Senate
14 March 1930

12th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 12th Parliament
  3. 1930

The President (Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 145

QUESTION

COMPULSORY WHEAT POOL

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Daly) have prepared and made available to honorable senators a return showing the operations of the compulsory wheat pool during the whole period of . its existence, details of the amount of money paid in each year, and the amount of the overdrafts at the various banks at the peak period in each year?

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– In order that I may be able to consider whether such information can be prepared I ask the right honorable senator to give notice of his question.

page 145

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK BUILDING, PERTH

Particulars of Tenders

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works, upon notice -

  1. What tenders were received for the erection of the new Commonwealth Bank building in Perth?
  2. What tender was accepted?
  3. Is it a fact, as stated by a leading Western Australia newspaper, that the Melbourne tender (which was accepted) does not include the piles on which the foundations will rest?
  4. If so, how are these heavy foundations to be provided for, and at what cost?
  5. Were these heavy foundations allowed for in the second lowest tender, that from a Perth firm of contractors?
Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

– The answers a re : -

  1. Raymond V. Ritchie£ 226,700, Concrete Constructions Limited £225,700, C. W. Arnott £234,000, A. T. Brine and Sons £213,976, Hutchinson Bros. £252,987, Andrew Douglas £207,700.
  2. The lowest tender submitted by Andrew Douglas £207,700.
  3. No.
  4. See No. 3.
  5. Yes.

page 145

QUESTION

TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

Delay Owing to Floods

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

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

  1. How long have the services of the transcontinental railway been suspended owing to the floods and washaways in the vicinity of Forrest?
  2. Have the coastal clauses of the Navigation Act been suspended to permit overseas ships to carry passengers between Western Australia and the Eastern States and vice versa during this serious dislocation of the railway services to and from Western Australia?”
  3. If not, will immediate action be taken in this direction?
Senator DALY:
ALP

– The information is being obtained.

page 145

QUESTION

LAND SETTLEMENT IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

3,500 Farms Scheme.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council, upon notice -

  1. What is the present position in regard to the proposed 3,500 farms scheme in Western Australia ?
  2. Has the scheme been approved by the Development and Migration Commission.
  3. Is it the intention of the Government to assist in the carrying out of this important laud settlement proposal under the provisions of the Migration Agreement?
Senator DALY:
ALP

– The soil investigations by Professor Teakle disclosed the presence of alkali, and in such quantities as, having regard to the rainfall, necessitated a complete soil survey. Following upon conferences between the State and Federal Governments, the services of Professor Prescott, of the Waite Institute, South Australia, were secured for the purpose of arranging for a complete survey. This work will be commenced immediately. Until such survey is completed the Development and Migration Commission will not be in a position to recommend approval or otherwise of the whole or part of the scheme.

page 145

QUESTION

LAND TAX ASSESSMENTS

Value of Rural Products

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

In view of the fall in the value of rural products, and the corresponding decrease in the market value of land, will the Govern- nient see that land tax assessments for the currentyear are levied on the present reduced value of rural and other lands?

Senator DALY:
ALP

– In view of the position of the Commonwealth finances, the Government is unable to vary the basis for the assessment of land tax for the current financial year. If land values at the end of the present financial year are proved to be lower than they were on 30th June, 1927, the assessments for land tax next financial year will be reduced in the ordinary course as the result of the method provided in the act for the determination of valuations of land for purposes of assessment of land tax.

page 146

QUESTION

WHEAT PRICES

Guarantee of 6s. 6d. Bushel

Senator GUTHRIE:
through Senator Plain

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice - 1.Is it a fact that members of the Labour party promised the wheat-growers6s.6d. per bushel for wheat, during the recent election campaign ; if so, how is it that the Government now proposes a guarantee of only 4s. per bushel ? 2.In view of the critical position of many of the primary producers owing to heavy taxation, heavy customs duties, together with the low prices obtainable for primary produce such as wool and wheat, will the Government seriously consider the fairness and advisability of abolishing the federal land tax as applied to lands which are being used to best advantage by primary producers?

  1. If the Government is not prepared to do so, will the Government at least remit land taxation imposed upon land-owners who are assisting fanners, on all land being made available on the share-farming system on fair and equitable terms to the farmer?
  2. If the Government does not intend to guarantee wheat-growers6s.6d. per bushel for wheat or to relieve primary producers of land taxation, why does it appeal to the primary producers to. save the country by increasing the area to be cultivated and sown with wheat?
  3. Has the Leader of the Government noticed reports in the commercial columns of the Melbourne daily press of the 11th instant to the effect that, whilst certain companies engaged, in primary production in Queensland have made a loss of £70,000 during the last year, and have never paid a dividend for four years, certain amusement companies in Melbourne have again declared dividends of 25 per cent.?
  4. Under the circumstances, will the Government reduce the taxation upon primary producers and substitute taxation upon amuse ments ?
Senator DALY:
ALP

– The answers are:-

  1. No such guarantee was contained in the policy submitted to the people by the Leader of the Parliamentary Labour party. 2 and 3. The Government is prepared to consider any representations made to it, more especially if such representations relate to the unlocking of lands and the intensification of production.
  2. The Government gave no such guarantee.
  3. No, and the Government would be pleased if the honorable senator would supply further particulars.
  4. In the absence of information referred to in answer to 5, the Government cannot consider the honorable senator’s proposal.

page 146

QUESTION

PRIMARY PRODUCERS’ ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Customs Duties

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Have the Government received from the Primary Producers’ Association of Western Australia a protest against the taxation (Customs House) proposals of the Government as likely to retard the development of that State?
  2. Does the Government intend to modify its proposed customs duties in order to avert the unwelcome development expected in Western Australia?
Senator DALY:
ALP

– The answers are : -

  1. Yes.
  2. The honorable senator’s inquiry relates to a matter of policy with which it is not usual to deal in answer to questions.

page 146

DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION BILL

Motion (by Senator Daly) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to amend the Development and Migration Act 1926 and for other purposes.

page 146

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Government Programme

Debate resumed from 13th March(vide page 90), on motion by Senator Daly -

That the paper be printed.

Senator LYNCH:

– by leave - I desire to make a personal explanation. During my temporary absence from the chamber last evening the Assistant Minister for Works (Senator Barnes) and Senator Rae alleged, I am informed, that the tenor of my speech on this motion was in the direction of suggesting that wages in. Australia should be reduced. If they did make that statement it shows the unfortunate position which party feeling will sometimes bring about in the relationships of individual members. My regard for these two honorable gentlemen is sincere; but when they make an allegation which seriously involves my reputation in this country I am not inclined to “ turn the other cheek.”

I do not care twopence so far as the effects of this allegation on the minds of voters in the Western State are concerned, because in the past I have survived even more serious allegations that have been made against me for purely political reasons. It is only for the purpose of correctly recording the facts in Hansard that I make this explanation. I desire to say that I made no such suggestion in my speech. I have never been in favour of a reduction of wages. Actions speak louder than words, and sacrifice is the true test of sincerity. I have been an employer of labour in this country for twenty years, and evidence of my fair treatment of the men whom I have employed is to be found in the fact that they have always been willing to return to me from whatever part of Australia they have been in. For twenty years I have been engaged in breaking down virgin land. During that period I have assisted in producing at least 50,000 bushels of wheat, and have never had serious differences with the men I have employed. I must defend myself even at the expense of heing considered an egotist. When Senator Barnes and Senator Rae, who could have taken on the same work and worry, hut preferred not to incur the risk, can stand up in this chamber and say likewise-

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the refutal of the statement alleged to have been made.

Senator LYNCH:

– My action in the past should be a sufficient refutation of the allegation, and is stronger evidence of my attitude in this connexion than anything that can be said by Senator Barnes or Senator Rae.

Senator Barnes:

– I did not make the statement attributed to me.

Senator LYNCH:

– When those honorable senators can say that they have done as I have they will be in a sounder position, but not before.

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister for Works · Victoria · ALP

– I regret very much that Senator Lynch has thought fit to reprimand me tor some thing I did not say.

Senator Lynch:

– Then I am sorry.

Senator BARNES:

– I did not mention the honorable senator’s name last night.

Senator Reid:

– That is right.

Senator BARNES:

– The inference that I drew from the honorable senator’s remarks was, I think, quite reasonable, but the honorable senator is entitled to the credit which he has claimed. As critics of the Government’s proposal are saying that more bricks must be produced, more walls must be built, and more this and that must be done, one is justified in drawing the inference which I drew.

SenatorFoll. - If they produce more they will receive more in wages.

Senator BARNES:

– Yes, but most of them are doing the best they can in the circumstances. There are some, however, who think they must do more, but as Pharaoh was told by the children of Israel, bricks cannot be made without straw. What other inference could I draw from the remarks of Senator Lynch and other honorable senators than that it is the view of some at least of them that men should work longer hours for lower wages ? I disclaim having mentioned Senator Lynch’s name, but I consider that no other inference could be drawn from the honorable senator’s remarks. I shall leave it to the readers of the reports of the debates in this chamber to draw their own conclusions from his statement.

Last evening I was endeavouring to justify the programme submitted by the Government to Parliament, and was showing that we believe that we can so organise the industries of this country and so use the machinery at our disposal as to obtain better results from the labour that is put into the wheatfields of this country, and into every other activity that is being carried on. I was suggesting that the remedy lies not in asking men to work longer hours or for lower wages, but in closer and more intensive organization. In other words, we should endeavour to organise the brains and also the brawn of this country, if that is necessary, in order to get the best result without victimizing any one. We are all familiar with the struggles of those who have helped to build up this nation, and particularly with those of the men who settled on the land. We know that the forests had to be cut down to make room for wheat crops. We are acquainted with the toil and sacrifice of the pioneers. We know also what reward they received. They were continually at the mercy of men who, though not necessarily vindictive, felt that they were the country’s benefactors and that without them it could not prosper. Their outlook was the result of their training. We on this side c.an speak of these things from our own experience, for we have been through the mill ourselves and know the disabilities under which unorganized men labour. One of the means by which the Government hopes to benefit not only the wheat farmers but also other producers is by establishing the Commonwealth Bank on a footing that will make it an instrument to be used by the people for the benefit of the country. The announcement of the Government’s’’ policy has stirred up opposition among those persons in the community who have deceived themselves into believing that they are indispensable to the farmei’3 and the country generally. I have here a circular setting out reasons for opposing the establishment of a wheat pool. The names at the foot of the circular are household words throughout Australia - Bunga (Australia) Proprietary Limited, Dalgety and Company, Limited, John Darling and Sons, Louis Dreyfus and Company.

Those nien did not pioneer. the country or fell the trees of which Senator Lynch has spoken. They were always ready to handle the farmers’ wheat and they resent an.y government now displacing them. I have had a good deal of experience in connexion with old-age pensions, but I cannot remember any of the persons whoso names appear on this circular having approached me to assist them in getting a pension They are now well established in the community as financiers, and desire to bc left in the position they have occupied so* long. The Government believes that the producers of this country should be able to obtain financial assistance through the Commonwealth Bank to enable them to increase their product/on, and, with it, the country’s wealth. At present many of these men, notwithstanding that they have indisputable assets, are unable to secure that financial assistance which would enable them to increase production With proper organization it should be possible to grow wheat for the price mentioned in the statement of policy and show a reasonable profit. The Government makes no apology for its proposal to assist the wheat-growing industry. It believes that, despite the alarming statements of interested persons who have sufficient wealth to place their views before the electors, the wheatfarmers of Australia will agree to the establishment of a wheat pool. .Prom time to time we hoar from honorable senators opposite a great deal about the “red raggers” in our midst and the literature they disseminate. We on this side regard propaganda of the type I have mentioned as “ red rag “ literature which is no more justified than is the other literature which is so roundly condemned.

The statement of policy also refers to the Government’s proposals in regard to arbitration matters. The Government believes that it is in the best interests of the country to carry on its industries more peacefully than was the case before the arbitration system of dealing with disputes was introduced. I challenge any honorable senator to invite the country to return to the state of affairs that existed before the present system, notwithstanding its faults, was introduced. Arbitration has done much for Australia but we believe that it can do much more. The Government realizes that it would be better for the country if the coal-miners who to-day are not working were quietly and peacefully employed. The machinery set up for the settlement of industrial disputes has proved faulty, and honorable senators opposite have seized the opportunity to subject the Government and its supporters to jibes and criticisms. One would think that even in our sleep we are propounding schemes to create chaos in industry. Although the coal-miners are not responsible for the present dislocation of the coal-mining industry, 75 per cent, of the people blame them for it. An impression has been made on the minds of the people generally that the miners have refused work because they cannot get their own way, whereas the truth is that they merely asked to be allowed to work under an award of a court of this country. The mine-owners are responsible for the loss of our export trade in coal. They, not the miners, are responsible for flouting the law of the country.

Senator Reid:

– What about the Hibble award? The Labour party’s own judge decided against the men.

Senator BARNES:

– I am speaking of the latest award made by the Arbitration Court.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Is it not a fact that the High Court has declared that that is not an award?

Senator BARNES:

– That is not so. The. High Court declared that Judge Booby’s award was not an award, not that the original award with which Judge Beeby dealt was not an award. That is one of the causes of the lockout. The Government believes that the present unsatisfactory state of affairs can, and should be, corrected, and for that reason it proposes to amend the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Yesterday Senator Glasgow, himself a gallant soldier, criticized the Government’s defence policy. He did so very kindly, arid probably with great wisdom, because of his soldier experience. The Government realizes that the time may come when Australia will be called upon ro defend her shores. It therefore proposes to take what it believes to be wiser steps, to that end than the methods adopted by the late Government. It believes, for instance, that there is considerable room for improvement in the control of our naval and military colleges. The statement of policy sets out that -

Maintenance of the Royal Naval College last year cost £04,750. As there were 52 (allots ut the college the cost worked out at nearly £1,250 per head per annum. The stuff employed for the maintenance of the college was 147, or nearly three persons for every cadet.

It took 147 persons to teach, look after and wet-nurse 52 pupils - three men for every lad that entered the college to be made an efficient fighter! Honorable senators opposite claim that by such means they were providing for the defence of this country? This Government believes that it is ludicrous to have three able-bodied and highly-trained technical men to teach and generally care for each one of our rising naval geniuses. Heaven only knows what those three men can find to do with one boy. Probably, instead of shaping him into an efficient sailor, they would drive him to distraction. The statement continues -

Similarly, with regard to the Royal Military College, the maintenance cost was £52,750 for 74. cadets, or more than £700 per head per milium. A stall’ of !)S persons were employed for iiic 74 cadets.

Apparently, there is some difference between the care needed for a naval and a military cadet. While it takes three tutors to train one budding naval mau and fit him for life on the briny ocean, it takes only a little over one and a half men to train a potential military leader to the standard eulogized by Senator Sir William Glasgow. Surely there is no wisdom in such extravagance. It appears to me to be an unwise squandering of the taxpayers’ money. This Government proposes to correct all that. It is prepared to stand by the policy that it has enunciated.- Its members are only human, but they believe that, by conscientiously taking advantage of the opportunity afforded them by the people of Australia, they will be able, with the greatest of confidence, to return to the people at the expiration of their period of office and seeks a renewal of their confidence in return for the results achieved.

No mention was made by honorable senators of the Australian Flying Corps, and the heavy cost involved in its training. I, in common with many other taxpayers, believed that the Bruce-Page Government had well and truly laid the foundation of an efficient Australian air force; one capable not only of coining to our assistance in the event of war, but of carrying on essential services associated with civil aviation. Instead of that happy result, I remember the tragic revelation when two venturesome airmen were lost in n remote portion of Australia. The people confidently said, “ They have merely experienced engine trouble and have been forced down. We have an efficient air force, which will immediately set. out in machines and find those unfortunate men.” But actually, the Australian Air Force was unable to put one effective machine in the air at that time. Their machines could not have got away from a spider! What a ghastly example of futile prodigality. This Government contends that it is time that a halt was called, and the faults of the last Government rectified. With that purpose in view it looks forward to the day when it will render a faithful record of its stewardship to the people of Australia, and is confident of a continuance of their support.

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– I am very glad to join with other honorable senators on this side of the chamber in welcoming the appeal of the Scullin Government for whole-hearted co-operation on the part of all sections of the community in overcoming the difficulties that now confront Australia. Honorable senators on this side feel that no matter into whose hands the reins of government may fall, their first duty is to the Commonwealth. Our individual attitude towards the Government is that we are willing and eager to help to weave the strands of knowledge and experience into the web of Australian progress and prosperity.

I hope that I have correctly read into the Government’s ministerial statement of policy an avowal to take a studied and careful view of our whole outlook. I also hope that the statement indicates an intention to indulge in less legislation, and to concentrate on administration. In order to give security of tenure to those who are endeavouring to developthe resources of Australia and so to create more employment for its working people the Government should rigidly restrict the introduction of new and experimental legislation. The uncertainty in that regard does more to hinder the enterprise of those who are in a position to originate employment than does anything else. I hope, also, that I see in this statement a realization on the part of the Government that we in Australia are geographically isolated. We have to be very careful lest our whole outlook, knowledge, experience and judgment be limited by our immediate surroundings. A review of the conditions of Australia discloses that most of our existing difficulties are due to our isolation, both physical and mental. We have been looking in, instead of looking out.

Let me deal with one aspect of this matter : the trade of Australia. As a result of our looking-in policy, the trade of Fiji, one of our neighbours, has been almost entirely lost to Australia. We are also rapidly losing the trade of New Zealand. I do not like to trust to my memory, but I think I am correct in saying that our trade with that country is going down at the rate of something like £500,000 a year. Go a little further afield, and you find that France has put a duty of 5s. per bushel, not on wheat generally, but on Australian wheat. That duty amounts to more than the price of our wheat per bushel. The United States of America has also adopted an antagonistic trade policy towards us and has placed a few additional bricks on its tariff walls to shut out our products. Those are big problems upon which I shall touch again in a few minutes.

To come to affairs within Australia, Senator Barnes and others have referred to our coal industry. There is associated with it a difficulty that we appear to be afraid to face. An investigation of the problem of supply and demand and the consequence of the uncertainty of the position at Newcastle and other coal-fields of New South Wales discloses that, some years ago, the Victorian Government was forced to develop the Yallourn brown coal-fields. That was a direct result of the industrial troubles on the New South Wales coal-fields, and it caused considerable unemployment in that State. The recent trouble has aggravated the position, with the result that Melbourne manufacturers have almost universally reduced their consumption of coal by about 331/3 per cent. A few years ago, one large engineering firm, with which I am familiar, used 4,000 tons of coal per annum. It has now reduced its requirements to 1,200 tons per annum and will not, in any circumstances, go back to its original consumption.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Is that concern using a substitute?

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– It is using oil, also the supply of electricity from Yallourn. Another engineering concern in Melbourne which used to consume 1,200 tons per annum, now does not consume a ton in that period. All that is a development of the last two years

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That is not peculiar to Australia. The same phenomena may be found all over the world.

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– I am dealing with the result of the trouble on the coal-fields in New South Wales. Similar action may have been taken elsewhere, but this would not have occurred in Australia had it not been for our unfortunate experience of the coal-fields in New South Wales. The labour leaders of this country should make it clear to the labourers on those fields that, whatever settlement is arrived at, it will be quite impossible for all the miners now awaiting employment to be re-absorbed in the industry. If our labour leaders had sufficient courage to bring it home to the unfortunate men on the New South Wales coal-fields that a big percentage of them will never again be employed on those fields,, they would do a service to themselves, to- the miners, and to Australia. It is ‘unnecessary for me to go further and allude to our loss in the export coal trade. That was referred to by other honorable senators. It is well known that many ships now use oil as fuel, instead of coal.

This Government believes that all our troubles will be solved by the tariff. I do hope that it will study carefully and think quietly over any additions that it proposes to make to the tariff schedule. The history of Australian customs development is quite interesting. The peculiarity of it is that each new tariff is always framed to “ ensure the economic prosperity of the country,” but has never done so. The Kingston tariff of 1901-2, the first introduced, was designed to prevent the “pattering of bare feet on the pavements.” That was the great catch-cry in Australia at some of the earlier elections. We find, however, that the bare feet apparently still continued to patter in 1907, when Sir William Lyne brought down his tariff. Again it was confidently stated that Australia would prosper under the new schedule of duties. It would seem, however, that again something went radically wrong, because in 1911 we had the Tudor tariff, which very considerably heightened our tariff Avail.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– How many items were there in the Tudor tariff?

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– I am unable to say off-hand.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I think that there were eight.

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– Whatever”, their number they were to help to give Australia the prosperity that it so needed. There were a few more items: in the next tariff, the Massy Greene tariff’ of 1920-22. Then it was claimed that the. prosperity of the Commonwealth wasassured. That belief did not prevail long/ because in 1926 we had the Pratten tariff. Then prices soared, and the cost of living, went up with them. The resultant pros-“ perity did not last three years, and in 1929 ‘we had the Penton tariff.

Senator Dunn:

– That was the commonsense tariff.

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– That tariff added millions to Commonwealth taxation, and accelerated our progress to our present difficult position. And those difficulties will continue to develop during the next twelve to eighteen months. We now hear .whispers.’ that more tariff schedules are to come. It is interesting to note that while the Kingston tariff involved the’ imposition of an additional £S,000,0G0 to £9,000,000, the Fenton tariff amounts tq £44,000j000 to £45,000,000. I desire tq emphasize the need for careful thought in this connexion before the Government, rushes in on the advice of any one, oi’ succumbs to an appeal for increased protection. I do that because I have in my hand a letter from the Victorian Chamber of Manufacturers, evidently issued at the instigation of the Minister for Trade and Customs. It may not be amiss if I read it -

TARIFF Revision 1930.

Having regard to the new tariff schedules submitted to Parliament in November andDecember last, the probability of another schedule being presented, and the request just received from the Minister for Customs to. the -chamber for information as to “ the effect of the tarin’ on existing industries, the establishment of new ones, employment, and any.’ other aspects which indicate benefits conferred by the tariff schedules on Australian iri-‘ dustry,” I enclose a form for obtaining the” required information.

I shall not read it. It will be sufficient: if I say that the manner in which the form was prepared was an invitation to the manufacturers to furnish information required to justify the high duties’ imposed. The letter states further -

If you are. interested, will you kindly return the form without delay with an)’ particulars you can supply? This will be treated confidently except as far as the Minister for Customs is concerned.

You will note that there are two divisions in the form - one as to the effect of recent tariff alterations, the other as to what is desired where no alteration of duties has been made, 1’lease supply whatever is applicable to your business by striking out or adding to the typed statements.

Kindly regard this matter as urgent and let mc have your reply immediately, as Parliament meets next week.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– What is the date of that communication?

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– It is dated 6th March, and, as I have just remarked, it suggests that manufacturers shall submit information to guide and justify this Government in its protective policy. I always understood that if there was one party that was particularly careful not to encourage the strengthening of vested interests it was the Labour party which now is in control of the treasury bench. But this communication clearly indicates that the Government wishes the leaders of industry to indicate what they want by way of protection, and that the Government will give it to them. I need offer no further comment. Obviously the Government is attempting to develop the polar bear industry under hothouse conditions, and is neglecting the development of our wonderful natural resources. Industries encouraged under this system of spoon feeding might flourish if we were a self-contained nation, but they must shrivel quickly when exposed to competition outside Australia. Clearly we have been attempting to operate economic laws without regard to the rest of the world. This cannot be done in a young country like Australia.

The leader of the Government is making a strong appeal to our farmers to produce more wheat. I welcome the suggestion by the right honorable gentleman, for it is an admission that he and, I hope, all the members of his party, are at last convinced that the prosperity of the Commonwealth depends upon the development of its primary industries. We have heard a great deal about the production side of the wheat industry. I do not propose to make any contribution to what has been said on that phase of the subject, but I should like briefly to touch on the distribution side of the business. It is patent to all that if we are to go in for production on a large .scale we must make effective arrangements for the distribution and sale of our products. Up to the present the Government has given no indi.cation of the lines upon which it proposes to finance the proposed wheat pool and distribute our surplus wheat. The Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) yesterday spoke of the need for organization. All honorable senators will agree with his remarks under that head, but we complain of the lack of information as to the methods which the Government proposes to employ - how the suggested wheat pool will be financed, and what arrangements are to be made to dispose of the surplus. I am wondering if the Prime Minister and his colleagues understand the world position of wheat to-day. Are they fully cognizant of all that is happening in the United States of America where a wheat stabilization scheme with a backing of £100,000,000 has been in operation for some time? Under that scheme the Federal Farm Board has authority to go into the Chicago wheat market and purchase £20,000,000 worth of wheat at fair value and pay the farmer 96 per cent. of the value of his wheat taken into the pool. The sole purpose of Government intervention in the United States of America is to protect the American wheat-grower within the limits of the American market, which means that, in addition to meeting the requirements of some 120,000,000 people in that - country, locallygrown wheat will have free entry, into all its dominions. After the requirements of this market have been met, the surplus is dumped into England and sold at the best price offering there. I am afraid that the Commonwealth Government will meet with serious difficulties when it attempts to market the Australian surplus -in Great Britain in competition with the dumped product of the United States of America. It should be noted, also, that in September of last year the wheat-growers of the Argentine shipped to England 320,000 tons of wheat, and in October 340,000 tons, or ten times more than they” placed in the British market the preceding year.

But let us come near home. Let us examine the position in Western Australia. I am informed that the wheat pool in that State is unable to sell its wheat at anything like a price satisfactory either to the pool or the growers.

Senator Hoare:

– Would the honorable senator have us believe that the world is already suffering from over-production in wheat?

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– I do not wish to go into details concerning world production. I therefore suggest that the honorable senator should study this interesting subject. If he does he will find that the position is as I have stated.

Senator Daly:

– I do not understand the statement of the honorable senator regarding the Western Australian wheat pool.

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– I understand that the Western Australian pool has a large quantity of wheat in store, and that it is unable to dispose of it at a satisfactory price. Perhaps some honorable senators from Western Australia will be able to confirm this statement.

Senator Daly:

– I doubt that Senator Johnston will confirm it.

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– I believe he will. One effect of the stabilization scheme in the United States of America is that the American wheat-growers are increasing the area under wheat, the uniformly high price offering being the attraction ; but, as Senator McLachlan stated yesterday, the Federal Farm Board is now appealing to American farmers to restrict the area under cultivation for wheat. Thus we see the well-known economic laws of supply and demand operating, and I feel convinced that, if this Government enters into the business, Ministers will gain some valuable experience during the next year or two. I hope that before any definite action is taken’ very careful consideration will be given to this matter by the Government, and that full details of administration, finance and organization will be given to the wheat-growers before they are asked to vote on the proposed scheme.

Canada furnishes many examples that might well be followed in the Commonwealth. The Government of that country has been concentrating, with gratifying results, on the development of its natural resources. By this I mean not only the products of the soil, such as wool and wheat, but also metals. Since 1922 the indebtedness of the Dominion has been reduced by £69,000,000. In the eleven months of the present financial year, up to the end. of February, there was a reduction of £27,000,000. Satisfactory results also are reported in connexion with the Dominion’s migration policy. In 1927 Canada absorbed 152.000 migrants, and in 1928, 168,000, whilst for the eight months of the present financial year, up to November last, the number was 137,000. Contrast this result with Australia’s position. Our gain by migration last year was only 8,900.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Do the Canadian figures quoted by the honorable senator represent the not gain in migration?

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– They were given to me by the Canadian office as the net gains. Australia, unfortunately, has not awakened to the importance of developing her natural resources. We have been concentrating on assistance to our secondary industries, which, as experience has shown, cannot guarantee a continuity of employment in certain circumstances. This is one reason why we are in our present unsatisfactory position.

The Government would be well advised to encourage the movement to develop Empire resources. Recently in Great Britain, statesmen, taking the long view of Empire problems, have been endeavouring to awaken public opinion on this important subject, the underlying purpose being to negotiate with all parts of the Empire for the protection of its industries and products. The extent to which Australian production is absorbed by the British market indicates that, whilst our opportunities are almost unlimited, up to the present we have only touched the fringe of that market. Our exports in primary products to Great Britain last year totalled in value only £54,000,000. This may appear to be a large sum, but when we realize that the value of Great Britain’s imports of foodstuffs and other products of the soil total £435,000,000 a year, honorable senators will see that, so far, we are only sampling the British market. In 1927-28, Great Britain’s imports of frozen lamb and mutton totalled £19,350,462. Of that amount Australia provided only £1,S20,259, whereas New Zealand’s share was £10,660,534. “Whether this was due to greater organizing ability in New Zealand or to the fact that in the Commonwealth we have not developed the initiative of private enterprise to the same extent, I am unable to say ; the fact that strikes one is that New Zealand’s exports of frozen mutton and lamb last year were eight times greater than. ours. Australia is supposed to be a butter-producing country, and yet its export, trade to Britain last year was valued at only £6,S62,490, whereas New Zealand’s exports totalled £10,274,286 and Great Britain’s imports amounted to £52,113,194. In 1928 Great Britain imported eggs to the value of £17,766,531, Australia’s contribution being only £233,589. In the same year, although Great Britain imported from foreign countries currants worth £2,573,935, the value of the currants imported from British countries, including Australia, was only £35,149. Of Great Britain’s importation of raisins for 1928, valued at £2,943,552, the value imported from foreign countries was £2,006,022. Only £937,530 worth was imported from British countries, and Australia’s share of this was £827,945. On a recent visit to Kyabram, in Victoria, I noticed hundreds of tons of apricots lying on the ground, and I was told that the canners would not take them, because they could not find a market for them. In 192S Great Britain imported fruit, preserved in sugar, and jam to the value of £5,397,908. The importation from foreign countries was valued at £4,945,062, and that from British countries, including Australia, only £452,906. Surely these figures emphasize the need for action on the part of our Government in the direction of approaching the British Government with a view to Australian produce getting a better footing in the British market. I understand, of course, that the members of the present British Government are not favorably disposed towards such a proposition, but a strong feeling for reciprocity with the Dominions is growing up in England and the Mother Country is now closer to it than it has ever been. If the Commonwealth Government would give some indication to the leading men ‘in Britain, who are working to bring about that end, I am sure it would encourage the movement to an extent more than we perhaps can appreciate.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– It cannot be a one-sided arrangement.

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– No, it must be a matter of reciprocity.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The trouble is that up to the present the preference has been all on our side.

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– I cannot agree with that. We have a high tariff wall, almost prohibitive, but if we extend preference of 10 or 15 per cent, to Great Britain it might possibly be regarded as indicating the opposite to what the honorable senator maintains.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– How many items in our tariff are free to Great Britain?

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– Perhaps the honorable senator, who is an authority on customs matters, can supply the information.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– There are 105.

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– It would be possible for the present Government to extend a preference to Great Britain in respect to £54,000,000 worth of trade that is now going to foreign countries. It would not interfere with the Government’s policy of developing Australian industry, and yet would open the door for the sale of more of our great primary products in Great Britain. This is one of the biggest issues facing Australia, and is deserving of careful thought by all parties.

Beef is one of the great industries of Australia, yet 90 per cent, of the beef that enters the United Kingdom is imported from the Argentine.

Senator Daly:

– Is the honorable senator aware of the reason for that?

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– It is because of the facilities of transport enjoyed by Argentine, and because of the fact that Argentine beef is chilled while Australian is frozen

Senator Daly:

– Argentine sells meat, but Australia sells muscle. We put fat on the beast and then proceed to walk it off again.

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– It is apparent that the Leader of the Government in the Senate needs a little further information on the subject, and in order to supply it I shall quote the remarks of Lord Beaverbrook in the House of Lords on the 19th November last. Speaking of the beef situation, he said: -

I come to thu next commodity used by the people, namely, beef. Would there be any increase in the price of beef? Ninety per cent, of the beef imported into this country comes from the Argentine. Now the Uruguay Government is coming into the market, getting rather jealous of the Argentine.

Why should we take this foreign meat at all? The reason we arc taking Argentine meat is because the lines of communication facilities for unloading and loading have been established - the ships and storage plants and abattoirs.

Five firms control this trade, and they have understandings. They fix the price at which they will buy Argentine beef. One firm has 5,000 butchers’ shops in this country.

These people can develop the same market in beef if they turn to Australia. But they said it was no use going to Australia, because you could not chill beef if you brought it all the way from there - the journey was too long. 1 don’t agree with that. I don’t think beef brought from the Argentine is chilled. It is partly frozen, for the temperature falls as low as 29i degrees Fahrenheit part of the time.

I had a letter from the Official Secretary of the Commonwealth, which stated that a cargo of beef was brought from Australia in 2!) days. The average time for loading and unloading was four days, making in all a journey of 3i! days. The meat can be brought in a chilled condition from Australia in the same period of time as from Argentine. We have only to persuade these firms by fiscal or by economic conditions to turn their attention to the Australian market.

I think that speech should give us food for thought.

Senator McLachlan:

– Has any one ever heard of chilled beef going from Australia to the United Kingdom in any quantities ?

Senator Sir George PEARCE:

– Yes.

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– That point was not overlooked in the discussion in the House of Lords. Lord Beaverbrook went on to say: -

Naturally, there is not going to be any improvement of the quality of Australian meat until she can find a market.

There are people on the other side of the world to-day who are trying to find that market for us, and I appeal to the present Government to give the matter very careful thought. We are apt to forget that Ave are dependent upon Great Britain in time of trouble, and it is due to us to pay some heed to the possibility of doing something of advantage not only to ourselves but also to the Mother Country. Let us look out as well as in. The prosperity of England is just as essential to us as the prosperity of our own country. Sir Robert Greig, Chairman of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, speaking recently, said -

The conception of an organized agriculture based upon science should, I think, be part of the mental equipment of every statesman and administrator.

If the vision is keen enough, the conception’ wide enough, the energy enduring, and thecourage unfailing, is it not possible that thegroup of free nations which constitute the British Empire may demonstrate the means and lead the way to that wider world government to. which every generous and contemplative mind would look?

I hope that the Commonwealth Government is serious in its appeal for the help and co-operation of honorable senators in opposition. I am quite certain that that help and co-operation will be available, but deeds must indicate that the Government’s request is not made with the tongue in the cheek. I conclude by appealing to all to look out and not in, and remember always that Australia is part of the British Empire.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I join with other honorable senators who have spoken in saying wholeheartedly that I shall gladly do whatever I can do to assist the Government in the difficult time through which it is passing. The Government is meeting a series of difficulties which every fair-minded person must recognize have not been of its own making, and is therefore entitled to the sympathetic help of every fair-minded man and woman in the community. What criticism I have to offer will be, as far as practicable, of a constructive kind, and where I cannot offer any better solution than the Government proposes, I intend to hold my peace. If Ave cannot suggest something better than is proposed, Ave should let Ministers have an opportunity to see whether the remedy they suggest is right or not. I do not say that if the suggested remedy appears gravely dangerous we should hesitate to point it out, but it seems to me that where the Government proposes to tackle the difficulties that confront it, and Ave cannot suggest better remedies, Ave should hold our peace and

Jet it proceed with its task, with all the assistance it is in our power to give. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that Australia is facing very grave difficulties. Quite a number of circumstances, acting and reacting upon one another, have conduced to the peculiar situation in which we find ourselves. I am. satisfied that there is no rapid or easy way out of the danger with which we are confronted, and that we shall have to adopt a very conservative policy in meeting our troubles.

Before I pass on to comment on other subjects, I should like to briefly refer to the speech just delivered by Senator B. D. Elliott, and to congratulate him upon the manner in which he presented certain facts from his viewpoint. I deprecate, however, the tendency which has grown up on this side of the chamber, in debating the fiscal policy which Australia has followed for a number of years, to oppose the building up of our secondary industries and the suggestion that in endeavouring to establish them on a firm basis we are doing something detrimental to Britain or to the British Empire. Some have said that we cannot reasonably look for reciprocal treatment from Great Britain owing to the fact that we have, to some extent, closed our doors to certain British manufactures. I do not agree with that view at all. It is entirely lop-sided. If the whole situation is closely examined, it will be found that it is the reverse of what it is frequently stated to be.

I do not propose at this juncture to enter into a general discussion on Australia’s fiscal policy, or to suggest that it is not possible to go too far in fostering industries that are receiving protection, but I do urge that from the viewpoint of the best interests of the British Empire, it is very essential that Australia should be in a position to defend- itself . I stress this point, which I have mentioned before, that the question of Australia’s defence will never arise unless our sea communications are interrupted or destroyed, when Australia would, of course, be thrown upon its own resources. If that should happen we ought to be in a position to equip and maintain our forces in the field, but if we cannot we shall be the weakest link in the Empire chain. In such circumstances it. is absolutely essential that Australia should be able to put its own blast furnaces, weaving mills, and manufacturing concerns generally into immediate operation to maintain our armies in the field. The quicker that is done the more readily will we be able to forge a new link in the Empire chain, which is so essential for the maintenance of the Empire to which Ave belong. That, in my judgment, apart from all other considerations, is a complete justification of the fiscal policy of Australia.

Considering the subject from another viewpoint, we should see what Australiahas done during a long period of years in the way of fiscal preferences to the British Empire. If Ave dispense with generalities and get down to detail Ave can see that our tariff, in comparison with other Empire tariffs, is a most striking example of generous preference towards Great Britain. We have gone further than any other dominion in granting preferences to the Motherland, and in a way which I venture to say is imposing a very heavy burden upon the taxpayers of this country. This policy has been pursued because of the sentiment which exists between Australia and the Motherland, and because Ave believe it is in the best interests of the Empire. But in doing so, Ave have imposed upon our people a very considerable burden. In the last Pratten tariff there are 105 items and sub-items on which preference is given to Great Britain. In that number there are only two where the preference is as low as 5 per cent. There are about twenty where it is from 10 per cent, to 12^ per cent., others are about 15 per cent., and the remainder are as high as 25 per cent. In those 105 items and sub-items there are quite a number of revenue duties imposed on such commodities as silks, and carpets, but there is a A’ery high preference in favour .of Britain as against other countries. The British manufacturers are taking the fullest possible advantage of those preferences. Where they have a preference of 15 per cent, or 25 per cent, they do not reduce their prices to Australian consumers to the extent which they could in order to enable them to more satisfactorily compete with foreign maufacturers. They are taking full advantage of the preferences given.

There is no sentiment in business, and I suppose they contend that they are entitled to get all they can. The preferences we are giving Great Britain in that way cover a much wider scope than many honorable senators imagine and are costing our people an immense sum of money. The foundation of Empire preferential trade was laid down by that great Australian statesman, the late Mr. Alfred Deakin, at the Imperial Conference, held in London in 1908, and if we. study its development since that time it will be found that it was always intended that such trade should be on a reciprocal basis. It was never contemplated by those who formulated the policy of Empire preferential trade that the Dominions were to give preferences to Britain, and receive nothing in return. As Great Britain has adhered to a freetrade policy, it has been extremely difficult’ for any material amount of preferences to be granted to the British Dominions or Colonies. In fact, Britain has never operated on a reciprocal basis unless it has been in connexion with such commodities as sugar and wine. Despite the long-standing invitation of Australia and the other Dominions to Britain to extend her preferential treatment and strengthen the foundations of Empire trade by reciprocal preferences we have had very little response from the Motherland. While we are continuing to develop our own protective policy in accordance with our fiscal faith, and to establish our own industries, Britain is refusing to extend preference to Dominion products.

I do not wish to comment further upon this subject than to express the hope that Senator R. D. Elliott, and those who agree with him, will study this subject from the viewpoint which I have endeavoured to place before the Senate. Instead of trying to make it appear that we should pull down our tariff wall, or give greater preferences to Britain, those honorable senators should rest their case on the tremendous preferences embodied in our tariff and realize that although the hand of friendship has always been extended to the Motherland the response we have received in this respect has been very meagre. I trust the time is approaching when the response will be greater than it has been.

Senator McLachlan:

– Present indications are rather against preferences.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I am not sure that they are. A movement has recently been started in Britain which I am inclined to think will sooner or later have its repercussions. Though I do not agree with the extreme view of the movement in relation to Empire freetrade - a dream impossible of accomplishment - and do not think that it is in the best interests of the Empire, I am not without hope that it will lead to the development of reciprocal trade within the Empire, which will be of immense advantage to every part of it.

Senator R. D. Elliott spoke of the small quantities of certain lines of produce - particularly beef and butter - which Australia sends to Britain compared with the quantity sent from other countries. He quoted certain statistics which he compared with the figures for the Argentine. Here we are confronted with a practical difficulty which, although not incapable of at least partial, solution, is one from which we shall never be able to escape entirely owing to our peculiar climatic conditions. One year Australia may have a good season, and the next year practically a famine. One of the greatest difficulties with which we have to contend in the world’s market for certain classes of products is our lack of continuity of supplies. That is particularly noticeable in the meat trade. The climatic conditions of New Zealand are such that that country has been able to build up a fat lamb trade and maintain it year after year. Australia cannot maintain continuity of supplies to anything like the same extent, and, therefore, our fat lamb trade is not equal to that of New Zealand. The same thing is true of butter and some classes of fruits. Last year, for instance, we had hardly any apples to export, whereas the indications are that this year there will be an enormous exportable surplus.

I am afraid that we shall always have these difficulties with us to some extent, but that does not entitle us to sit back and do nothing. In our dairy industry, for example, there is considerable room for improved methods. These difficulties cannot be overcome in twelve months, or, perhaps, even in ten years. Improvement must come gradually; we must build stone upon stone, and, by a gradual process, improve the value of our dairy herds. We can then go in for more scientific feeding, and in time obtain greater continuity of Supplies. These things ave capable of accomplishment; but it will take us many years to attain to the standard of some other countries. One matter which should be dealt with without delay by the States - the Commonwealth has not the constitutional power to do it - is the passing of legislation to provide that, after a certain certified time, only purebred registered sires shall be used’ in the dairy herds of Australia.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– We have that already.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Not throughout Australia. Only the other day I was looking at some dairy herds in one of our good dairying districts, and I saw three scrub bulls in four herds. This is a matter which ca.n be remedied; but the process of building up good herds will be slow, for even where the bulls are of pure breed, there is no guarantee that the progeny will also be pure. I have seen two full sisters of as pure breed as it is possible to obtain, one of which was a ringer and the other a duffer. Only by careful culling and herd-testing over a long period shall we be able to build, up our dairy herds to the standard of those pf Denmark. But it can be done;, and when that standard has been reached, our production will increase. All these things, however, take time.

In the matter of improved methods of tilling the soil we have done a good deal in Australia, with the result that our wheat ‘ yield has improved considerably. There is, however, further work yet to be done. It is practically certain that, granted the same average seasonal conditions, the sowing of an additional 1,000,000 acres of wheat land would produce an additional 10,000,000 bushels of wheat.

It cannot be denied that Australia is facing very grave difficulties, due to the general financial depression throughout the world, and accentuated by the fall in the value of our chief exportable commodities, wool, and wheat, as well as by the general slump in gilt-edged securities all over the world. While that slump is not peculiar to Australia, it is true that the slump in Australian securities is greater than that in those of other countries. What are the reasons for that state of affairs, and what remedies can we apply? The chief reason is that, for a number of years; we have borrowed too much money abroad. Investors have become somewhat suspicious of our ability to pay interest on the amounts borrowed.

Senator DALY:
ALP

– They are afraid that we might build another Canberra!

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– There is a general lack of understanding among investors as to the extent to which governments in Australia are responsible for undertakings which in other countries are conducted by private enterprise. As a necessary corollary, our percentage of public borrowing is higher than that of’ most other countries.

I have previously questioned the wisdom of making the Commonwealth the sole borrower in the foreign money market. Honorable senators who recall the passage, through this chamber of the legislation authorizing the setting up of a Loan Council will remember that 1 then expressed very grave doubts whether it was wise, to concentrate the whole of Australia’s loan activities in the hands of one borrowing authority. I pointed out that, in my opinion, it would be wise to grant facilities for the several States to go on the London market from time to time. I do not propose now to give a long and detailed explanation of my reasons for thinking that it would be better to. revert to the old arrangement by. which the States, and the Commonwealth borrowed in the London market in their own names and accepted the responsibility for their own securities.

Senator Thompson:

– That system gave rise to unlimited competition.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– There was never any competition.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I agree with the fundamental principle underlying the establishment of a Loan Council-. While it is wise to have a central authority to review the whole loan position of AUS: tralia from year to year, and to exercise a moral control over the amounts borrowed, as well as a general supervision of the prospectuses issued in respect of loans, we shall have to revert to the old custom of allowing each State to be responsible for its own securities if Australia is to regain her former position on the London money market.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I do not wish to add anything material to the point that I was discussing beyond saying that, whilst I do not contend that the concentration of Australian borrowing under one authority has been the sole cause of the depression of our stocks abroad, I believe that it has been a contributory cause. I think that it is highly desirable that the Treasurer of the Commonwealth and his colleagues on the Loan Council should again explore the position and, in the light of the experience that we have already obtained, see whether it is not desirable to revert, to a large extent, to the old system under which we raised our loans. That would assist to establish the value of our securities abroad, and I commend it as a practical suggestion to the Government to help it in the very difficult situation in which it now finds itself. I need hardly point out that a material improvement in the value of our securities abroad would at once relieve the acute exchange position that exists between Australia and the London markets.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Is it not a fact that the value of purely State stocks have also fallen?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Of course. They must fall in sympathy. However, I do not wish to be led into a long explanation of the reasons which have induced me to form the opinion that I have expressed.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– The concentration under one borrowing head forces the raising of large instead of small loans.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That also contributes to the trouble. Every one knows that all dominion stocks in Great Britain are trust securities, and that trust moneys become available for investment from time to time. If a considerable number of loans is spread over a long period investors are more likely to select for investment stocks which the trustees will not leave idle for a lengthy term. That is one factor that obtrudes itself. Another is that there are certain rules among some of the very big investing authorities at Home which prevent the investment of more than a certain proportion of their funds in any one issue. I do not think that, the position was fully realized at the time that the Government formed the Loan Council, although I believe that certain advice was tendered to it which it was not thought desirable to accept.

SenatorFoll. - What about the matter of competition?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I do not wish to be drawn into a lengthy discussion on the subject this afternoon. I merely suggest that the Treasurer and his colleagues on the Loan Council should again explore the subject matter. I do not claim that that would clear away all our difficulties, but it would materially assist the Government in the existing embarrassing position.

A word or two about the general financial position in Australia. I deprecate some of the statements that are being broadcast. They are of far too pessimistic a character. I do not desire to minimize the seriousness of the position, but, at the same time, we should look on the bright side as well as the dark side. We should be very guarded in any statement we make in this chamber or outside which is capable of being twisted to the detriment of Australia. I suggest, for the consideration of honorable senators on both sides, that, even at the risk of losing some slight political advantage at the moment, they should refrain, so far as is humanly possible, from doing anything which will contribute to the difficulties of the hour. I believe that, fundamentally, Australia is perfectly sound financially. I do not deny that, during theunexampled prosperity that we enjoyed from 1923 to 1928, there was a considerable amount of inflation going on, particularly in regard to land values, both city and country, and there is no question that there has got to be a certain amount of economic readjustment. But I join issue with those people who say that the conditions now existing in Australia are similar to those of 1S92. Then our banking issue was unsound. To-day, from one end of the country to the other, it is absolutely sound. When this period of depression passes - as it will inevitably pass, and I hope before very long - it will be found that all that wc have lost is the froth; that Australia will proceed on its path of prosperity on a sounder and saner foundation than ever before. I am confident that Ave shall then recover quickly, as we have in the past.

If I may be permitted to sound a note of warning, it is to emphasize such things as the coal strike, which is really not a strike. It originated in a lock-out. Every day headlines appear in the press about the coal dispute. I do not for a moment deny that it is serious. It is very serious from the country’s point of view. At the same time one must remember that, to all intents and purposes, Australia is still producing every ton of coal that it needs.

Senator Lynch:

– The Western Australian railways are using imported coal.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I repeat, Australia is producing practically what coal it requires. The only real trouble that exists is that the quality of the coal is not suitable for certain purposes, particularly for gas-making. An examination of the position reveals the fact that when the Northern coal-mines of New South Wales resume operations, ti large number of men who previously worked in them must inevitably remain cut of employment. That will be one of the results of the present dispute. But there are other features of the industrial position of Australia where one can see the bright side. Little publicity is given to that aspect. I remind honorable senators of what occurred recently in the pastoral industry of Queensland. There, the Arbitration Court decreed that there should be a 12£ per cent, reduction in the wages paid to employees in the industry, and that great union, the Australian Workers Union, advised its members to obey the award. They did so. Is that not far better, from the national po°int of VieW, than to have a lockout in an industry and a long protracted struggle of twelve months or more, which will leave an indelible mark on the progress and prosperity of Australia?

Senator Reid:

– Although the executive of the union accepted that award, the members objected to it.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I venture to say that, if the Government, in its wisdom, resolved that honorable senators should suffer a reduction of 12-) per cent, in their salaries they, too, would object, but I believe that they would submit to the decision of the Government in the matter. I congratulate that great union, of which Senator Barnes is president. Hardly a word Was written in the press about that event, but prominence is given to all news which detrimentally affects Australia.

There are many factors in the Australian situation at the moment which are anything but causes for pessimism. Rather are they matters for congratulation. The condition of the beef industry is one. I have not the slightest doubt that Australia will emerge from the difficult position through which it is now passing, more prosperous, and stronger than ever. In the meantime, every member of this House should refrain as far as possible from saying or doing anythink that will aggravate the prevailing difficulties. Instead, let each do his best to help Australia to regain its former prosperity, and to be once more on the pathway of progress from which it has recently strayed somewhat.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– The honorable senator who has just resumed his seat (Senator Greene) was very complimentary in his references to the ministerial statement, and I can assure him that supporters of the Government highly appreciate his remarks, for Ave remember that he is an acknowledged counsellor, not only in the political arena, but also in the realm of finance. On all aspects of politics and finance the honorable senator’s opinion carries weight, and is treated with the respect it deserves. His utterances were in marked contrast to those of other honorable senators opposite, who took advantage of the opportunity to make an attack upon the Government in respect of its policy and administration. It is, therefore, gratifying to us to receive encouragement from an honorable gentleman, who is regarded as one of the outstanding personalities of the Australian party.

Senator Lynch:

– It is very nice for the honorable senator to say that.

Senator DUNN:

– And it is true, as the honorable senator will realize, when the Government appeals to the people of Australia. The Australian party will assist and cause his party a great deal of inconvenience. Indeed its influence may be felt in the later months of this year when the appeal is made to the people by way of a referendum for an alteration of the Constitution. Senator Lynch and other honorable senators from Western Australia will be forced to admit that the time is rapidly approaching when a considerable number of State instrumentalities will have to be surrendered to the Commonwealth. I feel sure that the Government’s proposals for an alteration of the Constitution will be loyally supported by the Australian party and accepted in the same manner that the people adopted the policy speech of the Prime Minister a few months ago.

At this stage I ask your indulgence, Mr. President, whilst I refer briefly to an outstanding event in the life of my friend and colleague, SenatorRae, who sits on ray right. The honorable senator is well known to all the pioneers in the Labour movement, to Senator Sir George Pearce, to Senator Lynch and the older members of this chamber. My friend and colleague to-day is celebrating the 70th anniversary of his birth. I mention this, because I am sure all honorable senators will, for the moment, forget party politics and join in wishing well to one who, as a pioneer in Labour’s political doctrines, has always been prepared to take and give hard knocks without squealing.

Senator Sampson:

– Does the honorable senator desire us to wish him many happy returns of the day.

Senator DUNN:

– Yes, and I feel sure that all honorable senators will do that.

The ministerial statement of policy has been placed in the hands of every individual member of this chamber, and of another place. In the preparation of that document the right honorable the Prime Minister sought the cooperation, not only of his colleagues in the Ministry, but also his supporters in the Labour party. In presenting it to this Parliament he has appealed to all parties in both Blouses in the confident hope that they will loyally co-operate with the Government during this critical period in the history of Australia. I do not deny the right at all times of the Leader of the Opposition to say what is in his mind concerning the Government’s policy. So far as I am concerned he may say what he pleases, but if in the heat of debate he or any other honorable senator gives utterance to statements to which I object, I shall hit back, with, I hope, equal force. The Leader of the Opposition at the outset of his speech intimated that honorable senators opposite were willing and anxious to co-operate with the Government; but he went on to say that their co-operation could only be expected in respect of a real policy, and added that the Labour party had not responded to a similar appeal by the Bruce-Page Government for cooperation. The Bruce-Page Government is dead. It was annihilated at the last election. Dr. Earle Page, the Leader of the Country party in another place, is the living political head of a section of that Government, but the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) is, I believe, touring Europe. I understand he is carrying his swag through Southern Spain, and along the shores of the Mediterranean. I hope that he is having a good time. I believe the right honorable gentleman had an audience with His Majesty the King a few days ago. I have no objection to that, but I suggest that quite a lot might have been said, of which we know nothing, concerning the policy of the Australian Labour Government. The important fact to remember is that the Bruce-Page Government became extinct on the 12th October last. The then Prime Minister as well as the Leader of the Country party, and the Leader of the Labour party, now the Prime Minister of Australia, submitted their respective policies to the people, and the electors declared emphatically that the Bruce-Page Government had not correctly interpreted the ideals of Australia as a nation. As a result, the Leader of the Labour party now enjoys the confidence of the people as the head of a Government with a clear majority of seventeen, the largest that has ever been given to any administration in the history of the Commonwealth.

We were told on the eve of the Christmas vacation that the administration of this Government would be tested at the by-election for the Franklin division in Tasmania. Senator Sir George Pearce went across to Tasmania on a short electioneering tour, and a fortnight before Parliament adjourned Senator Ogden left Canberra boasting that he was about to tell the electors of Franklin of the sins of omission of the present Government. Neither the Prime Minister nor any Minister went to Tasmania. The whole of the organization of the Labour campaign was left in the hands of Mr. Guy and Mr. Culley, members for Bass and Denison respectively. The election, which resulted in the return of Mr. Frost, the Labour candidate, by a majority of 900, was a unique victory for Labour, inasmuch as Franklin had never previously been represented by Labour in the Commonwealth Parliament. It clearly demonstrated that five months after the present Government had assumed office the people had faith in its administration. Senator Pearce has declared that Labour destroyed the Bruce-Page Government by misrepresentation. The last election followed a campaign of three weeks and was won by a party which derives its political funds from the working classes.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The picture interests found the funds for the Labour party.

Senator DUNN:

– I do not think that in a court of law Senator Pearce would swear that the Labour organizations in Australia received money from the picture industry.

Senator Sir George PEARCE:

– Labour did most of its advertising on the screen.

Senator DUNN:

– It showed its judgment in doing so.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I point out to both parties to this little dispute that it- is outside the somewhat wide bounds of the ministerial statement.

Senator DUNN:

– But I am quoting the words used by Senator Pearce.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have already given the honorable senator quite a lot of latitude - even more time than given the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition in dealing with the matter.

Senator DUNN:

– If that is so, Mr. President, I thank you very much. I shall endeavour at all times to deserve your consideration, and I trust that you will continue to occupy your distinguished position for the next two years.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Is there no promise beyond that time ?

Senator DUNN:

– In another two years we shall go to the country and I feel that after the next election, when I shake hands with Senator Pearce, it will be at the back of the chamber. If the right honorable gentleman assists the Government as he says he is prepared to do, he will go up 100 per cent, in my estimation, but until I see some evidence of his assistance, I shall continue to doubt the honesty of his declaration. He says that the farmers are dubious about the sincerity of the Prime Minister’s appeal to them to grow more wheat, but I remind him that from 1916 to 1920, he was one of the outstanding champions of the federal wheat pool, established by the Hughes Government, of which he was a member.

Senator Sir George PEARCE:

– Those wheat pools were war measures.

Senator DUNN:

– In 1920 and 1921, well after the war, Mr. W. F. Dunn, Minister for Agriculture in the Storey Government, the first Labour government in New South Wales after the war, had various conferences with Senator Pearce in connexion with the guarantee given by the Hughes Government to the farmers, of 5s. a bushel for their wheat, which amount was subsequently to be supplemented by 2s. 6d. a bushel. At that time Senator Pearce supported wheat pools, yet because the Scullin Government thinks the farmers of Australia would be better off under a federal wheat pool, which would protect them in regard to the marketing of their crops, the right honorable senator would have us believe that Mr. Scullin is bringing off something in the nature .of a confidence trick which will injure the farmers.

All the evidence goes to show that Labour has consistently been in favour of compulsory wheat pools. In fact, it has led the way in this respect. In 1915, Western Australia passed a Grain and Foodstuff Act giving a board power to purchase or requisition any grain at a price to be determined. That bill was introduced by the Hon. W. J. Johnson, Lands Minister in the Scaddan Labour Government. In 1915 South Australia passed a Wheat Harvest Act, enabling owners voluntarily to hand over their wheat to the Government for sale. Power was also given to. the Crown to acquire any wheat which was then to be sold as if it had been acquired voluntarily. That measure was introduced by Mr. Jackson, a member of the Vaughan Labour Ministry. Thus Labour in Western Australia and South Australia definitely supported the compulsory pooling of wheat. The Wheat Acquisition Act 1914, of New South Wales, empowered the Government to declare any wheat as having been acquired by the Crown at the fixed price of 5s. a bushel. That measure was introduced by Mr. D. B. Hall, a Minister in a Labour government.

Then came the Commonwealth pooling system. On its demise in 1921 the New South Wales Government submitted a measure for a compulsory pool. It was introduced by Mr. Dunn, a member of the first Dooley Ministry, but was rejected by the Legislative Council. Then followed’ the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1927, also introduced by Mr. Dunn, the object of which was the cornpulsory poo.ling of wheat and other commodities. New South Wales Labour has thus been steadily in favour of the compulsory pooling of wheat.

Senator Reid:

– But the honorable senator knows of the corruption which took place under the New South Wales, wheat pools.

Senator DUNN:

– That corruption, if there was any, took place under the regime of Nationalist governments led by Mr. W. A. Holman and Sir George Puller.

Senator Reid:

– I did not attribute it to Labour; I attributed it to the pools.

Senator DUNN:

– At any rate, it cannot be tacked on to Labour. The Victorian Wheat Marketing Act 1915, which prohibited all sales of wheat except to the Minister or his agents, was introduced by the Peacock Nationalist Ministry and supported by Labour. This was, however, about the time- when-, owing to the war crisis, an arrangement was being made between the Commonwealth and the States; and I doubt if it has much significance. In 1915 the Commonwealth superseded all State arrangements by a co-ordinated plan set up by agreement between the Commonwealth and the chief wheat-producing States for the collective harvests of 1915-16 and subsequent harvests. This was introduced by Mr. W. M. Hughes leading a Nationalist Government, of which Senator Pearce was a prominent member. Yet when Mr. Scullin appeals to the farmers to grow more wheat, and form a pool, we are asked to assume that there is some thimble-and-pea trick about the proposal. Whatever maladministration there was in connexion with the wheat pools of New South Wales, occurred during the regime of Nationalist governments in that State. Although it has been said by some honorable senators that there is a danger in guaranteeing a certain price for wheat because of a possible decrease in the demand, we should remember that conditions during recent years have altered. Prior to the Russian revolution the people of that country subsisted principally on rye bread; but to-day they are consuming white bread made from wheaten flour, and probably in quantities almost equal to Australia’s production. The Japanese, who in the past have lived very largely upon a bread manufactured from meal flour made from the soya bean, are now consuming large quantities of wheaten bread. Similar Conditions exist, but perhaps to a lesser degree, in China. Notwithstanding the developments which have taken place in this direction during recent years, we have been told by some honorable senators that the wheat-farmers are engaged -in an industry which cannot pay. One would think from, the remarks of some honorable senators opposite that the proposal of the present Government was something in the nature of a confidence trick.

It is interesting to read what Senator Lynch, who is strongly opposed to a compulsory wheat pool, said on- 5th December, 1918. He stated -

The Government, in my opinion, should occupy a paternal position in relation, to this industry - if they desire the country over whose destinies they are presiding to keep pace with other countries of the world - where special care is taken to extend a helping hand even’ to the point of lavishness to all industries that can establish any claim for public assistance.

Notwithstanding the honorable senator’s comprehensive comments concerning assistance to all industries, he had a good deal to say yesterday concerning the bounty authorized by Parliament to be paid to a firm manufacturing corrugated iron in Newcastle. He scoffed at the idea of a bounty being paid to such a firm as Lysaght’s, because, I suppose, he believed that such products as that firm manufactures should be imported from cheap labour countries such as Germany, or from manufacturers employing sweated labour in Great Britain. He is strongly opposed to the Commonwealth Government endeavouring to assist an Australian industry employing about 1,500 Australian workmen. The honorable senator also painted a very gloomy picture of the conditions under which the wheat-farmers of Australia are toiling. I admit that the successful production of wheat in Australia is not child’s play, but involves a good deal of hard work. I have been employed in the wheat industry; I can handle a binder, and, I believe, am still capable of tossing a sheaf with the next man. Senator Lynch further stated -

Wheat-raising is a white man’s industry, I am glad to say, and when we remember the overwhelming proportion of people depending on this industry, directly and indirectly, it is quite plain that it is of no small importance to Australia. It has been calculated that every person engaged in a basic industry such as wheat-growing can reasonably carry five other persons on his back.

What has the honorable seuator to say to that?

Senator Lynch:

– What is wrong with it?

Senator DUNN:

– Yesterday the honorable senator was condemning a principle which he once supported. He went on to say on this occasion -

The truth of this is demonstrated by the Mild ura settlement. There you will find in an isolated community a comparatively small number of persons directly employed in fruitgrowing, but a large proportion supported by the industry in other walks of life, both in the town and elsewhere, handling the products of the Mildura settlement. It will be seen, therefore, that the claim that every person engaged in this basic industry of wheat growing, supports five others has some semblance of truth and soundness about it. It is, as I have already stated, a white man’s industry, but so far no attempt has been made by the Government to assist it to the extent of a brass farthing, either by means of a bounty or through the Customs House.

Yesterday, he condemned a compulsory wheat pool, but on 28th August, 1919, he moved the following motion -

That as the safety and advancement of the Commonwealth demand the adoption of a spirited public policy that will aim at utilizing to the utmost its great advantages of climate, soil and ample territory; and as the present baneful tendency of the time is to encourage and aggrandize urban life and urban activities at the expense of and injury to rural prosperity; and as a consequence the tide of populationhas steadily set towards the city to the abandonment of the countryside, and as the wheat industry, which stands out immeasurably over all industries, rural or urban, in providing homes and employmeat for the greatest number of people, shows signs of arrested development, if not actual decline; therefore theSenate is of the opinion that -

Neither the vital needs of the nation nor the highest principles of social or industrial equality require that -

That parent industry should be any longer sweated for the benefit of other industries without countervailing advantage, nor

a vast number of people cmployed in it should be condemned to a joyless existence of excessive hardships and illrewarded toil, nor

the industry itself should be called upon to contribute an undue share to the upkeep of the nation:

Wherefore in respect to these considerations the Senate is further of the opinion that -

to insure a living wage for the wheat cultivators of the Commonwealth : and

to successfully reclaim the immense areas of light and semiarid soils for which the wheat industry offers the only hope for their profitable utilization ; and

to cause a permanent and prosperous peasantry to be rooted in the soil.

The Commonwealth Government should guarantee a fixed minimum of 5s. per bushel at ports of shipment on the exportable surplus for the next five years, with a corresponding value for the quantity required for home consumption; and

Should the London parity be above or below such guaranteed minimum the National Treasury to be debitedor credited to the extent of the difference in each year.

He adopted that attitude when he was a supporter of a Government from which he had anticipation of receiving perhaps a Ministerial portfolio. Ilansard contains reports of many speeches delivered by Senator Lynch from time to time concerning the advantages of a pooling system. I refer those honorable senators who are interested in this subject to Senator Lynch’s comments as reported in Hansard on 18th March, 1920. Notwithstanding the attitude which he has adopted in the past, he now asserts that the proposals of this Government should not have the support of Parliament. The right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) has also condemned the wheat pooling system proposed by the present Government. I remind the right honorable senator that in 1916, and again in 1920, he, as a Minister of the Hughes Government, had to accept a share of the responsibility for the wheat pools then in existence. Moreover I find that on the 10th November, 1915, he stated in this chamber -

The scheme is as follows: -

The Commonwealth and the respective State Governments to control the receiving, financing, shipping, and marketing of the whole of the wheat crop of the wheat exporting States in excess of seed and feed requirements.

The right honorable gentleman also dealt with the methods of control, agents’ duties, advances to farmers, the London Board, and other matters. Now, when the Scullin Government proposes to establish a wheat pool, he roundly condemns the proposal. Whether I am in this chamber six months or six years I shall not allow Senator Lynch or Senator Pearce to escape easily ; if I have to search every record in this building I shall find what they said and bring it up in this chamber. I give Senator Lynch the advice of a modern son to a father, and tell him that he cannot say something fourteen or fifteen years ago and express a contrary opinion to-day without attention being drawn to the discrepancy.

Senators Glasgow and B. D. Elliott had a good deal to say about the meat industry. According to them the Scullin Government is to blame for the present low export of its products. Prom 1909 to 1911 Australia had a healthy export trade in beef and mutton. In 1911 representatives of Swift’s, a Chicago meat company, came to Australia, and established themselves in the meat industry. They made overtures to the North Queensland Meat Preserving Company, Cooks, of the Redbank Meat Works, and other companies on the Burdekin Baver, near Charters Towers, for the purchase of their works. Later, they obtained a footing in the meat works at Rockhampton, where they carried on’ for about two years, after which they went to Brisbane. When they found that none of the Australian meat companies would sell out to them they established at Cannon Hill one of the most modern meat works, in the world at a cost of many hundreds of thousands of pounds. From that centre they were able to compete with the meat works operating in southern Queensland. Later, they again went to the north of Queensland where they bought out the Alligator Creek Meat Preserving Works. They also bought out the meat works at Ross River as well as the Burdekin River Meat Works. Still later, another factory at Bowen was purchased by them, and after that they bought out the Pinkenbal-Meat Works near Brisbane as well as the Redbank Meat Works on the Ipswich line. When they had obtained control of all those meat works they began to dictate terms. There was an immediate slackening off in production because by that time Swift’s interests had extended to the southern States of South America with the result that chilled beef from the Argentine displaced Australian frozen meat in Manchester, London, Bristol, and other British cities. From that time the meat industry in Australia declined. I know something about this matter, for at that time I was engaged in the meat industry, and was as able to cut off the head of a bullock as I am able now to cut off Senator Lynch’s political head.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must not use threats.

Senator Cooper:

– Was not the meat strike at Darwin responsible for the decline of the meat industry?

Senator DUNN:

– Senator Cooper knows that the meat strike at Darwin occurred after the American trust had killed the Queensland meat industry.

Senator Lynch:

– Tell us how the Queensland Labour Government lost £1,250,000 on its State meat works ?

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not think the honorable senator needs any prompting.

Senator DUNN:

– I ask for your protection, Mr. President, from the onslaughts of my one-time friend, Senator Lynch. I feel afraid that he will attempt to do me bodily harm and that I shall have to send out an S.O.S. The various strikes in Queensland had nothing to do with the destruction of the meat industry. There is, however, yet hope for a revival of that industry, because the teeming millions of the East are developing a taste for meat.

Senator Lynch and other honorable senators had a good deal to say about the coal-miners and their earnings of two guineas a day. I have worked in the mines of New Zealand, as well as in those of Australia, and I know something of the conditions under which the miners work. According to the Canberra Times the greatest miner in Australia at present is Colonel White, who, in another place, represents the district of Balaclava. Colonel White is reported to have said-

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must know that it is out of order to quote from a debate in another place in the current session. Have I his assurance that what he proposes to read is not the report of a debate in another place?

Senator DUNN:

– Yes, Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT:

– Then I must accept the honorable senator’s assurance.

Senator DUNN:

– In a newspaper that I read this morning it is reported that a gentleman named White, who, it is alleged, represents a federal constituency, visited the Rothbury coal mine, where he worked as a miner, and that, after about two hours’ experience digging coal, he concluded that the work was not arduous. If the time ever comes when Colonel White is appointed by His Satanic Majesty as the chief coal-hewer in that torrid zone, to which many of us, it is said, will go, and if the inhabitants of that region of fire and brimstone rely on his coal-hewing efforts to supply the furnaces with fuel, those unfortunates will be icebergs within 24 hours. [Extension of time granted.] Various speakers have stated that coal-miners earn £2 2s. a day. I shall explain the position. It is customary for miners to cavel for their places. A man may be fortunate enough to secure a place where it is necessary to take away the supporting pillars, when the mineral in that portion of the mine is easily hewn. Others, as the result of the cavel, may secure extremely difficult sections from which they could not make the basic wage. I do not ask honorable senators to accept the statement of myself. I refer them to the findings of various royal commissions, which disclose that the average coal-miner does not earn the basic wage.

Senator Lynch:

– What perfect nonsense !

Senator DUNN:

– I shall not trouble to reply to an interjection of that nature. I merely ask Senator Lynch to accept the statements of the various statisticians, and of members of royal commissions which have investigated the industry.

Senator Lynch:

– I ask the honorable senator to accept the statement of Mr. Davies, secretary of the Miners Union, who has stated that coal-miners average over £2 a day.

Senator DUNN:

– That is ridiculous. Mr. Davies would not make such an assertion. The Prime Minister has made a very candid statement, and issued an appeal to all sections of the Federal Parliament for assistance to drag Australia out of the existing financial morass. Senator Greene stated that Australia was financially sound. I believe that it is. Certainly, no one has a greater knowledge of finance and banking in this country than the honorable senator. In the circumstances, what I am about to state must appear as extraordinary to honorable senators generally. In the daily press there has appeared an advertisement to miners and other colliery employees, which reads -

Written applications will be received by the undernoted companies or firms at their collieries or Newcastle offices from former employees, miners, and others willing to offer themselves for work.

Rates operating prior to stoppage, less 12½ per cent. from contract rates and 6d. per day from day rates.

The advertisement is signed by these firms -

Messrs. J. and A. Brown

William Laidley and Company Limited

The Scottish Australian Mining Company Limited

TheNewcastle Coal-Mining Company Limited.

Fassifern Coal Company Limited

JamesRuttley, Esq.

The Newcastle Wallsend Coal Company

  1. F. Maddison, Esq.

Andrew Sneddon, Limited

Stockton Borehole Collieries Limited

The Hetton Bellbird Collieries Limited

Pacific Coal Company Limited

Cessnock Collieries Limited

Hebburn Limited

Abermain Seaham Collieries Limited

East Greta Coal-Mining Company Limited

Caledonian Collieries Limited

Broken Hill Proprietary Limited

B.H.P. Collieries Proprietary Limited

It is interesting to note that the Broken Hill Proprietary Limited and Broken Hill Proprietary Collieries Proprietary Limited, are associated with the Broken Hill silver lead mines.I shall quote some of the profits made by that industry, whose auxiliary companies seek to impose this wage reduction upon struggling miners.

The corporation made a mere total net profit of £7,031,055 over a period of 23 years, on a capital never exceeding £300,000. I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 167

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Daly) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Thursday next at 3 p.m.

page 167

ADJOURNMENT

Criticismof Mr. E. G. Theodore. - Compulsory Wheat Pool

Senator DALY:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

.- I move-

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I desire to correct a statement made in this chamber yesterday by Senator Poll, which has already been given considerable publicity. It is a statement which, if left uncorrected, might conceivably create an erroneous impression with regard to the character of the present Federal Treasurer (Mr. Theodore). Honorable senators will realize that the Treasurer of the Commonwealth is called upon at the present time to bear more than his share of personal sacrifice. Consequently, when criticism is levelled at him in. a House in which he has no personal opportunity of replying, it behoves honorable senators of that chamber to be accurate in their statements. Senator Foll stated that the Federal Treasurer, whilst Premier and Treasurer of Queensland, reduced the wages of civil servants of that State without the intervention of the Arbitration Court. That statement is inaccurate. The position is that in March, 1922, the Queensland Court of Conciliation and Arbitration fixed a new basic wage to operate during the then ensuing twelve months. That wage was 5 per cent. lower than that which prevailed for the preceding twelve months. The court announced that the reduction was made because the cost ofliving had been reduced by 13.5 per cent. as compared with the previous year. The Queensland Government, of which Mr. Theodore was then Premier and Treasurer, did not apply for a reduction of wages in the Civil Service, because the money necessary to defray the salary and wages of that service to the end of the financial year had been appropriated by Parliament. At the end of the financial year the matter of the wage for Queenslandcivil servants was considered by the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration and a variation was made.

Senator Foll:

– On the application of the Government.

Senator DALY:

– The honorable senator stated that the Labour Premier of Queensland was the only political leader who had reduced wages without the intervention of a court.

Senator Lynch:

– Would the court have moved without the application of the Premier and Treasurer?

Senator DALY:

– Of course it could have. The Public Service Commissioner in the State makes the necessary application to the court. It is one thing to say that a person has reduced wages without the intervention of a court and quite another thing to say that ho applied to the court for a reduction of wages. When that court reduced the wages of the rank and file, Mr. Theodore introduced legislation into the Queensland Parliament, reducing by 5 per cent. the salaries of the higher paid civil servants, who were not amenable to the court’s jurisdiction. At the same rime he applied a similar reduction, by act of Parliament, to the Ministers and members of the Queensland Parliament.

Senator Foll:

– No; he increased their salaries.

Senator DALY:

– There again Senator Foll makes a pernicious and unwarranted statement. I repeat, a measure was introduced to reduce by 5 per cent. the salaries of the higher paid public servants, and, also, those of Ministers and members of Parliament. It is up to Senator Foll to retract his statement and to admit the facts. I impress upon him and other honorable senators the difficulty of the Federal Treasurer’s task. If he merits criticism, by all means criticize, but, be sure of the facts, and do not at this juncture subject him to unjustifiable and irritating tactics.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- The statement that I made last night is substantially correct. Those who know the political history of Queensland are aware that the reduction of wages was made on an application by the Government to the court. It is also a wellestablished fact that the Labour Government refused to restore that 5 per cent. reduction to the public servants of Queensland. Yet it increased the allowance to members by 50 per cent. - from £500 to £750 per annum. That allowance was reduced when the Moore Government came into power as a result of the turnover at the last State election. I should not have made reference to this matter at all but for the fact that Senator Barnes himself raised it. In the ministerial statement, presented to honorable senators on Wednesday, the Government held out the olive branch to honorable senators on this side and asked for their co operation; but Senator Barnes deliberately endeavoured to misrepresent certain remarks made last night by my colleague Senator Lynch. I naturally resented his action. The Minister endeavoured to put into the mouth of Senator Lynch, words which he did not utter and unfairly imputed motives to him. The point that has been raised, whether the wage reduction in Queensland was made by the present Commonwealth Treasurer behind the State Arbitration Court is of very little moment, in view of the fact that action to reduce wages was the direct result of his efforts. Even his own colleagues in the Queensland Government will confirm what I am saying. They will admit that it was because of his efforts that Queensland public servants had to suffer a reduction of 5 per cent. in salaries at a time when they could ill afford to stand it. What I said last night I stand by, notwithstanding the attempt by the Leader of the Senate to put a different constructionn upon my remarks, and I am sure that my colleagues from Queensland in this chamber, will bear out what I have said.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [3.48]. - I hope the Leader of the Senate will inform honorable senators of the business which the Government hopes to proceed with next week. The Minister was good enough to tell me but I think it is advisable that he should inform the Senate. I also direct the attention of the Senate to a reply given to a question which I asked yesterday because it has an important bearing on the Government’s proposals to establish a wheat pool. Obviously, if there is to be a pool, one of the most important considerations is that of finance. As the Minister has been stressing the seriousness of our financial position, one would have thought that, before launching a proposal to establish awheat pool, it would give the most careful consideration to the financial arrangements necessary to carry out the scheme. Yesterday I asked the following question : -

  1. In reference to the proposed guarantee by the Commonwealth and State Governments, of 4s. per bushel for wheat at railway sidings, did the Commonwealth Government consult the Commonwealth or other banks as to the means of providing the necessary money to pay such guaranteed price?
  2. If so, what banks were consulted and what arrangements are being made in respect thereto.

In regard to the second part of my question I recognize that perhaps I was not right in asking what arrangements had been made. But surely, if any of the banks bad been approached, no harm could have been done by making known that fact. What reason is there for secrecy? The answer given by the Loader of the Senate was in the following terms -

The Government as a result of the inquiries it has made, is satisfied that the necessary arrangements for the payment can be mane.

Of course there are ways in which the necessary arrangements can be made, but if cash is to be paid for the wheat at railway sidings, thereis only one way in which it can be made available. Obviously the cash is not, and will not be, in the Commonwealth Treasury. It follows, therefore, that the financial institutions of this country must be relied upon to provide it if 4s. per bushel at railway sidings is to be paid to our wheat growers for the next harvest. Surely before launching such a proposal the Government should have taken the precaution to approach the banks and ascertain if it was possible for those institutions to provide the necessary finance. The answer suggests that the banks had not been approached. If they had been, there was no reason why the Ministry should not havesaid so. In view of the fact that ministers are appealing to all parties to be perfectly frank and pull together, why did not the Minister give a frank answer to my question instead of furnishing me with the evasive answer which I received ?

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the ExecutiveCouncil · South Australia · ALP

– One of the measures to be considered next week will be an amendment of -the Federal Land Tax Act. It is essential that this bill should be dealt with before the24th of this month in order that it may be rendered effective. It was thought that legislation from another place would not come up to this chamber fast enough to require the attendance of honorable senators next week, but the amendments of the Land Tax Act are before another place and should be dealt with by this chamber before the date mentioned.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– Has the bill been circulated?

Senator DALY:

– Yes. As to the second point raised by the Loader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce). I can assure him that the Government had no intention of being evasive. I shall bring before the minister responsible for the preparation of the answer, the comments made this afternoon by the right honorable gentleman. The Government desires to take theOpposition into itsconfidence, and I am not aware as to the reason why the information asked for should have been withheld. I will see if it can be made available.

I do not wish Senator Foll to misunderstand in any way what I said concerning his remarks last night. My impression is that Senator Barnes was not referring to Senator Lynch at all. I believe that it was SenatorRae who referred to that honorable senator. The criticism of Senator Barnes was levelled against Senator Colebatch. But that is by the way. I suggest that if statements by one honorable senator concerning another give rise to misunderstanding, the trouble can always be. cleared up by a personal explanation. I, therefore, appeal to Senator Foll, even at this stage, to consider whether he was justified in carrying his accusation as far as he did this afternoon. The appropriation to cover the basic wage in Queensland was based on an award of the State Arbitration Court, which subsequently altered its decision. It would be manifestly wrong on the part of any government to appropriate money on a false basis. In the circumstances, the basis having been altered, there was only one course open to the Treasurer, and that was to go to the court and, if any alteration was made, to ask Parliament to appropriate the necessary funds.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.54p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 March 1930, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1930/19300314_senate_12_123/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant