, (b) the Commonwealth Bank?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The information is being obtained.

page 3652

CANBERRA

Footpaths and Gutters

Senator OGDEN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home and Territories, uponnotice-

Is it a fact that, at the first auction sale of land held at Canberra, intending purchasers were told that the cost of constructing footpaths and gutters would be borne by the vendors, and that land was purchased and leased under these conditions?
If so, is it a fact that this contract is now being repudiated and that leaseholders, tenants of the Federal Capital Commission, are now being called upon to pay these costs, in addition to excessive rents and other charges?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow: -

Representations to this effect which have been made to the Minister are at present the subject of an inquiry, and he is unable to make any statement in regard thereto until the inquiry is complete.
See answer to No. 1.

page 3652

QUESTION

COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING

Senator OGDEN:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

What is thecost of compulsory military training in the Common wealth?
What is the cost of same in Tasmania?
What is the annual cost of Tasmnnian camps ?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– Inquiries will be made, and the honorable senator will be furnished with a reply as soon as possible.

page 3652

QUESTION

SHEEP INDUSTRY

Offer of Country for Research Work

Senator THOMPSON:
QUEENSLAND

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

What were the reasons which actuated the Government in declining to accept the offer by the Queensland Government to place at the disposal of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research on area of first-class sheep country in Central Queensland for the purpose of assisting in scientific investigation of the problems affecting the sheep industry ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The matter was thoroughly investigated by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, which looked very thoroughly into the possibilities of utilizing the suggested area at Saltern Creek for a research station, and to that end consulted not only its own technical officers, but also many experienced men in Queensland, including the Council of the United Graziers’ Association. The following reasons actuated the Government in arriving at its decisions : -

Blowfly work. - The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research considered that a specialstation for the study of the blowfly pest would be necessary, and certain proposals in this connexion were under consideration. But as the main centre in any proposed scheme would be at Canberra, it would not be at all convenient or economical to have the special station away in Central Queensland.
The area would not be of any use for the investigation of worms in sheep or any other parasitological diseases, for the simple reason that those diseases do not exist there. 3.As to disease prevention generally, the veterinary advisers of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research were not attracted by the idea of establishing a big station at Saltern Creek. They pointed out that as a rule much work could be done in a properly equipped central laboratory and that, for the rest, it should be carried out where the disease exists. The Barcaldine district is a fairly clean area. It was considered that only diseases which are already found in itshould be investigated there, and of these there were remarkably few.
While for the investigation of natural grasses best suited for wool production, the suggested station would certainly be valuable, the council pointed out that many such regions all over Australia would need to be investigated, and it hoped that pastoralists would themselves provide the necessary facilities in a great number of much smaller areas.
As to artificial feeding and its effect on wool production, of course work could be done there. But as Saltern Creek was an area in which artificial feeding was generally quite unnecessary, it had not the special value which would attach to a definitely “ sheep sick “ area or one commonly subject to droughts. It would, in fact, be definitely less useful than ah area of poorer country.
While the study of nutritive values of fodder plants was necessary and a close study of ever so many plants must be carried out in numerous localities, the Council did not need a 25,000 acre station, or, in fact, any station of its own for the purpose.

Various other reasons against the acceptance of the offer were submitted by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, which advised that, having in view the limited possibilities of real usefulness of the station, the cost of stocking it and the cost of equipping it and staffing it for investigational purposes, it would be impossible to justify a recommendation to spend thousands of pounds on the area in question. Though unable to accept the offer, the Commonwealth Government very highly appreciated the action of the Queensland Government in the matter.

page 3653

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Graham) agreed to -

That two months’ leave of absence be granted to Senator J. Grant on account of illhealth.

Motion (by Senator Foll) agreed to-

That two months’ leave of absence be granted to Senator P. P. Abbott on account of urgent public business.

page 3653

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Second Reading

Recent statements by the Development and Migration Commission indicate that that body is cognisant of the difficulties that confront our primary producers, and particularly those engaged in the dried fruits industry. I remind honorable senators that ten years ago the late Senator Senior predicted the difficulties which now beset producers of dried fruits. He urged that unless adequate measures were taken, to find a market for their products, the growers would be faced with insolvency. Unfortunately the world’s market is now supplied, and primary producers in the industry are in great difficulties. This problem also touches the River Murray waters scheme, on which many millions of pounds have been expended by the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia. As a protectionist, I am anxious to find a solution for all these difficulties, but I fear that if we adopt the expedient of reducing production costs by cutting down the cost of living, it will merely be a case of the survival .of the fittest. Actually, no one in Australia wishes to see a lowering of our present standard of living.

Only two of our primary industries are able to stand alone, and one of them is in a precarious position. But for the high price that has prevailed in recent years for wool, Australia would be in financial difficulties. The outlook for wheat is not so favorable. Production in Canada is expanding, and if, within the next few years, the peasantry of Russia produce on any thing like the prewar scale, Australian wheat-growers will be shut out of the world’s market, owing to the high cost of production in this country. In recent years there has been an astonishing development in wheat production in Western Australia, the total for this year being estimated at 35,000,000 bushels. What will happen to the wheat-growers in that State if, as is anticipated, production in Canada and Russia expands to any appreciable extent? Butter, another important primary industry, is not in a satisfactory position. It is estimated that as the result of the Paterson scheme, consumers in Australia are penalized to the extent of 2d. per lb. on all butter exported, and I was informed recently by a member of the butter board in Queensland, that the people in that State have to pay 5d. per lb. more for their butter than prior to the establishment of the Queensland pool for export. How long will the people of Australia be able to support these artificial aids to production?

The timber industry is one in which we are all interested. Although a representative of a timber producing State, I can not conscientiously vote for higher duties onoregon, because of the important part which that timber plays in all constructional work throughout the Commonwealth. Nearly all modern buildings are now erected in concrete, and millions of feet of Oregon timber are required for framing and boxing. Practically the only timber employed in modern buildings is that required for doors and fittings; the floors for the most part being of concrete and the window frames of iron. If higher duties are imposed on oregon, building costs, even in regard to dwellings, will be affected. No Australian timber is as satisfactory asoregon for concrete boxing. As a matter of fact, Australian softwood, because of the shortness of the grain, is rarely used as beams. Whereever possible, iron, one of the products of the secondary industries, takes its place. Even the ordinary lintels in dwellings are now in concrete. The following statement which appears in the last report of the Tariff Board, sums up the position. Referring to the timber industry in Queensland, the Board states: -

Queensland once occupied a position unique among the States of the Commonwealth in that it possessed, within its boundaries, a wealth of timber unequalled for variety and for value. In addition to great forests of hardwoods, there once existed large forests of softwoods, as well as areas rich in valuable and rare furniture woods. Owing to reckless prodigality and an almost utter lack of any attempt at re-afforestation, the situation in this State is fast becoming serious. From the Queensland Forest Service Report for year ended 31st December, 1922, it appears that - “At this date Queensland is within clear sight of the end of its important timber resources In five years’ time there will, be scarcely a maple tree outside the State forests, and upon the State forests the maple resource is so limited that sale must be restricted considerably.”

Fortunately, it is definitely established by fruitful results, indeed, that a now maple crop may be produced by the forester but in the meantime the community must be content with a severe rationing of its most valuable cabinet- wood. The samemay be said almost of hoop and Bunya pine. The original 2,500,000 acres of this most valuable coniferous wood have dwindled to 1,000,000 acres, capable of yielding only 40,000,000 super. feet of timber per annum, as against the present demand for 120,000,000 ‘super feet, now being satisfied from farm lands in process of clearing for cultivation. Of hardwood it may be said that the chief resources of Queensland went with the farming development along the north coast line, and in five years’ time the Forest Service expects to have to go out 50 miles to get ironbark girders.

The timber is cut down to make way for settlement. I have seen millions of feet of some of the best timber in Australia, burned, because it did not pay to transport it to market. This is a serious problem. The report continues -

The red cedar resource is now restricted to Bungella Plateau, of allplaces in Queensland the only one free fromthe red cedar twig borer, apest which renders impossible the reproduction of red cedar forests. Of kauri pine the southern resource is utterly gone. In North Queensland a considerable stand-still exists. In no other country in the world are so many valuable timber species collected together as in the remnant forests of Queensland. It is the duty and the profit of Queensland to conserve and to farm these remnant forests to a greater productivity.

The following is an extract from “ The State’s Saw-mill Output, 1914 to 1923, Queensland “, page 28 -

The business of the Forest Service in North Queensland should be - and, undoubtedly, in the future will be - on a scale of vastly greater magnitude. In this region there are probably 5,000,000 acres of the sub-tropical forest containing not less than 20,000,000,000 super. feet of cabinet woods, sufficient to supply Australia’s needs in perpetuity and leave a margin for export to Europe and the United States of America. Unfortunately, however, a state of ruinous congestion exists in the timber trade of the north, and, despite the clamour from the south for supply, supply cannot be assured. Meanwhile, prodigious waste ensues.

Local government has been partly responsible for that state of affairs. The Tariff Board stresses the necessity to preserve our softwoods, but the Queensland Government nullifies the efforts of the Commonwealth Government. The report of the Tariff Board also says : -

The result as far as softwoods are concerned is that according to this witness “ the average royalty on pine throughout Queensland is much greater than the rates of duties paid on softwood timbers imported.”

Whenever an additional duty is imposed on imported timbers, theQueensland Government increases its royalty charge and scoops thepool. According to another witness

The royalty is an appreciable charge on the Queensland timber industry, and in regardto nearly half the output neutralizes to some extent the protective incidence of the Tariff.

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Surely the honorable senator does notsuggest that hoop pine is a substitute fororegon!

Senator REID:

-Oregon is used in work for which no other timber is suitable.

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The royalty on hoop pine has no connexion with the duty on Oregon.

Senator REID:

– Queensland pine can be used for frames, sashes and doors.

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Payne:

– The exchange has not altered since the company commenced operations.

Senator FOLL:

– Legislation passed by State Labour Governments has so increased production costs that the company to which I have referred and other Australian companies manufacturing similar articles now ask for additional protection. The difficulty is that if their request is granted, further industrial legislation will probably be passed by the State Governments which will nullify the advantage of the increased duties. Queensland does not benefit from the tariff a 3 do some of the other States, for the reason that legislation passed by Labour Governments in Queensland during the last eleven or twelve years has prevented the investing of money in secondary industries in that State. The solution of the difficulty appears to be the development of a greater home market. That can only be accomplished by an increase of population. As an example of what can be done by good organization and the manufacture of articles of good quality, where there is a good home market, I desire to point out that recently the price of Australian-made motor tires has been considerably reduced.

– Great Britain and Australia are now co-operating with a view to the absorption of British migrants here. Great Britain cannot provide employment for the whole of her people and is now paying away millions of pounds annually in unemployment doles. The removal of the duty on sugar would serve a double purpose. It would enable thousands of British immigrants to be settled in North Queensland on one of the most fertile spots, in Australia, thus assisting in developing,’ ‘ the migration scheme and would relieve Great Britain to some extent of the necessity for paying doles to unemployed. The amount that would be saved in this way should compensate for any loss”’ cif revenue due to the removal of the duty on sugar grown in the Empire.

– It is eating up the capital.

Senator FOLL:

– Yes, and not replacing it. An extract from the official report of the Provisional Forestry Board of Queensland, issued by the Department of Lands, for the year ended 30th June, 1926, contains some very serious comments concerning the fact that the softwoods of Australia are rapidly becoming exhausted. I wish to place on record the following extract from a report issued by that department -

The essential features of the forestry position of Queensland at this opening stage, however, is that an aboriginal insufficiency of building softwoods exists for the needs of the civilized state. It is true that compared with our southern neighbours we are relatively rich in the possession of important hillside forests of hoop pine in the south, and kauri in the north, whence have come our supplies of building softwoods in the shape of hoop and bunya, pine, and. of kauri pine, supplemented by lesser supplies of the harder and more brittle cypress pine of the south-west. These assets, however, were always inadequate to the needs of a colony capable of carrying a population in 60 years’ time of 3,000,000 souls, and no amount of husbanding could possibly have overcome the original smallness of the native coniferous timber lands.

The Department of Forests does not make any apology for not husbanding its resources, and is not excusing itself for its dilatoriness in the past. The report continues -

In the beginning of our settlement we possessed natural softwood assets measuring in volume between 3,000,000,000 and 4,000,000,000 feet. Some of these assets have been wasted in pioneering land settlement processes, but from 1883 to 1925 we actually used up for development work 2,450,000,000 super, feet of hoop and bunya pine saw logs, plus 600,000,000 super, feet of kauri and cypress. From a consideration of forest valuation surveys made over the last fifteen years, it is estimated that our hoop and bunya pine reserves at 30th June, 1925, stood at 1,070,000,000 feet of saw logs on Crown forests, and 230,000,000 feet on private areas.

– A tariff debate in the good old days was a battle between free traders and protectionists; but we have now reached the stage where we can say that the battle for protection in Australia has been won. Although we still hear freetrade arguments from various quarters, I believe the great bulk of the people of Australia are now convinced that the policy of protection has come to stay. I congratulate the Government upon the introduction of this schedule. A tariff can never be entirely satisfactory because changes must be made as circumstances alter in consequence of the development of new industries and of existing industries engaging in new phases of manufacture. This makes it essential to review a tariff schedule from time to time and to make such changes as we consider necessary. Although I think there are one or two directions in which the Government might have acted differently from what is proposed, where the duties are not as high as I should like, I believe it has gone as far as it reasonably could. In dealing with the tariff the powers of the Senate are very limited, and consequently the opportunities for introducing new items and effecting amendments, are almost negligible.

There is one matter to which I earnestly direct the attention of the Government. I refer to the cotton industry which if properly handled should have very promising prospects in Australia, and in connexion with which the provision made by the Government has turned out to be wholly unsatisfactory. The cotton industry is at present assisted partly,, by the tariff and partly by a bounty. The clear intention of the Parliament and the -Government when it last imposed; duties on cotton, and provided for the payment of a bounty was to encourage the use of Australian cotton in our own mills. Owing to a variety of reasons which I do not intend to enumerate - it would be futile at the present time for me to do so - the arrangement has entirely broken down. It , was thought at the time that the local spinners would be able to use Australian cotton in their mills, and that they would absorb the whole of the Australian crop. Though mills are erected in Australia with all the machinery necessary for dealing with a great deal more than the last cotton crop in Queensland or the crop which we are likely to have this season - I hope it will be double that of the previous year*–hardly a bale of the Australian production will be used in the Australian mills. I do not wish to go into the detailed reasons for this unfortunate state of affairs, though it would be easy for me to do so as I have the matter at my fingers end. All I ask, at this juncture, is that the Government shall give the matter its earnest consideration in the near future with a view to recasting the present tariff and bounty provisions. Very slight alterations will make all the difference in the world to the position of the cotton growers, whose crop will then be used in Australia. Though this is important also from the point of view of the manufacturers, the alterations I suggest are more vital in the interests of hundreds of growers in Queensland. I am not a representative of the northern State in this chamber; but I am, as honorable senators are aware, intimately associated with the cotton industry, and I am glad to be able to say that during the last two or three years there has been, a considerable increase in the number of cotton growers in Queensland.

Senator Payne:

– Will the establishment of the spinning industry in Victoria relieve the position of the Queensland cotton growers? I understand that one or two mills have been erected in Victoria.

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– No. As I have already explained, there are well equipped mills already in existence, yet owing to the manner in which the duty and bounty have been arranged, they will hardly turn a spindle.

Senator Ogden:

– Cannot they obtain the cotton locally?

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Yes, but they cannot compete with overseas manufacturers. It is a rather alarming position, but I do not wish to go into the details at this stage. All I ask is that the Government shall look into this question carefully, and put things right. If that is done all the mills can then be profitably employed, and will be able to use the whole of the loca’l cotton crop. Perhaps honorable senators are not aware that the fact that our cotton is shipped overseas instead of being used locally makes a difference to the growers of about f d. lb. on their seed cotton, and since it takes 3 lb. of seed cotton to make 1 lb. of lint the total on a bale of 500 lb. means a great deal to the growers. I feel satisfied that it will be only necessary for the Government to order an investigation of the position to have it set right. Unless something is done we shall have to export practically the whole of the cotton produced during the coming season. This will mean a serious loss to the growers and it will entirely defeat what was clearly the intention of Parliament when it sanctioned the impositon of the duty and the payment of the bounty.

There is one matter in connexion with the schedule to which I invite the earnest attention of the Minister. Though it may appear to be a little thing in itself it involves a big principle from which it authorizes a departure in a direction that I believe to be. entirely wrong and dangerous. I refer to the item which deals with coffee. It seems to be a small matter, but I fear that, unless we watch our step in connexion with it we may become involved in many difficulties which we can easily avoid. 1 have never had the slightest objection to the preferential treatment given by Australia to the mother country. In a tariff which some years ago I had the honour to introduce in another place

Great Britain was given a greater measure of preference than had ever pre1viously been conceded by this Parliament. The principle embodied in that tariff, and which is carried a stage further in this schedule, is entirely justifiable internationally. In giving the Mother Country preferential tariff treatment we can look the whole world in the face without fear that any nation can take serious exception to our action. We have never departed from that principle except that whenever we have extended preferential treatment to other countries we have always done so on a basis of reciprocation. That principle is definitely laid down in all our tariff legislation, and prior to the introduction of this schedule it was always adhered to. We have always given Britain a perfectly free preference. That is to say, we ask the Mother Country for such preference as she may choose to give us; we do not bargain for it.

In our attitude to other countries we have always taken the stand that the tariff concessions must be reciprocal. This again is a perfectly safe international principle in regard to tariff legislation. No nation can take exception to the Commonwealth giving preferential tariff treatment to a particular country if, in return for that special treatment, we get a similar concession. If honorable senators will turn to the item dealing with coffee they will notice that there is a departure from this principle in the addendum to the item, which reads as follows: -

The articles specified in paragraph ( I ) of sub-item b, being the produce of any part of the British Empire, shall bo admitted under the British preferential tarin”.

This, as I have stated, is a departure from the basic principle to which I have alluded and which Ave have laid down in all previous tariff legislation. I question the wisdom of this course, because we shall not be able to show that the countries to which we give this preferential treatment are giving us special reciprocal treatment. Unless the Government can convince me that there is good reason for the item as it stands I intend to vote against it in committee, and will ask honorable senators to support me in requesting the House of Representatives to eliminate the addendum. If another place adopts the request it will be necessary to recast the whole item. I think it will be sufficient if this chamber indicates its desire to have the addendum eliminated. In all probability the item will be put right in another place.

Apart altogether from the principle which I have endeavoured to lay down in a brief form there is special reason why we should not depart from it in this particular item. In the first place “we should be chary about making such a departure when dealing with the tariff, which necessarily is international in its application. In this case the fact that we propose to give a certain measure of preference to India, possibly to Kenya Colony, Jamaica and one or two other dominions of the Empire will seriously hit a near neighbour of ours, Java. Honorable senators will recall that some time ago we imposed a duty on bananas, which are produced in the Commonwealth. There was a perfectly - good reason for our action then:.

Senator Carroll:

– That interfered with our trade with Java’.

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Possibly it did, but Parliament approved of the duty on bananas, and, as I have said, there was every justification for it. The position is entirely different with regard to the item dealing with coffee in the schedule to this bill. It will seriously interfere with o’ur trade with Java.

Senator Crawford:

– We buy from Java three times as much as Java buy? from Australia.

Senator Thompson:

– Chiefly oil.

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Is that an adequate reason for the alteration of the item? I do not think it is. Our principal imports from Java are those commodities which cannot be produced in Australia. After kapok, oil, and tea, which we do not produce in Australia, our chief import is coffee. Iri return Java buys from ns a great deal of our primary products, and as a matter of fact is one of the few countries to which we are able to sell certain of our secondary products. Java, I remind the Senate, has always’ given to Australia exactly the same tariff treatment that she gives to her mother country. If the Minister examines the statistics, which I have no d’oubt are in his department, he will find that the duty on Australian butter sent to Java is the same as that levied by the government of the Dutch East , Indies on butter from Holland. We are almost the sole supplier of that butter. They buy from us also a large quantity of flour, and some meat, biscuits, jams, and canned fruits. I cannot see any reason why we should imperil that trade by giving Java a slap’ in the face because of something out of which we get no return. If we were going to derive a benefit there might be some justification. Why should we cut off our noses to spite our faces ? I cannot conceive of any good coming out of this action, nor can I see any specific reason for it; but I do apprehend a great danger to our trade in the Dutch East Indies if we insist upon taking it. Having made my protest I shall endeavour, in committee, to give practical effect to it. Apart from that I shall support the proposals of the Government.

With regard to the much discussed question of timber, I merely wish to say that, for reasons which are obvious when one examines the peculiarities of the industry, it is not possible to frame a satisfactory tariff in relation to it.’ One could take any set of facts and argue a perfectly good case for both a duty and no duty. I am prepared to make out as good, a case for one side as for the other. We’ must, import a certain quantity of softwoods, particularly Oregon. If we made the duties mountain high that position would not be altered. There are various uses in respect of which there is no substitute for Oregon, certainly in Australia and probably throughout the world. What will happen when the Oregon supplies fail can merely be conjectured. It is equally true, however, that in Australia Oregon is put to a number of uses for which our hardwoods are eminently ‘suitable. It seems necessary, therefore, to get back to. first principles and do that which will ultimately spell the greatest good for the greatest number. Starting from those premises I say that the greatest amount of good will accrue to Australia by keeping our money within our own borders and depending upon our own resources. I have never been able to understand the argument of those who say that we should leave our’ iron deposits undeveloped and purchase abroad our requirements of that commodity. If we were to adopt such a policy it would be logical to allow our fields to remain un tilled and buy abroad all the foodstuffs we required. Scattered over a large area in Australia is a vast quantity of timber that is eminently suitable for many purposes. I frankly admit that the prevailing industrial conditions, some of which have been brought about legislatively, and others ‘by force majeure, are responsible for a state of affairs which makes it extremely difficult and costly to produce a commodity like timber from our own hardwood forests. There is not a definite case on either one side or the other in regard to the tariff on timber, but the balance of the argument is in favour of using as far as possible what we have within our own borders. I do not refer to those uses for which a soft wood with the peculiar characteristics of Oregon is necessary. But as everybody knows there is hardly a frame of an ordinary wooden cottage in the erection of which oregon is not used. It cannot be contended that our hardwoods are unsuitable for that class of work. They are not subject to attacks by white ants to the same extent as oregon, and if faithfully put together, they make a better job. I intend to support the proposed limber duties.

I have brought under the notice of the Government two matters that I regard as of first class importance, -and I hope they will be given earnest consideration. I refer to the re-arrangement of the duties and bounty connected with the cotton industry, so that we may make use of what we produce and keep our spindles at work, and the proposed preferential duty on coffee. Unless the Government can give me a more solid reason than sentiment for the alteration of the coffee duty, I shall endeavour at a later stage to have that item amended.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I have noted with pleasure the generally favorable tone of the debate towards the pro’posals of the Government; but a few points have been raised which call for a reply.

Senator Ogden referred to what he termed the pushing of the bogey of protection too far, with a consequent undue swelling of the population of the cities.

I am afraid that when the honorable senator expressed that opinion he overlooked the revolution, which has taken place within the last 20 or 30 years in connexion with our land industries. Surely he is aware that for a similar volume of production our land industries do not require anything like the labour which they needed some years ago ! I have seen many calculations respecting the labour that has been rendered unnecessary as a result ‘of improvements in % farm appliances. Only quite recently I read the announcement that it is estimated that to-day on a farm of any size in America, one man is equal to an output for which 50 men were required at the beginning of the present century.

Senator Ogden:

– Does not that argument apply also to all secondary inindustries?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– It applies to a greater or less extent to the whole of our land industries and also to some extent to our secondary industries. There is no doubt that the people of Australia are very much better off to-day than they were two or three decades ago. That increased prosperity, however, has not led to any greater expenditure upon foodstuffs. The expenditure upon the products of secondary industries has considerably increased. The people to-day are living in better houses and have a higher quality of furniture, and they are spending a great deal more on amusements. Consequently, the population of the cities, not only in Australia but in practically every country in the world - certainly every country with a European population - has increased. Similar changes have not taken place in India and China; therefore the argument of one honorable senator that the wheatgrower of Australia is in competition with the wheat-grower of India does not carry much weight, because, as a rule, the Indian wheat-grower confines his operations to a few acres, and the only implement ‘he uses is a small plough drawn by a couple of bullocks. No honorable senator has shown that remunerative employment for this excess city population can be found among our land industries. It has not been alleged that large areas of wheat lands in communication with markets, in any of the States are lying unproductive. I am aware that in very many of our agricultural districts sheep fattening is combined with wheat-growing. It is now the general practice in Australia to fallow wheat lands for a year or for two years; consequently millions of acres which, in other circumstances, would possibly be put under cultivation, are devoted to either the pasturage of sheep or fallowing.

In my second-reading speech I quoted from the report of the Director of Agriculture in the United States of America to the effect that with 3,000,000 fewer people engaged in agriculture in that country, a greater volume of land products is being made available. Agricultural production increased more rapidly than did population. In the report of the League of Nations, from which Senator Chapman quoted, it is stated that while the population of Europe had increased only 1 per cent, since 1914, the production of raw materials and foodstuffs in Europe had increased by 5 per cent., and that whereas the population of the world in the same period had increased by only 5 per cent., the increase in the production of raw material and foodstuffs was from 16 per cent, to 18 per cent. It is well known that no profitable market can be found for many of our land products. For that reason it is necessary to find employment in secondary industries for a large proportion of our population.

Senator Ogden referred to “ tin pot “ industries. Similar references to some of our industries having previously been made, I made it my business some months ago to inspect a number of industries in New South Wales, in the desire to see these “ tin-pot “ or “ backyard “ industries. But though I searched for some weeks I neither found nor heard of one of them. On the other hand I was impressed by the efficiency pf the management, the skill of the workmen, and the up-to-date nature of the plant in many of the factories I inspected. In a large engineering works in Newcastle I saw some expensive machinery which, I was informed, made it possible for five men to do work which before its installation required 21 men. On the day of my visit new machinery arrived to replace those machines which had been installed only two years previously. I was ‘ informed that the new machines would do twice the work of those they would replace. Not every large industry starts in a big way, nor is it only the large industries which are essential to our national life. Mr. MacRobertson, one of the wealthiest men in Australia, makes the proud boast that his business commenced in one of the rooms of his house.

Senator Chapman referred at some length to the International Economic Conference held in Geneva in May of last year. The honorable senator said that the conference expressed its views on the Australian tariff. Although I have read the report carefully I have seen no such expression of opinion. Anyone who peruses the report with an unbiased mind must conclude that the conference viewed matters solely from a European stand-point. While Senator Chapman was speaking I glanced at the report, and found that in one paragraph the word “ Europe “ appears four times, in the following paragraph three times, and in the next paragraph once. A few paragraphs further on in the report the word appears twice, and in other paragraphs it occurs from one to three times. The report, which clearly refers to European conditions, ‘stresses the fact that following the war there were 7,000 miles of new frontier in Europe, and that the number of European tariffs had increased from 20 to 26. It is true that the following paragraph does suggest that the conference had Australia in mind -

The desire to deal with the problem of excessive industrial capacity has usually led to an attempt to reserve the home market for home production by means of tariff barriers erected with a view to creating an independent national economy capable of producing under the protection of the tariff wall, an increase of invested wealth and a more satisfactory return for the work of the nation. This effort to attain self-sufficiency cannot hope to succeed unless it is justified by the size, natural resources, economic advantages and geographical situation of a country. There are very few countries in the world which can hope to attain it.

In support of his argument that our high tariff wall might raise antagonism in other countries, Senator Kingsmill instanced the effect that higher duties on bananas had had on our trade with Fiji. It is interesting -to see what actually did happen as a result of the increased duty on bananas. For the five years before the imposition of the increased duty our exports of Australian products to Fiji represented an average value of £368,219, whereas for the five years subsequent to the increased duty, the value of our trade with Fiji averaged £357,270, or £10,949 per annum less than for the preceding period. On those figures has been built the argument that the raising of the duty on bananas was a most disastrous proceeding.

Senator Carroll:

– The honorable senator knows that if the people on the land did not work longer hours than those which are worked by people engaged in the industries of which he has been speaking this afternoon, they would not pay their way.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I know as well as most people the difficulties encountered by the man on the land. I have been on the land almost all my life, first on a mixed farm in Gippsland, and latterly on my own property in North Queensland. I know that the life of the grazier or the agriculturist is not spent on a bed of roses. But I know that people engaged in other industries also have difficultiesto overcome, and I am satisfied that every branch of rural industry is enriched and not made” poorer by the flourishing condition of secondary industries.

Senator Payne seemed to be more anxious about the position of the British manufacturer than of those who are engaged in secondary industries in Australia. It is not right that Australia should carry the whole load of the disability now suffered by British industries.

Senator Payne:

– I am sure that I never suggested it.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I do not say that Australia has gone too far in giving preference to Great Britain, but the preference we give to British manufacturers is about four times greater than the preference extended by Great Britain to the products of Australia.

Senator Payne:

– Will the Honorary Minister answer my challenge? I asked him whether this tariff schedule was not erecting a barrier that importers could not surmount.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Protection is useless or fails in its purpose if it is not high enough to be effective. It is simply a waste of time to impose duties which will not accomplish the purpose for which they are framed.

Honorable senators are apt to overlook the fact that about two-fifths of our continent lies within the tropics. In the Northern Territory or Western Australia, north of a line drawn across Australia in extension, of the southern border of Queensland, I do not think there are 7,000 people. Senator Kingsmill has made reference to our tropical areas. I should like him to consider how we can establish industries in those areas which are likely to bring population to them.

Senator Thompson:

– Will the Minister say something about the duties on timber.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Timber duties are of importance to several States.. They are particularly vital to Tasmania, with its vast areas of forests, for the products of which there is only a limited market at the present time.

Senator Thompson:

– The duties in the schedule before us do not represent the Government’s proposals. ‘

Senator CRAWFORD:

– The Government originally proposed increases of duties, but they were still further increased in another place, and, as increased, are just as much the Government’s proposals as were those which were proposed when the amended schedule was first tabled in another place.

Senator Ogden:

– (By leave.) - I wish to make a personal explanation. Yesterday, when speaking on the second reading, I said that the Labour party in its protectionist policy was actuated by a desire to increase the industrial population and thus gain additional votes. That statement was .a little, ungenerous and unfair on my part. I am prepared to admit that quite a number of good Labour men are honestly actuated by the belief that a protectionist policy is the best for the country and is most likely to benefit it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5. (Saving.)

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The object of this clause is, I understand, to avoid the operation of the new rates of duty on butter applying to butter coming here from New Zealand as long as our reciprocal arrangement with that Dominion is in existence. Now that the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Pratten) has gone to New Zealand I want to know if the Government proposes to review the existing reciprocal arrangement with the Dominion, particularly with regard to the duty on butter. Otherwise the dairymen of Australia will not be benefited by the in7 creased rates in the present schedule. Their only competitors are the New Zea-: land dairymen. The consensus of public opinion in Australia is that our butter producers are entitled to something more than’ they are getting, but any endeavour to secure higher prices for butter is upset from time to time by the New Zealand produce that enters Australia. I want to know exactly the general policy of the Government in regard to butter.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

– Under the present reciprocal arrangement with New Zealand six months’ notice has to be given of any alteration in duty. Some time ago the New Zealand Government increased the duties on wheat and flour, but they could not come into operation against Australian wheat or flour for six months except with the consent of the Commonwealth .Government. That consent, when sought, was readily given. When the New Zealand Government was requested by the Commonwealth Government to consent to increased duties operating against New Zealand butter without the requisite six months’ notice, I regret to say that it would not give its consent. However, the required notice has been given, and at the end of six months. the new rates of duty on butter will operate against New Zealand.

Clause agreed to.

The Schedule-

Division III. - Sugar.

Item 27-

By omitting the whole item and inserting in its stead the following item: - “27. Glucose, per cwt., British, 12s.; intermediate, 15s.: general, 15s.”

Senator Guthrie:

– The imports last year totalled about 1,270 tons.

Senator CARROLL:

– That is not a large quantity. Mr. MacRobertson manufactures as much as that in. a month.

I have nothing to say against Mr. MacRobertson. I realize that he is entitled to all that he has achieved in this country. His success is largely due ‘ to his business ability and initiative, coupled with a generous assistance given him through the tariff. The point I wish to make is that if this is a scientific tariff - we who are objecting to this item say it is not - those who are benefiting from the protection should be prosecuted for taking money under false pretences, because the increased duties were recommended on the distinct understanding that they would pay a fair price for maize. Current market quotations show that they are riot doing so. I therefore intend to support Senator Ogden’s request for a reduction in the duties. The item as it stands is distinctly unfair. It is little wonder that country people are rising in revolt against these everincreasing duties, from which they derive little or no benefit. Maize Products Ltd., knowing that the maize grower has no other .market, pays what it likes for the raw product.- I feel satisfied that if the grower complained that 3s. 9d. a bushel was not enough, he would be told that if he did not take care he would have to accept 2s. 9d. It would have been better if the Tariff Board had recommended that, as the market for maize fluctuates from time to time, the amount of protection given to the glucose industry should be on a sliding scale, rising or falling with the price paid for maize. It appears that immediately the increased duties were levied the manufacturers of glucose dropped the price for the raw material.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- It is very rarely that 1 fail to follow the logic of Senator Carroll. In the debate on this item I am totally at variance with the honorable senator.

Senator Carroll:

– That is because the honorable senator does not grow maize.

Senator REID:

– I am endeavouring to look at this item from the view point of the maize-growers. No primary producers in Australia have had a harder struggle than the maize-growers in my own State and elsewhere.

Senator Carroll:

– Does the honorable senator believe that these duties will help them?

Senator REID:

– I believe they will. If Mr. MacRobertson’s factories had not been in existence the maize-growers would have had to be content with a much lower price than they are receiving to-day for their produce.

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The price to-day would be down to 2s. 6d. a bushel but for the existence of MacRobertson’s factories.

Senator REID:

– It is generally admitted that as Mr. MacRobertson’s factories require large quantities of glucose, his business activities have distinctly benefited the maize-growers of the Commonwealth. Last year, as has been stated, the market conditions were abnormal. Owing to the drought in Queensland there was a keen demand for maize for the hand-feeding of stock. Naturally the maize-growers when they had a chance took full advantage of it. No one can blame them for obtaining the highest possible prices for their produce. The pastoralists were hard hit by the drought, and the maize-growers benefited through the increased demand, for their product. Senator Ogden no doubt has in mind the interests of a lolly factory established in Tasmania, which I understand has to obtain its glucose from Mr. MacRobertson, its chief competitor in the Australian market. Does the honorable senator suggest that Mr. MacRobertson is charging too high a price for the glucose?

Senator OGDEN:

– His competitors say that he does not supply glucose at a fair price.

Senator REID:

– Mr. MacRobertson conducts his business in a way that should command our highest respect. From small beginnings he has built up an enormous industry, and he deserves all the -success that he has achieved in this country. If the British preference duty on glucose were reduced to 9s., the Australian industry would be destroyed, and indirectly Australian maize-growers would suffer.’

Senator Elliott:

– Can the honorable senator say what is the average price for maize?

Senator REID:

– The market fluctuates considerably. If Senator Ogden’s request were agreed to, and if another place reduced the duties, there would not be the same demand for maize, and growers would suffer.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

– The higher duties imposed on maize in the last tariff were intended to protect the maize-growers of Australia against cheap maize grown in South Africa by poorly paid coloured labour. Last year during the drought there was a heavy demand for maize, which naturally rose in price in sympathy with the law of supply and demand. The average price over a period of years works out at about 4s. a bushel. The increased duties now imposed are designed to protect Australian manufacturers against American competition. When this matter came before the Tariff Board for hearing on the 16th December, 1925, in Melbourne, on the 15th February, 1926, in Sydney, on the 18th January, 1926, in Adelaide, and later the applicants, the Maize Products Proprietary Limited, asked for an increased duty of 6s. a cwt., and the board recommended an increased duty of . 3s., which is nowprovided in the item. It was stated in evidence before the board that whilst the Australian manufacturers’ cost of production was £33 6s. 4d. a ton, American glucose was being sold on the Australian market at £33 ls. 4d. a ton, or 5s. a ton under the cost of production in Australia. The increase of 3s. a cwt. in the intermediate and general tariffs means that on the basis of ruling American prices in 1926 the American product would now sell in our market at £36 ls. 4d., which is a flat rate in all the States. This would give the Australian industry a protection of 55s. a ton, or 9 per cent, to provide for profits, freight and other distributing charges. The Tariff Board, on the evidence that the imported article was selling at £33 ls. 4d. a ton, recommended an increased duty of 3s. a cwt., which Maize Products Proprietary Limited described as inadequate. No man in Australia has built up a finer business than has Mr. MacRobertson, who, as honorable senators know, started in a humble way. His many factories now give employment to a large number of people under the best of Australian conditions and wages. His products have a world-wide reputation, and are to be found on sale in Loudon and many other cities of the world. The Maize Products Proprietary Limited disburses in wages about £60,000 per annum. For the year which ended on the 30th June last, 1,270 tons of glucose were imported from the United States of America. No’ harm will be done to any of our own people if we keep out that American glucose. Honorable senators have been very greatly impressed by the figures published recently, which showed the adverse balance of trade between the United States of America and Australia. Last year we imported from that country £41,000,000 worth of merchandise, but it took from us goods to the value of only £8,000,000. “ Practically the only commodity which America purchases fr.om us is wool, and on that it levies a duty equal to 15½d. a lb. of scoured wool. It is not proposed that the duty should be raised against other portions of the British Empire. We should do whatever we can to help the maize growers to obtain a fair return for their labour,_and at the same time to foster a secondary industry of the magnitude and efficiency of MacRobertson’s. For that reason I shall support the proposed duties.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– Senator Carroll is opposed to the increased duty on the ground that it will be of no benefit to the maize growers of Australia. Adopting that line of reasoning, they would be just as well off if there were no duty. Why should they not get some material advantage from duties that are imposed, with the object of encouraging maize growing in Australia? Upon whose shoulders does the blame rest?

Senator Carroll:

– I did not argue that point.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The maizegrowers are entitled to the fullest consideration of both this Parliament and the people of Australia. It appears to me, however, that they are not looking after their own business. They should organize, and unitedly use their influence to ensure a fair return for their commodity. In the years, that have gone labour was regarded as a commodity, and some employers acted on the principle that the conditions of employment should be governed according to the law of supply and demand ; but when labour organized, a different tale was told. I do not know what is the number of maizegrowers in Australia, but surely they have sufficient strength to demand complete recognition even from a combine!

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– It does not take the whole of the production.

Senator FINDLEY:

– According to an official return, the quantity of glucose utilized in the Commonwealth for the year ended the 30th June, 1927, was- 8,265 tons. The quantity produced in the Commonwealth was 6,993 tons, audi the importations from the United States; of America totalled 1,272 tons. Wehave a fair distance yet to travel beforewe shall overtake the Australian market.. I shall avail myself of every opportunity that offers to give those who are engaged in either primary or secondary industries the measure of protection that I ‘consider is justified. If the maize-growers have an ‘ organization, they should make their voices’ ring. I am satisfied that the’ members of this committee, and of the Federal Parliament as a whole, will listen to their plea, and see that the combine does not secure all the advantages of increased duties, which are intended principally to encourage the primary producer. I shall not vote for the highest measure of protection to encourage monopolies that will not give a fair and square deal to those who are engaged in other spheres of activity. If the maize-growers are not being treated fairly by the combine, I shall ‘protest on their behalf as vigorously as I cac, both in this chamber and elsewhere.

Senator Crawford:

– They have organized, and have expressed themselves in favour of the proposed increased duty on glucose.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is an effective reply to Senator Carroll. It shows that they are minding their own business. Apparently they believe that the increased duty will be materially to their advantage.

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

– It appears to me that the main point in this argument is being lost sight of. According to Senator .Carroll and the report of the Tariff Board, these fortunate manufacturers of glucose were given an increased duty on the ground that they had to pay from 5s. 7£d. to 5s. 10½d. a bushel for their raw material. Apparently, that is not the present, the normal, or the average price of the maize that is used in the making of glucose. Therefore, the duty was given under a misapprehension. There is a very great deal of merit in Senator Findley’s suggestion that the maize-growers do not look after their interests sufficiently well, and that if they did they would insist upon what I may without offence call a fair division of the spoils. When the price of maize drops below 5s. 7£d., Maize Products Proprietary Limited gets the advantage of the duty, and is enabled to pay a dividend at a very high rate. That is not fair.

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Is it a fact, as suggested, that they are paying a high rate of dividend?

Senator KINGSMILL:

– I am informed that the rate is 14 per cent.

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I do not think they have paid a dividend for some years.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– Instead of paying the 5s. 7^d. or 5s. 10^d. which would entitle them to additional protection, they are paying only 3s. 9d. a bushel for the maize which they purchase. We are not in a position to argue this matter with any very great degree of certainty, because we have not in our possession accurate data respecting either the normal or the average price of the maize that is supplied to Maize Products Proprietary Limited. When we have that information, we shall know whether or not this is a just claim. As their claim to greater protection is based on a price which does not exist, and which very seldom exists, they have been treated rather too generously.

Senator Ogden:

– It is based on a price of 7s. a bushel

Senator Guthrie:

– It has never been 7s. a bushel. When it was being imported from South Africa the local price was 5s. 9d. a bushel.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– That strengthens my argument that the price of the raw material, to meet which this duty was imposed, was very much exaggerated. I intend to support Senator Ogden, unless it can be shown that the maize-growers will benefit by an increase in the price that ia paid by these people. They are a large body of men, and undoubtedly have a fairly hard time. I wish to protect them. MacRobertson and Maize Products Proprietary Limited do not need any further protection. The former, partly through his own initiative, but very largely as a result of the extremely kind treatment that has been meted out to him by successive governments, has become a millionaire. I understand that he is able to treat his employees on a most magnificent scale; they are clothed in purple and fine linen, and fare sumptuously. That is somewhat of a contrast to the lot of the maize-growers, who supply the raw material at a lower price than that which entered into the calculations of the Government when this duty was imposed.

Senator Foll:

– It is refreshing to hear Senator Findley argue that the maizegrowers should organize to force up the’ price of their product.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– I am glad that there is another honorable senator who congratulates and commends Senator Findley upon that attitude. I hope that if the maize-growers get together they will assist their cause as much as Senator Findley’s friends have advanced theirs, so long as they do not hold up the industries of Australia in the way that his friends occasionally do. Seeing that this duty was granted because of conditions which do not normally exist, I cannot support it.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I hope that honorable senators ‘will not be influenced by the statement of Senator Carroll that maize to-day is quoted at 3s. 9d. a bushel. Any one who has a knowledge of the cost of producing maize knows very well that 3s. 9d. a bushel in Melbourne or Sydney is not a payable price to the grower. It, therefore, cannot be regarded as an average price. If it could be so regarded, then I say without hesitation that no one would be growing maize in Australia to-day.

Senator Kingsmill:

– What is the average price of maize ? ‘

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Maize could not be sold to-day at a profit to the grower under 6s. a bushel. Maize is a crop which is sown in the spring and matures quickly, but as it is not a grain which keeps well . it must be marketed quickly. Probably on account of the abundance of green feed there is not a great demand for maize at the present time. If it is sold to-day at 3s. 9d. per bushel, the price realized is less than the cost of production.

Senator Elliott:

– Would Mr. MacRobertson’s factories consume 50 per cent. of the maize crop?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Their consumption would be nothing like that proportion. In fixing a duty on a manufactured article we must consider what is likely to be the average price of the raw material. In the case of maize, 3s. 9d. per bushel certainly cannot be regarded as an average price. I hope that honorable senators will not be influenced by the fact that at present the maize market is in a depressed condition.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- Senator Carroll has suggested that the manufacturers of products of which maize is the raw material are in a position to dictate prices to the maizegrowers. Unless he can produce evidence in support of that statement I propose to vote for the item.

Senator Thompson:

– The maizegrowers dictated to the sheep-growers of Queensland last year, during the drought, the price they should pay for their maize.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– Only a small proportion of the maize crop is manufactured into glucose. It is, therefore, impossible for Mr. MacRobertson to control the price of maize. Seeing that the manufacturers of glucose do not control the maize market, it is idle to say that they are taking advantage of their position to starve the maize-growers. In supporting this duty we shall be assisting the maize-growers of Australia.

Senator Carroll:

– My argument was advanced in refutation of the Minister’s statement that by assisting secondary industries, we are helping the primary producers.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– We are bringing additional competitors into the market. That should tend to raise the price of maize.

Senator Kingsmill:

– What is the average price of maize?

Senator ELLIOTT:

– According to the statements of Queensland senators it would appear that in times of drought it is about 9s. a bushel.

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– In 1920-21 the average price of maize was 6s. 6d. per bushel; in 1921-22, 5s. 2d. per bushel; in 1922-23, 6s.1d. per bushel; and in 1923- 24, 5s.1d. per bushel.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– By encouraging competition, we shall assist the maizegrowers. If the whole of our glucose requirements were manufactured in Australia, there would be a greater market for maize, which would, therefore, realize better prices, but if a large proportion of our maize crops is exported lower prices must be accepted.

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

.- The example before us is one which tends to bring the protectionist policy into disrepute. Senator Reid said that in this matter I represented a “lolly shop.” I could retort equally offensively, but as that would be discourteous, I shall not do so. I wish to make it clear, however, that at no time haveI been approached by persons interested in this item.

Senator Reid:

– I did not infer that the honorable senator had been approached by interested persons, nor did I say that he represented a “ lolly shop.”

Senator OGDEN:

– I take the stand that to increase the duty on glucose still further would be to place a dangerous power in the hands of a monopoly, enable ing that monopoly to squeeze out its competitors in the confectionery business and also to injure the producers of maize. In 1925 an increased duty of 6s. a cwt. was applied for, notwithstanding that at that time the glucose manufacturers of Australia supplied 92 per cent. of the home market. Seeing that they already had practically the whole field to themselves, there was no need for a further duty.

Senator Reid:

– Then why did they approach the Tariff Board for increased duties ?

Senator OGDEN:

– They said that increased duties would enable them to capture the whole of the market. They professed that their object was not to increase the price of glucose) but immediately the duty was increased by 3s. a cwt., the price of glucose went up. The increase was passed on to the consumer.

Senator Guthrie:

– Was not the rise in the price of glucose due to the drought having increased the price of maize to 7s. per bushel ?

Senator OGDEN:

– The price of maize rose from 4s. lid. to, 5s. 6d. per bushel, or 20 per cent. ‘ To counteract that increase an application for additional duties amounting to 55 per cent, was made.

Senator Reid:

– What is the present price of glucose as compared with the price at that time ?

Senator OGDEN:

– I do not know. One Tasmanian firm which purchases large quantities of glucose from Maize Products Proprietary Limited, also purchases glucose from America in order to have two sources of supply.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Private business talcing precedence after 8 p.m.,

page 3675

EAST-WEST RAILWAY

Connexion with New South Wales Railway System.

Order of the day called on for resumption of the debate from 24th November, 1927 (vide page 1838) on motion by Senator Thomas -

That, in the opinion of this Senate, the Federal Government should enter into negotiations with the Governments of New South Wales and South Australia to link up the EastWest Railway with the New South Wales railway system via Broken Hill or Hay.

Debate (on motion by Senator. Duncan) adjourned.

page 3675

QUESTION

PENNY WIRELESS MESSAGES

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I move -

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the rate paid to the Amalgamated Wireless Company for messages from Australia to England, in plain language and not marked “urgent,” should not exceed a penny a word.

Honorable senators may remember that just prior to the Christmas adjournment I submitted a proposal that the charge for sending wireless messages from Australia to Great Britain should not exceed one penny a word. During the recess I have had an opportunity to obtain further information on the subject, and I think I am now in a position to submit a proposal that is within the range of practical politics. My purpose is plainly indicated in the motion. I desire that messages couched in plain language be charged not more than one penny a word. If messages are marked “ Urgent,” or are sent in code - Governments and business firms may, for the sake of secrecy, if for no other reason, send wireless message in code- I think there ought to be an extra charge. I leave that matter, however, absolutely in the hands of the Government department concerned, or Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Ltd. I am solely concerned in presenting a case for a maximum charge of one penny a word for messages sent in plain language. I do not propose, at this stage at any rate, to interfere with the terminal charges over which Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Ltd. has no control. Later on, perhaps, if my motion -is agreed to and the Government is prepared to ask the wireless people to send plain messages to Great Britain at one penny a word, the terminal rates, which I confess are a puzzle to me, may be reviewed. In any case, the charge of one penny a word for messages would be imposed by Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Ltd. The terminal charges are a separate matter altogether.

During the recess I was fortunate enough to come across a pamphlet I have had in my possession for the last nineteen years. It is a verbatim report issued by the Town and Country J Journal of a most interesting discussion that took place at the Colonial Institute in London on the 2nd April, 1909. Sir Henniker Heaton gave an address on Penny Telegrams and Cablegrams throughout the’ Empire. The gathering was a distinguished one, representative of all parts of the Empire. Lord Jersey, who had been Governor of New South Wales, presided. Among those present was Mr. Neilson, the representative of the Eastern Extension Cable Company, who, needless to say, did not agree with the arguments advanced by Sir Henniker- Heaton, and pointed out that to bring down the charge for cablegrams throughout the Empire to one penny, a word would necessitate the installation of so many cables to make the scheme a paying proposition, that there would not be enough gutta percha in the world to provide them. Whether he was correct or not in that statement I do not know,- but it is an indication of the tremendous advances science has made in the last twenty years, when wc find now that it is not necessary to have a single ounce of gutta percha to send all the messages that would be required to make a service between England and Australia pay at a penny a word. That meeting in London, with one accord, agreed to the suggestion “ that very free, cheap, swift and accurate communication was essential, not only in the interests of trade, but also for the continued consolidation of the Empire.”

I am well aware that some honorable senators are greatly influenced by the opinions of business men, and that they regard any one who is not a business man as a visionary or dreamer. It is, therefore, necessary to support one’s statements by the views of business men. One of the ablest and most distinguished business men Great Britain has produced in recent years is Lord Leverhulme. He was not present at the gathering in London, but in a letter which he sent Sir Henniker Heaton, Lord Leverhulme, then Mr. W. Lever, said -

On universal penny a word telegrams I am in hearty accord with you, and wish you every success.

And then he went on to say, what to my mind was rather important -

I fail to see why you should advocate the purchase of existing cables and telegraph lines. Every year cables can be laid and made to work cheaply. Why should a mass of practically obsolete cables, with all the difficulties of dealing with the 10 per cent, dividend be purchased, when ‘the Government could lay their lines and leave the existing private enterprise to compete with them?

That statement was rather good, coming as it did from one of the most prominent and successful business men the British Empire has produced in modern times. Another letter, which was read at the meeting, came from Lord Curzon, who later became one of our great pro-consuls, and was Viceroy of India. He wrote -

Cheap telegrams will be found to bc the most economical and also the most enduring of the bonds of Empire.

That is a statement to which I can subscribe fully. The last great war taught us many tragic lessons, but no greater lesson than the urgent need of consolidating this great Empire of ours. I think that all honorable senators will agree that very cheap, accurate, and swift communication between Australia and the Motherland is desirable; but the question is whether it is financially practicable.

Surrounded as I am by business men, I must not be too visionary. In this connexion I must cover again some of the ground I traversed in the speech I made in the Senate just prior to the adjournment. The figures I shall quote will be based on the supposition that the Beam wireless system will work eighteen hours a day, thus allowing six hours a day for fading. By the way, I think we have a right to be told by the directors of the Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited how the Beam system is work.ing. The people of the Commonwealth own the majority of the shares in the company. Senators, therefore, are just as entitled to the fullest information in regard to the failures and triumphs of the Beam wireless system, as they are to a knowledge of what is happening to the telegraph system controlled by ‘ the Postmaster-General.

I have never associated myself in thought or in word with any criticism that affects the manager of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited. If Mr. Fisk has any fault at all it is that he is too mindful of the interests of his company and business men, of course, would not object to him on that score. If the charge for Beam wireless messages were fixed at one penny a word, does any one doubt that messages representing 50,000,000 words a year would be received for transmission? That traffic would return £204,000 a year. According to the Postmaster-General, £120,000 his been spent on a Beam wireless plant that is capable of sending 86,000,000 words a year to Great Britain. The expenses incidental to the Beam service amount to £80,000 a year, or £1,500 a week. Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited, controls other things beside the Beam service, but to-night I am not concerned with them. If the company cannot make ends meet by charging a penny a word for plain messages from. Australia to Great Britain, we have a right to learn from its directors why it cannot do so. Let us contrast what is done in

Australia on’ our land lines. Messages are sent’ over our land lines at one penny a word, but a large portion of the work is done for about three farthings a word. A great number of the telegraphic messages despatched cost a trifle over one halfpenny a word, whilst the department despatches no less than 15,600,000 words free of cost. We are losing on our telegraph service about £300,000 a . year, but if £65,000 - representing Id. a word - were credited to the work which is now done free of cost the loss would be reduced to £235,000. If the department charged, a flat rate of one penny a word the deficiency would be wiped out, provided, of course, the same volume of business was offering. It also costs £300,000 a year to deliver telegrams. This has to be paid for out of the rates received for the despatch of messages. I am not suggesting that the Amalgamated Wireless should, from the rates now charged, meet the cost of delivering the messages it receives.

Senator McLachlan:

– It does so now.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– If it does it is very unfair when it has to’ pay terminal charges. It is an easy matter for the company to deliver messages in the capital cities, but additional expense would be incurred in delivering a message at, say, Bathurst. As the company is paying terminal charges it should have its messages delivered. It costs the Telegraph Department over £300,000 a year to deliver messages, and if it were relieved of this liability our telegraph service, even ‘at the present rates of Id., fd., and -£d. a word would be able to pay its way. It costs £65 a mile for supplying and erecting telegraph poles, and if the cost of wiring is added the cost is equivalent to £70 a mile.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Does that include the cost of constructing trunk lines?

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Yes, that’ is the average cost per mile. Last year £236,000 was paid for renewing telegraphpoles which had become damaged by age, white ants, storms, or other causes. No such costs are incurred in connexion with an aerial service between Australia and Great Britain dr elsewhere.

Senator Needham:

– Does the £70 a mile include maintenance?

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I think that it covers only construction. The aerial roadway is the free air we breathe, and Providence expects of us that we shall use it only in the interests of mankind. The improved telephone services and postal facilities are seriously cutting into the revenue ‘ of the Telegraph ‘ Department. In order to assist primary producers, the Government is erecting telephone lines throughout country districts to a greater extent than ever, and I think it was during the Hughes administration that a loan of £8,000,000 was raised to extend our telephonic, and other services of the Postal Department, more particularly in country districts. Every telephone service provided in the country affects the revenue of the Telegraph Department. In the service between Australia and Great Britain the submarine cable companies are the only competitors of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited. It costs approximately £300 a mile to lay a submarine cable, and consequently if a rate of Id. a word were charged for wireless messages between Australia and Great Britain the cable companies could not show a profit. If cheap communication will be the means of bringing the people of the Empire together, creating greater cordiality and extending business, it should be provided. It is infinitely preferable that such a service should be provided at cost price rather than that the company should be paying a dividend of, say, 10 per cent. Perhaps I may be pardoned for referring to a personal incident of which I was reminded to-day when I met Sir William Mcpherson. While I was Postmaster-General a deputation, consisting of Sir William McPherson, Mr. Henry Berry, and other prominent business men of Melbourne, waited upon me, when the toll telephonic system was being introduced, and suggested that the department should not expect to make a profit from the service which they said was a public utility. They were of the opinion that it should be made to pay its way ; but should not be expected to show a profit. I told the deputation that I did not believe in the service being made a tax collecting machine. I am still of that opinion, and I think I am right in saying that we should not look for a profit on beam wireless. Under the present agreement with Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited and the Commonwealth the company holds 499,999 shares, and the Government, as the representative of the people, 500,001 shares. I think it is unreasonable that practically onehalf of the shares in the company controlling the Beam service should be in the hands of private enterprise. Senator J. D. Millen and the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) are two of the Commonwealth’s representatives on the board. If the Senate were asked to-day to select a representative on the directorate of that company, I should unhesitatingly support Senator Millen, who is not only a distinguished member of this chamber, but also possesses externsive scientific knowledge which fully qualifies him for such a position. If I were a member of another place I should undoubtedly support the appointment of Mr. Hughes, to whom we really owe the existence of the Beam service. But why are Senator Millen and the right honorable member for North Sydney on the directorate of the company? Are they there to watch the financial aspect of the company’s operations? They were not appointed for that purpose. I contend that the other directors can do that better than they can, because they have long been closely associated with business, and in looking after the interests of their section of the shareholders would be safeguarding ours.

Senator Needham:

– Is the honorable senator in favour of the Government assuming complete control over wireless?

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Yes, that is what I am leading up to. Our representatives on the directorate are there to safeguard the interests of the Australian public. What are their interests? Are they anxious that the company should pay a dividend or provide a service at the lowest possible cost? I think it is their duty to see that a service is provided at a low price. I have no hesitation in saying that, sooner or later, the Beam wireless service must be taken over by the Government. I read recently, with very much interest in a book written by Mr. J. A. Spender, who, as honorable senators are aware, was for many years editor-in-chief of the Westminster Gazette, the statement that for over a year he wrote a weekly letter on European politics which was published in the New York Tribune, and that although he wrote these letters in a Kentish village they appeared without fail in the New York Tribune on the following day. This means, of course, that they were sent to America by cable or by wireless. I could not help thinking what an advantage it would be to us as an Empire, if, when important questions affecting Great Britain and Australia were under consideration, a leading article published in Australia appeared next day in the Manchester Guardian, or a contribution from some responsible authority in Great Britain was published the same day in the Sydney Morning Herald. A leading article of about 1,200 words would, at a penny a word, cost only about £5. The Government has at present a wonderful opportunity to render a valuable service to the community in this way.

As honorable senators are aware, I have taken a great interest in the development of wireless for some time, and everything appearing in our newspapers concerning wireless and cable communications is of interest to me. At present a controversy is proceeding in Great Britain between the wireless companies and the cable companies who are considering amalgamation, not for the benefit of the Empire, or in the interests of the people, but so that they may be able to make increased dividends for themselves. Wireless is the most wonderful discovery of the age, and I object to it being made the battledore and shuttlecock of the stock exchanges, or being used. merely for the benefit of the wealthier sections of the community. I wish to see it used in the interests of the people generally.

Senator Thompson:

– Without that incentive, it will not be possible to accomplish anything.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I stand by what the late Lord Leverhulme said on this subject. If we had a Id. a word wireless system in operation .we should not now have this controversy between the wireless and cable companies in Great Britain. “We should be in the full enjoyment of one of the greatest gifts that scientists have given to the world. I quoted just now, though briefly, the views of the late Viscount Curzon. He declared -

I should like to see a low rate everywhere, but first I should like to see it between all parts of the British Empire. Let us talk first - as all families begin by doing - to our own children.

The late Lord Tennyson, a former GovernorGeneral of Australia, stated -

A universal Id. a word telegram between all parts of the Empire would be an unspeakable boon. Work for that.

I claim that wireless messages at Id. a word would do a great deal to help the migration activities of the Commonwealth. The Nationalist party, I believe, endorses this view. As a party, we stand for a policy of migration. The Government appointed a costly commission to inquire into the subject, and make recommendations for the furtherance of its policy. Being interested in migration, I wrote to a number of prominent citizens of the Commonwealth and I propose to quote briefly from the replies which I have received. I regret that I have mislaid a letter from Canon Garland, who, as honorable senators probably are aware, is the migration representative of the Church of England in Queensland. In his letter to me, he declared that at least 1,000 people had come to Australia as the result of his personal activities, and that, therefore, he was entitled to speak of the influence of cheap wireless communication on migration. He stated that nothing was more calculated to ensure the success of migration than cheap communication between Australia and the Motherland. The best migrant is the person nominated, but, at present, owing to the long delay involved in correspondence, it is difficult to interchange views on this important subject between Australia and the Motherland. I wrote, also, to the Rev. W. H. Jones, who occupies in the Methodist Church of Australia much the same position as Canon Garland holds in the Church of England. , Mr. Jones, who has had considerable experience during the last two or three years with migrants, is in favour of cheap wireless communication between Australia and Great Britain. He states -

It seems to me that by cheapening the means of communication we are helping to make such people more contented settlers, and also helping them to feel that, whilst they are separated by many miles, actually they are not so far away because of being able to send and receive messages quickly and cheaply.

Sir Robert Anderson, the president of the New South Wales division of the New Settlers League of Australia, writes as follows : -

I wish you all good luck in your fight for wireless messages at Id. per word. It looks as though the claims made by the wireless experts are sound, that these cheap messages at week-ends or other slack times Wil be possible at that price. I have been president of the Kew South Wales New Settlers’ League for nearly three years, and I have seen that the enormous bar to immigration from Britain is isolation that strangers suffer by being cut off from their friends excepting by postal communication, which takes six weeks and lacks any crispness of touch. The present week-end messages, costing 6d. per word by cable or 5d. per word by beam with a minimum of 20 words puts anything like regular communication beyond reach of 90 per cent, of our immigrants. The chance of sending 24 words for 2s., or. better, 12 words for ls., would make an enormous difference; and you can picture the profound relief and satisfaction strangers here would feel with a message 48 hours old reaching them of the well-being and happiness of their loved ones; or, conversely, the thankfulness of the mother in England at having prompt and regular word that “ John “ was happy and succeeding, 12,000 miles away.

Some time ago I learned that Sir Benjamin Fuller, another keen business man of Sydney- I like to quote the views of business men on this subject - had at a welcome to Mr. Bankes Amery, the British representative of migration in Australia, declared that Id. a word wireless messages would greatly assist the migration activities of the Government. I called on Sir Benjamin subsequently, and questioned him further on the subject. He assured me that he was strongly in favour of the proposal, and hoped that the Government would adopt it. He added that by means of a code, his business messages to Great Britain did not cost him more than about Id. a word, whereas the poor migrant, under the present system, has to pay an excessive rate.

I admit that if my proposal is adopted, the interests of the existing cable companies will be affected. However, I am not anxious to protect the interests of the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company. Can honorable senators say that that concern has ever been the friend of the British Empire? Are they aware that at one time the company demanded a subsidy of £30,000 a year to establish communication between Australia and the Mother country? Are they aware also that Tasmania had to pay a subsidy of £4,000 a year for the privilege of cable communication between Melbourne and Launceston, and, in addition, had to guarantee a certain volume of business per annum ? When the Pacific Cable Company was established many years ago the Eastern Extension Company made an arrangement with the leading newspapers of Australia under which all press messages had to be transmitted over the Eastern Extension lines. I have always had a friendly feeling for the Pacific Cable Company. Possibly this is because the Government is, to some extent, financially interested in it. The first deputation which I, as a young member of Parliament representing Broken Hill, introduced to Mr. Crick, the then PostmasterGeneral of New. South Wales, made a request that a certain concession which was then asked for by the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company, should not be granted if it would place the Pacific Cable Company at a disadvantage. Many years ago, in the House of Representatives - before I was elevated to the Senate - I submitted a motion affirming that the land-line between Vancouver and the Atlantic sea board, which was then in the hands of private enterprise, should be taken over in the interests of the Pacific Cable Company. I urged also that an Atlantic cable should be purchased so that the messages transmitted over the Pacific Cable Company’s line should be completely under British control between Australia and London. That course has since been adopted, though I do not claim that it- was the result of my advocacy of it many years ago. I cite the incident merely to show that I have always been a friend of the Pacific Cable Company. But even that concern must not stand in the way of progress. I remember when Mr., afterwards Sir- George, Reid, brought forward a proposal for the electrification of the Sydney tramway system, Sir John See, who strongly opposed the motion, urged that the electrification of the transport system of Sydney would mean the passing of the omnibuses, which were then in use. He argued also that if omnibuses were displaced by electric trams, the primary producers in north-coast districts would lose their market for maize and other products. Recently Mr. Crawford Vaughan, a former Premier of South Australia, informed me that when the late Mr. Price submitted the scheme for the electrification of the Adelaide tramway system, it was opposed in certain quarters on the ground that if the horse-drawn buses were taken off the streets, the orchardists in the hills district would be short of manure for their gardens! Our telephone system, as I said a little while ago. is now entering very seriously into competition with the telegraph department. If the telephone gives an improved service to our people, obviously the telegraphic service will have to be scrapped. I know that some people say it is necessary to retain the cable service for purposes of defence. That is a matter of policy. What I want to know, however, is whether Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited can send messages at Id. a word and make ends meet. If it cannot I wish to know the reason. I am not asking that the wireless service be subsidized, although I do not overlook the fact that a subsidy is paid for the oversea carriage of mails, and the provision of refrigerated space, notwithstanding that the space provided by shipping lines that are not subsidized is five times as great a3 that which is subsidized.

Senator McLachlan:

– Is the honorable senator suggesting that a subsidy should be paid in respect of the wireless service or the cable service?

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– If the Government is willing to pay a subsidy it should be given to the wireless service to enable messages to be sent at the rate of Id. a word. There is as much justification for that as there is for subsidizing the carriage of mails and the provision of refrigerated space. A bounty amounting to £450,000 a year is given to the wine industry in order that the Englishman at Home may purchase his wine at a cheaper price.

Senator McLachlan:

– And so that the soldier settlers on the Murray will be saved from ruin.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I notice that some persons who are interested in the production of peppermint oil have induced the Tariff Board to recommend that they be granted a subsidy. I do not know whether the Government will grant it ; presumably it will. If that can rightfully be claimed, we have a perfect right to ask for a subsidy for something which will bring us more closely in touch with people who speak our language and whose history and destiny do not differ from ours.

Senator Crawford:

– No one disputes the right to ask.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– When I last brought this matter before the Senate the Minister was good enough to reply to my representations. He had then been informed of a discovery by the use of which a letter written in Australia could be photographed to England. He said that that would result in a greater volume of business being done, with a consequent lowering of charges. A little while ago I spent a week at Wentworth Falls. I stayed at a house in which was a youth, fourteen years of age, with a broken leg. In conversation with him I ascertained that he had read some remarks of mine on wireless that had been published in the National Review. He informed me that there were some, points which he- understood, and others which he did not. I asked him, “ What do you understand ‘’ ? He replied, “I understand that if I can sell chocolate bars at Id., when others are charging 6d., I will get all the business. I also understand that if I can get a good A.J.S. motor cycle to-day, there is no -necessity for me to wait five years for a new make of machine.” The Minister on the previous occasion to which I have referred, said that an increase in the volume of business done would lead to a reduction of the charges. Has he ever heard of

Henry Ford? That gentleman has exceptional business capacity, and his guiding principle is that if you place an article within the reach of those who want it, you will secure their business.

Senator Crawford:

– He -seems to have lost all his business.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Any one who can start without capital and make £20,000,000 is a fairly good business man; quite .equal, even, to some of the business men who sit in this chamber ! I wish to know whether the Government intends to reduce charges. Democracy, does not become very enthusiastic over a government which merely appoints royal commissions, and calls together conferences of different interests, however necessary those may be. The people fall behind a a government which does things on a big scale, and makes the waters roar.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Like Mr. Lang did!

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– This Government has the opportunity, by cheapening wireless communication, to annihilate the distance between Australia and the, centre of the Empire, thus conferring an inestimable boon on the people. The Fisher Government lost £400,000 a year by the introduction of penny . postage.

Senator Sir George PEARCE:

– And an ungrateful country turned it out of office !

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Senator Pearce might tell me whether the present National Government wishes to be less imperialistic than a former Labour government? Eighteen or nineteen years ago the leading men of the day were asking for this concession. It is now possible to grant it. Are the Government prepared to turn the dreams of to-day into the splendid realities of to-morrow? If so, they will support my motion.

Debate (on motion by Senator McLachlan) adjourned.

page 3681

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In committee - (Consideration resumed, vide page 3675) :

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

.- The main argument of those who oppose my amendment is that the maize-growers are likely to suffer injury if glucose is allowed to be imported, and the Australian company is not able to obtain control of the local market. Maize Products Proprietary

Limited has not been altogether a failure; it has paid high dividends, and, in addition has acquired in Queensland maize plantations which it hopes will enable it to manipulate the market in such a way that the “unfortunate farmer will not be able to get a high price for his product.

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

– That is not the opinion of the maize-growers in Queensland.

Senator OGDEN:

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

AYES: 3

NOES: 18

Majority ……. . . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

– It is an industry which we must consider. Unfortunately, because of the high cost of production, producers have had to work for far less than a living wage. But for the employment of their wives and families, many dairy farmers would not have been able to carry on. They have also been compelled to work long hours. Evidence was given before the Tariff Board of the returns from a number of average farms. The figures in relation to one were as follows: -

It will be seen that there was a balance of £39 15s. for the farmer’s own labour aud the living expenses of himself and family. The evidence that has been tendered to a number of commissions during the last couple of years has gone to show that the average price received by the dairy farmer for his butter has been in the region of ls. ed. per lb., and that the cost of production has generally been over 2s. per lb. If Senator Needham does not want to see these men working for less than a living wage, he should take some action to protect them. Prior to the advent of this tariff New Zealand butter was being dumped into Australia at certain periods, with the result that the price of Australian butter was knocked to pieces. If that state of affairs had continued the dairyman would have been driven off the land, our commercial houses would have suffered, we should have lost our export trade, and when supplies became scarce the consumer would have had to pay a great deal more than he is paying to-day. It is to our advantage to protect the industry and retain our export trade. Senator Greene has put the position clearly in regard to the speculator. Speculators can import overseas butter at smash prices, and make huge profits by manipulating the market. If the industry is not protected tho speculator will import butter from New Zealand and elsewhere. Senator Greene also stated that to-day the co-operative companies practically control’ the industry. In South Australia the farmers’ Union purchases a tremendous quantity, while in Victoria the cooperative companies practically fix the price. As other industries are protected, dairymen should not be asked to work for less than a living wage. At the present time Australian consumers can purchase primary products at a cheaper rate than that which rules in any other country. .

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– On many occasions I have proclaimed myself a protectionist. By that I mean a comprehensive protectionist. There are no boundaries or geographical limitations to my fiscal faith. I say emphatically that protection is a sound policy for the Commonwealth of Australia, and the majority of the people agree with me. Is there to be protection for one section only ? No ; it must embrace both primary and secondary industries. The man on the land will receive from me as much consideration as those who are engaged in other activities. I have said many times that for years there was as much sweating .in the field of agriculture as there was in our secondary industries in the yeaTs gone by. I belong to a party which time and again has declared war on sweating in every shape and form. This industry has been carried on under conditions which in some cases are almost indescribable. No holidays are gazetted for the dairy fanner; ne works on 365 days in the year, whether the weather be wet or fine. Many of us are acquainted with his struggles and his strivings, and know what his net return is at the end of the year. A member of another place has said that the conditions that obtain in the dairying industry are due largely to the high wages that are paid. To use an Australianism he was “ talking through his hat.” A short while ago the industry could not afford to pay anything like reasonable wages. According to. a report of the Tariff Board they varied from 25s. to 40s. a week, and keep. Those who are engaged in other spheres of activity are ‘ paid a much higher wage than that. I am not foolish enough to believe that the imposition of high duties will immediately reduce the price of commodities. In certain cases the effect for the time being has been to increase the price. On the other hand, other industries have been brought into existence, and with the adoption of uptodate methods have cheapened the cost of certain commodities. When I consider the matter I do not ask myself whether the result will be an increase, for the time being, in . the price of a pair of boots, a suit of clothes, or a hat. If I were actuated by such a motive I could not vote for a high duty. If it is a good thing to protect the clothing manufacturer, the boot manufacturer, or any other manufacturer, why should not the principle be applied also to the primary producer? I am an Australian, and I want the local market to be held by the Australian producer. In the case under discussion the producer is the dairyman. Labour .supporters in Australia do not want to wear boots, clothes, or hats that have been manufactured by sweated labour. I am satisfied that their sense of justice is such that they desire for others the same conditions that they themselves enjoy. The item may mean a. slight increase in the price of butter, but that is no reason why we. should not vote for it. The primary producers of Australia are entitled to the fullest consideration. Into the Australian -market which should belong to the Australian producer, butter to the value of £750,000 was imported during a period of two years. I am glad to be able to support this item, and to intimate that any other proper proposal which is in the interests of our primary producers will also receive my support.

Item agreed to.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 10.19 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 March 1928, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1928/19280308_senate_10_118/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 8 March 1928

PAPERS

QUESTION

REDUCED COMMONWEALTH EXPENDITURE

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AND COMMONWEALTH BANK EMPLOYEES

Senator OGDEN:TASMANIA

CANBERRA

Footpaths and Gutters

Senator OGDEN:

QUESTION

COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING

Senator OGDEN:

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

QUESTION

SHEEP INDUSTRY

Senator THOMPSON:QUEENSLAND

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Second Reading

Senator REID:Queensland

Mr GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator REID:

Senator Crawford:

Senator REID:

Senator Crawford:

Senator REID:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator REID:

Senator Findley:

Senator REID:

Mr GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator REID:

Mr GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator REID:

Mr GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator REID:

Senator Crawford:

Senator REID:

Senator Herbert Hays:

Senator REID:

Senator FOLL:Queensland

Senator Payne:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Payne:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Elliott:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Crawford:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Elliott:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Thompson:

Senator FOLL:

Mr GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator FOLL:

Senator ELLIOTT:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Ogden:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Herbert Hays:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Herbert HAYs:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Thompson:

Senator FOLL:

Mr GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator FOLL:

Senator Thompson:

Senator FOLL:

Mr GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator FOLL:

Senator Findley:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Findley:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Crawford:

Senator FOLL:

Senate
8 March 1928

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator OGDEN:
TASMANIA

Senator THOMPSON:
QUEENSLAND

Senator REID:
Queensland

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator CARROLL:
The Minister (Senator Crawford · “Western Australia [5.35].

Senator REID:
Queensland