12th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. W. Kinsgmill) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 1682
– May I be permitted to say, Mr. President, that I am delighted to see Senator Cooper back in the chamber again, and fully recovered from the effects of the serious accident which befell him in Queensland early last month. I and my colleagues, in common, I am sure, with honorable senators generally offer him hearty congratulations on his recovery.
Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear !
page 1682
SenatorSIR GEORGE PEARCE.Will the Government have the record of that part of the proceedings in the Senate yesterday, covering the questions put to Sir Robert Gibson and his replies thereto, printed separately from Hansard so that it may be made available to honorable senators in a convenient form?
– I see no reason why it should not be done, and I shall have inquiries made.
– I ask the following questions, without notice -
– The honorable senator must not infer that secret communications have been held unless he has means of proving it. The honorable senator would be in order in asking, “ Have secret communications passed, &c.?”
-My question continues -
– The honorable senator cannot take it for granted that Senator Pearce, whom, of course, I am not to be understood as defending, made this approach to Sir Robert Gibson unless he has proof. He should submit his question in this form : “ Did the Leader of the Opposition approach Sir Robert Gibson, &c.?”
– Does Senator Dunn propose to apologize for his conduct yesterday ?
– Order !
– I am putting the question through the President, and not through Senator Foll. I had reached the point - guilty of improper conduct in approaching Sir Robert Gibson in the circumstances.
– If the honorable senator insists on putting his question in the way he is doing I shall rule it out of order.
– Then I shall get on to No. 4.
– I can tell the honorable senator straight away that if he puts hia question in the form in which he has read it, it will not appear on the notice-paper. If he makes proper alterations in his question, in the preparation of which theClerk will assist him, it may appear. Obviously, it is a question which cannot be asked without notice.
– I accept your ruling, Mr. President, and give notice of the question for to-morrow.
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.I ask leave of the Senate, and I feel that it will do me the justice of granting my request, to make a personal explanation with regard to statements made by Senator Dunn in giving notice of his question. [Leave granted.] The only communication that I have had with Sir Robert Gibson, Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board in connexion with the Commonwealth Bank Bill and his appearance at the bar of the Senate yesterday, may be briefly explained. In justice to Sir Robert Gibson, I thought that I should acquaint him with the nature of the questions that I proposed to ask him as some of the replies would require preparation and involve the giving of figures. I, therefore, decided to ascertain when he would arrive in Canberra. In order that there may be no secret about the matter, I may explain that I instructed my private secretary to ask the manager of the local branch of the Commonwealth Bank if he knew when Sir Robert Gibson would arrive, and where he would be staying. My private secretary was informed that Sir Robert Gibson would be arriving from Goulburn or Sydney by motor car. The manager of Canberra branch of the Commonwealth Bank was not sure where Sir Robert Gibson would be staying, but informed my private secretary that as soon as he knew he would advise him. I had prepared a list of the questions that I proposed to put to Sir Robert, and I personally wrote him a letter to await his arrival in Canberra. Speaking from memory, it was to this effect -
It is my intention when you appear at the bar of the Senate to-day, to ask you the questions which I forward herewith. If. in your opinion, any of these questions should not, in the public interest, be asked, will you intimate to me what they are and I will omit them.
Yours faithfully,
That is all that was contained in the letter. In order to remove any doubt which may exist in the mind of Senator Dunn, or any other honorable senator opposite, I propose to write to Sir Robert Gibson and ask him, if he has not destroyed my letter, to return it to me so that I may lay it upon the table of the Senate. He may have regarded it as unimportant and have thrown it in the waste paper basket. That was the only communication I had with Sir Robert with respect to the questions I submitted to him yesterday.
– A personal explanation cannot be debated.
– I merely wish to say that I think the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) should have supplied me with a copy of the questions which he proposed to ask Sir Robert Gibson. That is a courtesy which should have been extended to me, and which I would have much appreciated.
– I desire to ask the Leader of the Government (Senator Barnes) if his attention has been drawn to the Prime Minister’s protest in the Canberra Times newspaper as follows: -
page 1683
The Prime Minister, Mr. Scullin, expressed the view last night that it was quite improper to summon the chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board, by the legal power possessed by the Senate, into the political arena to be crossexamined by senators, and to be called to express opinion’s. Mr. Scullin added that the function of the Bank Board was to administer that great institution and to act as the Government bankers. The Government had introduced the Commonwealth Bank Bill as a measure-
– The practice is not to allow an honorable senator to adopt the course which Senator Dunn is following.
– Do I understand, sir, that that practice has been in operation during the two years I have been a member of this chamber?
– Such questions usually take the following form: - “Has the attention of the Minister been drawn?” or “Has the Minister seen a statement in a certain newspaper to such and such an effect?”
– I commenced my question with the words, “I desire to ask the Leader of the Government (Senator Barnes) if his attention has been drawn to the Prime Minister’s protest in the Canberra Times V I then proceeded to read the paragraph.
– Questions should be put to Ministers for the purpose of seeking information, and not with the object of giving it. Standing Order 98 provides -
After notices have been given, questions may be put to Ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs and to other senators relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business on the noticepaper of which such senators may have charge.
Standing Order 99 reads -
In putting any such question, no argument or opinion shall be offered, nor inference, nor imputation made, nor any fact stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain such question. . .
I suggest that the honorable senator should place his question on the noticepaper. I should then have an opportunity to consider it and, if necessary, so to amend it that it would comply with the Standing Orders.
– In view of the fact that I was quoting from a newspaper, I should like to know if I will be in order in ascertaining whether, in the opinion of Mr. Shakespeare, the editor of that newspaper, the statement is correct?
– Certainly not.
– I desire to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate, if his attention has Deen drawn to the excellent leading article in this morning’s Canberra Times, and, if so, whether he will arrange for all the members of his party to read, learn, and digest it, so that they will be well-informed with respect to the position confronting us to-day ?
– The honorable senator’s question is not in order. In order to clarify the position, I think I should point out that it has been ruled by one of my predecessors that, “ No statement by or quotation from a newspaper should be included in a question, and that, “ Questions are not to be founded on newspaper statements or illustrations.”
– I should like to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Barnes), if it is a fact that the Prime Minister’ (Mr. Scullin) carefully refrained from making the statement published in the Canberra Times until Sir Robert Gibson had given evidence before the Senate, and then only because the right honorable gentleman did not approve of the evidence so given?
– For the reasons I have already given, I rule the honorable senator’s question out of order.
– I ask the Leader of the Government (Senator Barnes) if he has cracked the whip over Senator Dunn-
– Order !
page 1684
The following papers were presented : -
Service and Execution of Process Act -
Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1931, No. 44.
Passports Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1931, No. 40.
page 1684
Cadets
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -
– The information is being obtained from the Commonwealth Bank, and will be furnished as soon as possible.
page 1685
New Factories
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Markets, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senators questions are as under . -
Piston Ring Company ) ; J. and E. Atkinson (Australia) Limited; H. Brasseur, France; Hipkiss Kershaw (Aust.) Limited; Fuller Brush Company, United States of America; Johnson and Johnson, United States of America; W. T. Rawleigh Company Limited, Canada; Bon Ami Company, United States of America; J. Baars and Sons, Holland; H. W. Gossard Company, United States of America; Joe Lowe Corporation, United States of America; Joe Lowe Food Products Company Limited, England. In addition, there have been many more now factories opened by Australian manufacturers.
page 1685
asked the Minister representing the Assistant Minister for Industry, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
page 1686
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
page 1686
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
Has the Government reviewed the duty imposed on Oregon in the light of the representations of all sections of the trade; if so, with what result?
– This is one of the items in the tariff schedules now before Parliament, and a full opportunity to discuss it will bc presented when the schedules are under review.
page 1686
asked the
Minister representing the Minister for Works, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
page 1686
fees to Members.
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
page 1687
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– It will be necessary to obtain reports from the various States, which will take some little time. The information will be obtained and supplied to the honorable senator.
page 1687
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
page 1687
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Markets, upon notice -
– The desired information is being obtained.
page 1687
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works, upon notice -
What was the amount of money made available to the various State Governments for main roads -
For the lastfive years; (b) For the last ten years; each period being shown separately?
– The answer to the honorable senator’s questions is as follows : -
The amounts shown in the above statement include payments in respect of the financial year 1930-31 up to and including the 6th May, 1931, only.
page 1687
– On the 26th March, Senator E. B. Johnston asked the following questions, upon notice -
Iam now able to furnish the honorable senator with the following information : -
Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, and Adelaide, ex. company’s stores. In consequence of complaints made regarding the manufacturers’ selling prices and rebates, the Government requested the Tariff Board, inter alia, to inquire and report whether Australian galvanized iron is marketed in an equitable and efficient manner having particular regard to methods of distribution and the manufacturers’ policy of wholesale prices and discrimination (if any) between purchasers. The Tariff Board reported that it was of opinion “ that the Australian manufacturer markets his products in an equitable and efficient manner; price concessions based on quantities purchased apply equally to all classes of purchasers irrespective of their commercial designation, i.e., whether wholesalers, retailers or consumers. The only discrimination exercised by the manufacturer is that of restricting purchasers to those who take a minimum quantity of 2 tons in unbroken cases; the board considers that this is reasonable “.
page 1688
– On the 17th April last, Senator Duncan asked several questions relating to machine guns alleged to he missing from the ordnance stocks in Sydney. I replied at a later date to the effect that no machine guns were missing, and that police officers had not searched certain stores in Sydney for eighteen such guns.
In view, however, of the seriousness of the matter the Minister for Defence caused the Director of. the Investigation Branch to make further inquiries, and that officer has now reported as follows : -
With reference to the questions asked in the Senate by Senator Duncan, and your replies thereto as published in Hansard, page 1095, I have to advise that I interviewed Senator Duncan on the 24th April, when he informed me that his questions .were based upon a statement made to him to the effect that the lessee of a bulk store, owned by Mr. Gardiner, in Waverley, stated that recently two police officers visited the store and produced warrants to search the premises for machine guns, &c. A search was made, but without result.
Investigations were made by this branch in Sydney, with the following result: -
The Police Department has no knowledge of any such search, and there is no record of a warrant having been issued.
The tenant of the bulk store referred to is a Mr. George Matteson, but he stated he was not at the store at the time of the search, but his brother, Gustave Matteson, who was present, had allowed the search to proceed.
Mr. Gustave Matteson stated that about the end of February or early in March, two mcn called at the store and stated that they were police; also that they had called three times previously (the store is often left locked up) to search for stolen machine guns. One of them added that they had searched other stores in the district, and it was also stated that the instructions came from the military authorities.
The nien did not give their names or produce any warrant or even means of identification, but Mr. Gustave Matteson invited them to proceed with the search, which they then did very thoroughly, being on the premises for about an hour.
As neither the Police Department nor the 2nd District Base has any knowledge of the matter, and as this office, which would be certain to have known if any such action had been officially designed, was similarly without information, it is clear that the affair was the work of impostors.
Mr. Gustave Matteson supplied a description of the two men, but it is without the slightest distinguishing feature, and discovery will, therefore, not be an easy matter. He will, however, at once report to the police should he see either of the men again.
The result of investigations has been forwarded to the Commissioner of Police, Sydnev.
page 1688
– by leave - I have just been informed that notice of a motion of want of confidence in the Government has been given in another place, and following the usual parliamentary procedure, government business will be suspended until the debate on the motion has been disposed of. I, therefore, move -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Wednesday next, at 3 p.m.
The adjournment of the Senate until Wednesday next will enable honorable senators to give their closest attention to the Commonwealth Bank
Bill, which is one of the principal measures to be dealt with at the moment, and I hope that, as a result of a careful study of its provisions, they will come back on Wednesday and carry it unanimously.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 1689
Motion (by Senator Barnes) proposed -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [3.36]. - The Leader of the Senate (Senator Barnes) a few moments ago charged me with discourtesy because I did not supply to him a list of the questions which I proposed to ask Sir Robert Gibson, Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board, who was summoned to the bar of the Senate yesterday. I wish now to assure the honorable gentleman that no discourtesy on my part was intended. I did not think he would expect me to furnish him with a list. I may add that, if my omission to do so could be construed as an act of discourtesy, he also must plead guilty to the same charge, because he did not supply me with a list of the questions which he proposed to ask.
– I direct attention to the nature of the replies furnished to me yesterday in answer to questions which I put to the Leader of the Senate with reference to the total amount of revenue collected by the Government in primage duties on jute goods, phosphoric rock, sulphur and fertilizers. The replies stated that the estimated amount of primage duty received for bags and sacks totalled £88,104, and the amount paid on rock phosphates, sulphur and fertilizers was £25,367. I wish to emphasize that these excessive charges on our primary industries have been imposed, so far, without the approval of Parliament. This Government has acted as though it were the sole dictator in the Commonwealth. Without reference to Parliament, it has imposed whatever taxation it has considered necessary. Since November, 1929, the fateful time when it took office, we have had list after list of tariff schedules, all imposing excessive burdens on our primary industries, and only now are members of another place being given the opportunity to consider them. The original primage duty on all imports was 21/2 per cent. Later, again without the approval of Parliament, it was increased to 4 per cent., and up to date this Government has exacted a total of no less than £113,471 from our wool and wheat industries at a time when they can least afford to pay the extra taxation. Because of the low prices ruling overseas for our exportable products, our primary industries are passing through a period of depression without parallel during the last 25 years. The Government chooses this time to impose new tariff charges which are nothing short of barefaced robbery. This additional burden has been imposed on the wheat industry at a time when it has been promised, but has not received, assistance from the Government. That assistance was approved by both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament; yet the Government has done nothing to give effect to that decision. Many other sections of the community are being assisted by this Parliament. Previously, when an act was passed granting assistance to an industry, that industry received the benefit of it. The wheat industry stands alone in having failed to reap the advantage of an act passed by both Houses. The act approved of the payment of 3s. a bushel f.o.b. for the last wheat crop, Not a farthing of that amount has been received by the wheat-growers from the Government. On the contrary, this huge burden is added to the costs of their jute goods, and to the fertilizer that is absolutely necessary to the conduct of their operations in most parts of Australia, particularly where the soil is not sufficiently fertile to produce wheat at a profit without fertilization.
The second question that I asked was -
Are the exporters of wheat and wool entitled to a refund of the primage duties paid on cornsacks and wool bales? If not, why not?
The answer that I was given was, “ No “. Why is it that every other person who imports goods into Australia, and then exports them, is given a drawback of the amount of duty paid? The sum of £88,104 has been collected in primage duty, very largely on cornsacks and woolpacks that have subsequently been exported.Why is there not a drawback of the amount of duty paid on those goods when they are exported? Refunds of duty are paid on many other commodities when they are exported. We learn from the newspapers that in Adelaide the master of a Norwegian vessel purchased out of bond a motor car for the sum of 5s. That car was brought into Australia, but no duty was paid upon it, since the purchaser shipped it away again. Yet duty is charged on cornsacks, which are necessary for the carrying on of our great wheat industry, and the woolpacks that are needed by those who are engaged in the pastoral industry. These sacks and packs are simply filled with grain and wool, and immediately exported; yet the Government refuses to refund the amount paid in primage duty when they entered Australia. If any section of the community is given a drawback of duty when the article upon which it has been paid is exported, the primary producers ought to have that consideration extended to them, particularly at a time like the present. I hope that the Government will agree to the whole of these primage duties being refunded immediately the jute goods are exported.
– Replying to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce), I assure the right honorable gentleman that, although I considered it a discourtesy to me that he did not supply me with a list of the quesions that he proposed to ask Sir Robert Gibson yesterday, I took the view that that discourtesy was quite unintentional. I was not similarly discourteous to the right honorable gentleman, because I did not notify Sir Robert Gibson in advance of the questions that I proposed to ask him, and, in fact, did not prepare a list of them before his appearance at the bar of the Senate.
It is somewhat queer that Senator Johnston should be continually complaining - I might almost say, wailing - about the disabilities under which the farmers of his State are suffering. My mind goes back to the situation that developed in this chamber a few months ago when the Government, in its anxiety to help the farmers not onlyof Western Australia, but also of every other State, placed before this Senate certain proposals which it desired to have made law. In contradistinction to the honorable senator’s travail at the present time, on the important occasion when his vote would have counted for something, and would have enabled assistance to be given to the farmers of his and other States, where was he? It would have been necessary to place a bullockbell on him to keep track of his movements. It ill becomes the honorable senator to endeavour to impose on the farmers of his State by making it appear that he is doing his best to help them, when at that crucial period he failed to to do what lay in his power on their behalf.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 3.48 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 May 1931, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1931/19310507_senate_12_129/>.