Senate
17 July 1930

12th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 12th Parliament
  3. 1930

The President (Senator the Hon. W.Kingsmill) took the chair at 8 p.m., and read prayers.

page 4222

QUESTION

PRICE OF CARTRIDGES

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

– On 26th June, Senator E. B. Johnston asked the following, questions, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact thatbefore the recent increases in the tariff, Australian-made file; Nobel Grand Prix No.12 shot cartridges were sold in Western Australia for 17s. 6d. per 100, and that similar cartridges made in England by the samefirm were sold at 18s. per 100? 2.Is it a fact that since the. tariff increases these Australian-made cartridges are sold at22s. per 100 in Western Australia? 3.If the answers to Nos. 1 and 2 are in the affirmative, will the Minister reduce the tariff on cartridge’s immediately, in order that Australian cartridges may be reduced to their former price?

I am now able to furnish the honorable senator with the following information : -

  1. From inquiries made, it appears that there isno standard wholesale or retail price for cartridges in Western Australia, each vendor fixing his ownprice. The prices of the ‘Australian LoadedEley Grand Prix 12- gauge shotgun cartridge prior to 3rd April, 1 930,were- Wholesale (in lots of 7,000 ), 16s. or l7s. per 100; wholesale (in lots of 1,000), 18s. to 20s. per 100; retail, 18s. 6d. to24s. per . 100. English loaded cartridges were sold at the same figures.
  2. No increase appearsto have occurred in the wholesale selling price of the Australian article:; but the retail price charged by one firm was increased by1s. per100 from 24s., due to the advance of 9d. per 100 in the manufacturer’sprice on and from 3rd April, 1930. Thisincrease is said to have had no connexion whatever with the increased customs duty, and was decided upon prior to the date the customs duty was increased. It is attributed to adverse exchange in connexion with theimported components.
  3. See reply to Nos. 1 and 2.

page 4222

QUESTION

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS

Senator DALY:
ALP

– On 4th July, Senator Carroll asked the following questions, upon notice -

  1. Before prohibiting the importation of certain classes of agricultural Implements and machinery into Australia, did the Government receive an assurance from Australian manufacturers that there would be no increase in the price of Australian-made implements and machinery of similar character?
  2. If so, when that assurance was given were the selling prices of locally-made implements and machinery quoted?’
  3. If they were, what were the prices quoted ?
  4. Did the prices quoted apply to all States; if not, to which States did they apply!

I am now able to furnish the honorable senator with the following information : -

  1. Yes. The assurance was to the effect that there would be a reduction in present prices provided that there were noincreasein the cost of labour and material.
  2. No. The manufacturers issue printed price-lists. 3 and 4. The prices quoted in the printed lists are usually f.o.b. Melbourne. Pricesin other States would naturally be. higher to cover costs of transport

page 4222

QUESTION

SPIRITS IN BOND

Senator DALY:
ALP

– On 26th June, Sena tor Pearce asked the following questions, upon notice -

  1. What quantity of spirits was in bond in the Commonwealth onthe 4th April, 1930?
  2. What quantity of spirits was in bond on the same date in 1929?
  3. What quantity of spirits wasin bond on the 28thFebruary 1930?
  4. What quantity of spirits was in bond on the 28th February, 1929? .
  5. What quantity of spirits hasbeen received into bond Since the 4th April, 1930, namely (a) spirits shipped before the 4th April, 1930; (b) spirits shipped after the 4th April, 1930?

I am now able to furnish the right honorable senator with the following information : -

  1. 467,057 liquid gallons.
  2. 701,780 liquid, gallons.
  3. 573,157 liquid gallons.
  4. 685,688 liquid gallons. 5. (a) 213,911 liquid gallons; (b) 13,504 liquid gallons, up to 30th June. 1930.

page 4222

QUESTION

STEAMER PASSAGESFROM DARWIN

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

– On the 16th July, Senator E. B. Johnston asked, inter alia -

How many steamer passages from Darwin to southern ports had been granted, and to which ports, during the past twelve months?

I am now in a position to advise the honorable senator as follows: -

The number of passages granted for the year ended 30th June, 1930, and the places to which the persons proceeded, were as follow : - Wyndham,.6; Derby, 1; Carnarvon, 1; Oeraldton, 2; Fremantle; 8; Thursday Island, 1; Townsville, 8; Brisbane, 5; Sydney, 12; Melbourne, 30- total, 74.

page 4223

BOTTLED BEER

Increased Prices

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the announcement in yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald newspaper to the effect that the Hotelkeepers Association had decided to increase the price of bottled beer and ale by1d. per bottle?
  2. In view of the recent statement by the right honorable the Prime Minister, that the Government would take action to protect consumers in cases where retail prices were increased as a result of increased duties, what action dues the Government intend to take in this matter ?
Senator DALY:
ALP

– The answers are -

  1. Yes.
  2. Inquiry will be made to ascertain the facts of the case, when the matter will receive consideration.

page 4223

QUESTION

AMALGAMATED WIRELESS (AUSTRALASIA) LIMITED

Welfare Board

Senator HOARE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. Is it the intention of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited to establish a welfare board in connexion with its administration of the Commonwealth wireless service?
  2. What will be the functions of the proposed welfare board?
  3. Who will be the superintendent of such board ?
  4. What will be his duties in connexion therewith ?
  5. When will he be appointed to such position ?
  6. What was his previous position?
  7. What will be the term of his new appointment?
  8. Who will pay his salary, and what will be the amount of same?
  9. Did he recently, on behalf of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited, in the Arbitration Court, oppose the claims of the marine section of the Radiotelegraphists Institute of Australasia ?
  10. Was a previous attempt to establish a welfare board by Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited rejected?
  11. If so, what was the reason forsuch rejection ?’
  12. Who rejected the previous scheme, and why?
  13. Is the present proposed scheme the same as the one previously proposed?
  14. Has the establishment of a proposed welfare board by Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited the approval of the present Government ?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

– I am unaware of the circumstances, but will have inquiries made and will inform the honorable senator in due course.

page 4223

PRIMAGE DUTY

Cornsacks - Tasmania Cargo

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the

Minister representing the Minister for Trade and- Customs, upon notice -

  1. Is the primage duty of 21/2 per cent. being charged on cornsacks, wool-packs, and other jute goods imported into Australia?
  2. Is it a fact that these jute goods are largely used for export products, and that the wheat and wool industries will be unable to bear the additional burden imposed by the above duty?
  3. Will the Government exempt jute goods from the operation of this new tax?
Senator DALY:
ALP

– The answers are -

  1. Yes.
  2. The goods are used to some extent for export products. A tax of 21/2 per cent. on the value of a container of goods will impose a very small charge on the industry concerned.
  3. It is not proposed to make exemptions from the primage duty.
Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Hobart portion of the cargo from overseas in the SS. Markhor was discharged from that vessel and cleared the day before the primage duty of 21/2 per cent. was imposed, and that the Launceston portion of the same cargo was in transit by this vessel to that port when the primage duty came into force?
  2. Will he give instructions that the primage duty be remitted as regards the cargo for Launceston, and thus remove the anomaly of different tariffs applying in the one State to goods arriving by the same vessel?
Senator DALY:

– The answers are-

  1. No information is available on the point - Such is probably the case.
  2. Under the Customs Act duty must be paid at the rate in force when the goods are entered for home consumption. The department has no alternative but to carry put the law.

page 4223

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION

Shearers’ Wages

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA

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

  1. Is it a fact that some members of the Australian Workers Union have gone on strike in defiance of the Federal Arbitration Court award for shearing, despite the fact that the average price for wool in Australia forthe past three months has been91/2. per lb., and for the past twelve months101/4d. per lb., or at least 3d. per lb. below the actual cost of production ?
  2. Is it a fact that underthe new wages award shearers are able to average from £8 so £10 per week?
Senator DALY:
ALP

– The Government has no official information on the subject.

page 4224

QUESTION

PRICE OF WHEAT

Senator GUTHRIE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Markets. upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the price of wheat at the country sidings in New Zealand is5s. l1d. per bushel, the price offlour at port £17 per ton, and the price of bread l1d. the 4-lb. loaf?
  2. Are the Australian wheat-growers being forced to sell better wheat than the New Zealand wheat at3s. 2d. to 3s. 3d. per bushel at railway stations, and are they paving l1d. to 1s. for a 4-lb. loaf?
Senator DALY:
ALP

– The information is being obtained.

page 4224

QUESTION

SITUATIONININDIA

Statement of British Prime Minister

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

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

  1. Arising out of questions askedby Senator Rae, and answered on the 11th July, in respect of the situation in India, isthe Prime Minister aware whether Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, Prime Minister of Great Britain, has publicly stated that the situation in India is regarded as very serious by his Government, and that the attitude of the persons concerned will not help them towards obtaining dominion status?
  2. In view of the encouragement that the answers given to Senator Rae’s questions might possibly be to disaffected persons in India, will the Prime Minister authorize a statement to bo made defining the Government’s policy should serious hostilities occur with Imperial forces in India?
Senator DALY:
ALP

– The answers are -

  1. ThePrime Ministerhas seen a recent press report attributing to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald a statementonthe situation in India.
  2. It is not considered that there is any justification for the honorable senator’s suggestion as to the possible effect of the reply given to SenatorRae last week.

page 4224

QUESTION

SHIPPING FREIGHTS

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. Is it a fact that the shipping companies are discussing the question of increasing the rates of freight for cargoes to and from Australia ?
  2. Is this action suggested owing to the high tariffs and the effects of the recent budget proposals?
  3. Will the Government carefully consider the disastrous effect that the increase of outward freights may have upon the prosperity of our primary industries?
Senator DALY:
ALP

– The whole question of shipping freights has been a matter of discussion between the Government and representatives of the shippers and shipping companies. Negotiations are still proceeding.

page 4224

QUESTION

VOLUNTARY RECRUITING SYSTEM

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

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

  1. As the table presented in reply toques tions asked by Senator H. E Elliott, on the 10th July, shows that during the month of June last the Militia Forces of the Commonwealth increased only by 34, whereas the cadets diminished by 02, leaving a net loss of58 persons, what is the explanation of previous statements made by the honorable the Minister and General Dodds, that enlistments were proceeding at a highly satisfactory rate, and does the Minister still hold the same opinion?
  2. At the above rate, how long will it take to raise the forces to established strength?
  3. How many officers were engaged in recruiting duty throughout the Commonwealth, what salaries were they paid, and were any of them rationed?
  4. Willsuch recruiting officers now be put on full time, and what was the average cost to the Commonwealth of raising each recruit?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The answers are -

  1. On the 24th June, i.e., a fortnight before Senator Elliott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence his question regarding the relative strength of theMilitia Forces and Senior Cadets on the 31st May and 30th June last, the Minister for Defence made a statement, vide page 3090 of Hansard issued on the 20th June, 1930, indicating a probable temporary reduction in the strength of the Militia Forces and Senior Cadets, amounting to 12 per cent. or 15 per cent., owing to the discharge of those unable to fulfil their obligations to render efficient service, to changes of address and occupation, and other causes. That statement clearly explained the position regarding the satisfactory progress of recruiting, and indicated that although recruiting for the month of June might reach the same standard as for previous months, the total strength reached would be offset by the numbers it was anticipated would be discharged. There has been no reason to depart from the opinion previously expressed that satisfactory progress was being made.

On the basis of progress for the six months ended 30th June, 1930, the average monthly increase has been as follows: -

As stated in reply to 1, there is no reason to doubt that similar progress will be made for the ensuing six months. 3 and 4. Answers to these questions will be made as soon as the information is available.

page 4225

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16th July (vide page4162) on motion by Senator Barnes -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [3.16]. - I do not propose to discuss this bill at length, as in the circumstances, I amin agreement with what the Government propose. There is, however, a matter relating to the conditions of employment of private secretaries to Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition which I wish to bring under the notice of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Daly), and I ask that he will be good enough to give it consideration. The Government has, I think, very rightly made some provision to meet the case of public servants seconded for duty as private secretaries to Ministers’ or to Leaders of the Opposition; but one point appears to have been overlooked, If an officer selected as a private secretary had remained in a department he would in the normal course of events, have been entitled to increments based upon length of service ; but when seconded as a private secretary to a Minister or to a Leader of the Opposition he receives only an allowance in accordance with the Public Service regulations. If he conducts his work as a private secretary with satisfaction he, of course, holds his position for some time ; but if his services are considered unsatisfactory he is quickly returned to the Public Service. Officers showing adaptability and ability are retained by Ministers, and consequently lose the opportunity to obtain thetherements or promotion they would have received had they remained in a department. A time comes when, in view of the years of service, the salary becomes inadequate - there is a limit to the salary to be paid to private secretaries - and they then have to return to a department.

Provision is made in the bill that the Public Service Board may appoint such officers to positions at salaries approximating those which they received as private secretaries. That is not mandatory upon the board, because a suitable position may not be available. Such an officer may have to wait some time before being appointed toa position in the Public Service at a salary approximating that which he received as a private secretary. I understand that in these circumstances he returns to the Public Service at the salary which he was receiving prior to being seconded for duty as a private secretary; but he does not receive the increments which he would have obtained had he remained in the service. I should like the Leader of the Government to inform the Senate if that position has been met in this bill. It seems to me that it is not. As an act of justice, the difficulty should be overcome, perhaps by an amendment of the Public Service regulations. These young officers - they are usually young - who take these positions should not suffer because they possess ability. If they do not, they are quickly returned to the Public Service. If they possess ability they should not suffer in consequence.

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

– The point raised by the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) agitated the mind of the Government considerably when this bill was being drafted. The difficulties surrounding legislation affecting the Public Service are, however, so great that it could not see how the contingency referred to by the right honorable gentleman could be met. The point is not the period for which a particular man may be engaged on certain work, but the nature of the work on which he is engaged. A man who, in his proper avocation, would earn a salary of £2,000 a year might be employed on work which merits a payment of only £500 a year. Difficulty arises when a man in, say, the Postmaster-General’s Department, whose salary and increments are fixed in relation to his work in that department, is transferred to another position in which the sense of responsibility is entirely different.

There must be a certain discretionary power in respect to private secretaries who are transferred back to their original departments, otherwise the whole scheme will be upset. That difficulty arose when certain officers were transferred from the Development and Migration Commission to the Public Service again. In its endeavour to treat those men justly, the Public Service Board had also to see that no injustice was done to other officers of the Public Service. In so far as it affects private secretaries who are returned to the Public Service, this particular’ provision is on all fours with another provision relating to public servants who may be seconded for any other work. The clause is in conformity with the general scheme which operates throughout the Public Service. While the Government would like to alter the position in order to better the conditions of these private secretaries, the terms of the Public Service Act render that impossible. The clause is the best that the Government can do to mete out justice to all the men concerned.

Senator McLachlan:

– If the language of the proposed new section 48a were altered slightly, the position might be improved.

Senator DALY:

– I am obliged to the honorable senator for his suggestion. When the bill is in committee I shall be prepared to listen to any suggestion for the betterment of these officers, consistent with the duty of the Government to the Public Service generally.

Senator LAWSON:
Victoria

.- So far as I have been able to ascertain, this bill contains nothing that is objectionable. The amendments proposed appear to be desirable. As this is the natal day of the Minister in charge of this measure, I suggest that it would be a fitting compliment if the Senate made the bill a birthday present to him.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 - (1.) After section forty-eight of the principal act the following section is inserted: - “ 48a. An officer seconded for duty as private secretary to a Minister or member of the Federal Executive Council or to the

Leader of the Opposition in either House of the Parliament, shall, upon the termination of his employment in that capacity, be entitled to appointment to an office in the Commonwealth Service of such status and salary as are determined by the board, having regard to the officeheld by the officer prior to his being seconded for such duty and to the period of his employment as private secretary.”. (2.) This section shall be deemed to have commenced on the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and thirty.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– It appears that the consideration of the board is limited by the language employed. The board is to have regard to the office held by the officer prior to his being seconded for special duty. To that extent the proposed new section is satisfactory. The only other thing to which the board must give consideration is the period of the officer’s employment as a private secretary. The duties pertaining to the office of a private secretary may be far more difficult and onerous than those which the officer discharged previously. I suggest that the position would be improved by the addition of the words “ and nature “ after the word “ period “. That would enable the board to deal with his case in a more generous way than at present. I feel that the special nature of the duties of a private secretary should be taken into account.

Senator Daly:

– The proposed new section has been copied from the Officers’ Bights Declaration Act.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– I am afraid that that is so, for I have a recollection that it was in connexion with that measure that the matter first came under my notice. I feel that the proposed new section, as printed, limits the field of inquiry by the board to that of time. I, therefore, move -

That after word “ period “, proposed new section 48a. the words “ and nature “ be inserted.

Senator Daly:

– We have no objection to the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– I draw the attention of the Minister to the arbitrary date that is fixed in sub-clause 2, the first day of January, 1930. The honorable senator will recollect that this legislation was in contemplation during the regime of the previous Government, and I am aware that some of the officers then acting as private secretaries had reason to believe that the amendment would date back to the 1st July, 1929. I do not think that that would impose any additional expenditure upon the Government, and, out of a sense of justice to those officers, I ask the Minister to accept an amendment dating the provision back to the 1st July, 1929.

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

– It is rather difficult to consider an amendment until one appreciates what its effect will be. This legislation was fully considered by the Public Service Board, and I know of no protests that have been lodged by anybody who claims to be entitled to be brought under the provisions of the measure. Unless the honorable senator can advise me of any case of hardship that is likely to occur from the retention of the date at present incorporated in the bill, I ask him not to press his suggested amendment. I could not accept an amendment simply to cover problematical cases. The committee is entitled to know what will be the effect of any legislation that is placed before it.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– Without naming any individual officer, I draw attention to the position of private secretaries to Ministers, and to Leaders of the Opposition, during the regime of the Bruce-Page Government. Those officers were all seconded from their ordinary positions prior to the 1st January, 1930. Of course, when they accepted those positions, they took the risk with their eyes open.

Senator Daly:

– Would not the honorable senator’s objection be met by substituting 1st October for 1st July, 1929?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Yes. I move -

That the words and numerals “ January, 1930 “, sub-section 2 of proposed new section 48a, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words and numerals “ October, 1929.”

Senator Barnes:

– The Government has no objection to the honorable senator’s amendment. I think that it will cover all of the people that he has in mind, upon whom an injustice might have fallen.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 -

Section eighty-nine of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from the proviso to subsection (1.) the words “has been acquired or erected by the Commonwealth solely for the purpose for residence of the officer “, and inserting in their stead the words” is occupied by an officer solely as a residence “.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– I should like an explanation as to the effect of this clause.

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

.- Sub-section (1) of section 89 of the principal act reads -

If the whole or part of a building belonging to or occupied by the Commonwealth is occupied for the purpose of residence by an officer, the board may direct that a fair and reasonable sum, not exceeding 10 per centum of the salary of the officer, shall be chargeable as rent for such occupancy, and the amount of that sum may be deducted from the salary of the officer:

Provided that where any such building has been acquired or erected by the Commonwealth solely for the purpose for residence of the officer without an incidental obligation of supervision or general control by the officer over personnel or property, the officer occupying the premises shall pay such rent …

The explanation is obvious when the proposed amendment is read in conjunction with those provisions.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments: report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 4227

ADJOURNMENT

Business for the Senate - Primage

Duties : Launceston ComplaintDeferred Duty on Sheet Glass.

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

.- I move-

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I have had the conference which I promised I would have with the Leader of the Opposition, and if honorable senators will refer to the notice-paper of another place they will see exactly what business the Government expects to deal with during the present sittings of Parliament. Since I have spoken to the Leader of the Opposition another measure, the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Bill, has been sent to me by the Prime Minister.- Although one or two of its provisions may be contentious, the principles of the measure were fully debated in this chamber when the late Government was in power, and I do not anticipate that its consideration will occupy much time on this occasion. I shall have another conference with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce), because it may be necessary for me to ask the Senate to sit an extra morning next week, and an extra day the following week so that the Government’s legislative programme may bo completed by 8th August next.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- To-day, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, a question in regard to the position of importers in Northern Tasmania who, through the imposition of primage duties of 2^ per cent., have had to pay duty which was not collected on goods lauded from the same steamer a few days previously in Hobart. The Hobart goods were discharged before the primage duties operated; they were imposed after the vessel left Hobart but before she reached Launceston. The question I asked to-day was whether the Government would consider the matter of remitting the primage duties which had to be paid by the northern importers of Tasmania and not by the southern importers on the same class of cargo. The answer I received was -

Under thu Customs Act, duty must he paid at the rate in force when the goods are entered for home consumption. The department has no alternative hut to carry out the law.

Everybody knows that the department has no alternative but to carry out the law, but I was anxious to know if the Minister would sufficiently interest himself as to remedy an obvious injustice.

Senator Daly:

– How can the Minister remedy it if the law does not permit him to do so? Does the honorable senator suggest that the Minister should break the law?

Senator PAYNE:

– It would not be the first time a Minister has broken the law in order to remove an injustice. The honorable senator knows of similar cases and that there is a general feeling that the Customs Act should be amended so that there may bo no differentiation between different parts of a State with regard to the incidence of customs duties. I hope, therefore, he will do something in the matter. Cases have occurred in which vessels have discharged at Sydney, and have not reached Melbourne before certain customs duties have been imposed, but I do not know of another instance of customs duties being imposed while a vessel is proceeding from one port of a State to another port in the same State. In all earnestness, I suggest that the Minister should, ascertain if it is possible to give relief to the Launceston importers, but if he finds that it is impossible for him to do it, I hope he will take early steps to prevent any recurrence of such a manifest injustice. The imposition of the primage duties at this particular time presses very harshly on a section of importers in Tasmania. In doing business with clients all over the State it handicaps them 2£ per cent, in comparison with the importers in the southern part of Tasmania.

The Tariff Board Act which was passed by both Houses of Parliament in 192:1, provides that the Tariff Board must, from time to time, report to the Minister for Trade and Customs upon the capability of Australian manufacturers to supply reasonable quantities of goods for which deferred duties are provided in the customs tariff, and if it reports that any Australian manufacturer is in a position to supply a reasonable quantity of a commodity, for which a deferred duty is provided, the Minister may make that duty operative. It is not obligatory upon him to do so. The 1926 tariff imposed a duty of 2s. per 100 square ft. on sheet glass and a deferred duty of l£d. per lb. or 12s. 6d. per 100 square ft., which deferred rate was subsequently imposed on the report of the Tariff Board that evidence taken by it disclosed that a certain manufacturer in Australia would, in a very short- period, be able to provide a reasonable quantity of window glass for Australia.

Senator Daly:

– I understood from the honorable senator that he did not propose to discuss the tariff.

Senator PAYNE:

– I am not discussing the tariff. This preliminary explanation is necessary in order to make myself understood. It was provided that on and after the 1st July, 1926, the duty should become operative, presuming that glass was then being manufactured. From year to year, the duty was further deferred, and only a few months ago, by a Commonwealth Gazette notification, itwas deferred until August, 1930. Notwithstanding the publication of that notice, the Minister for Trade and Customs took it upon himself on 19th June to bring into operation that duty, although not one square foot of such glass has been manufactured in Australia. Surely the Minister should not be above the law. 1 enter my vigorous protest against this action of a member of the Commonwealth Government in setting an example to the people to break the law.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I do not think that the honorable senator is in order in accusing a member of the Commonwealth Government of breaking the law.

Senator PAYNE:

– A proclamation was published in the Commonwealth Gazette deferring the duty until August, but in June the Minister brought down a schedule which had the effect of rendering that proclamation null and void, notwithstanding the fact that no glass of the class in question has yet been manufactured in Australia. Moreover, without any report having been received from the Tariff Board, he has increased the duty on British figured glass from 15 per cent., ad valorem, to 75 per cent.

Senator Dunn:

– I rise to a point of order. Is the honorable senator in order in discussing the tariff schedule?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is not out of order,but he is taking a very unusual course. However, I presume that he deems the matter to be of sufficient importance to bring it before the Senate in this manner.

Senator PAYNE:

– Perhaps the method is unusual, but I never hesitate to follow an unusual course in this chamber if I think it is necessary in the interests ofthe people of Australia, provided I am not outside the Standing Orders. I protest against the high-handed action of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Fenton) in ignoring the proclamation deferring the duty on this glass until August, and in completely ignoring the surrounding circumstances. Deferred duties are imposed so that protection will be given to an industry when it is needed.

No glass of this kind is yet being manufactured in Australia, and this duty is an unwarrantable imposition on the people of Australia, who, goodness knows, are burdened enough as it is. Ignoring the direction of the Tariff Board Act, the Minister, at his own sweet will, or at the instigation of some one outside Parliament, has imposed this further burden on the community. I shall leave it at that for the time being, though I shall have a great deal more to say when we are discussing the Tariff Bill, if we are ever given an opportunity to do so.

Senator DALY:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

– If the honorable senator, who has just resumed his scat really appreciated the significance of what he has said about the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Fenton), I should take very strong exception to his remarks. The Minister has done nothing unlawful, as the honorable senator would learn if he studied the system of legislation by proclamation. Constitutional provision exists for the repeal of any proclamation. I advise him, before placing on record in Hansard, a statement which might be misconstrued outside Parliament, to he more careful of his facts, and of his language.

Senator Payne:

– My next statement will be stronger.

Senator DALY:

– So long as the honorable senator keeps within the Standing Orders he may make his statement as strong as he likes. It is not the statement itself, but its cogency, which affects the matter, and influences the mind of honorable senators.

Senator Payne:

– It is an absolutely shocking thing.

Senator DALY:

– The Government is used to abuse, and a small item of abuse from Tasmania will not affect it.

Senator Payne:

– Is not Tasmania part of Australia?

Senator DALY:

– It is, and that is why I am anxious that a representative of Tasmania should address the Australian Parliament in an Australian manner.

Senator Payne:

– What is meant by an Australian manner?

Senator DALY:

– It is not usual for representative of the Australian people to describe the constitutional action of Ministers of the Crown as unlawful.

Since moving the motion, I have ascertained the nature of the business likely to come before us from another place, and 1 advise honorable senators that if the Senate meets to-morrow it will he a very thin day. Therefore, in order that the Senate may adjourn until next week I ask leave to withdraw the motion that the Senate do now adjourn.

Leave granted ; motion withdrawn.

page 4230

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Daly) agreed to -

That the Senateat its rising adjourn till Wednesday next at 3 p.m.

Senate adjourned at 3.58 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 July 1930, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1930/19300717_senate_12_125/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant