View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
24 November 1931

12^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- TOBACCO DUTIES
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
QUESTION
- STRENGTHOF SPIRITS
QUESTION
- AVIATION
QUESTION
- TASMANIA
QUESTION
- WHEAT MARKETING
PAPER
CUSTOMS TARIFF
- Division I. - Ales, Spirits and Beverages
- Item 8-
IMPORTED PERFUMES
AUSTRALIAN PERFUMES
ADJOURNMENT
- Paper Pulp- Industry - Shale Industry
QUESTION
- PAPER PULP INDUSTRY

The President (Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1829

QUESTION

TOBACCO DUTIES

Senator DALY:
Assistant Minister · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is.

page 1830

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Gardeners and Gardeners’ Assistants

Senator GUTHRIE:
through Senator Plain

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice -

How many gardeners and/or gardeners’ assistants are employed within the Federal Capital Territory?
Who is responsible for their appointment and supervision?
What is their average daily pay and the total annual cost to the taxpayers of Australia?

Senator DOOLEY:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

The staff employed by the Department of Home Affairs in connexion with the various horticultural operations in the Territory is as follows : -

With the exception of one permanent officer, this staff is employed under exemption from the provisions of the Public Service Act. Their conditions of employment’ are as approved by the Public Service Board or laid down in awards. Trained members of the staff were selected after public advertisement. The labourers were engaged in the usual way through the industrial office of the department. Work is carried out under the direct supervision of the Superintendent of the Parks and Gardens Section.
The average daily pay is 16s.9d., and, on the present basis, the annual cost would be £24,273.

page 1830

QUESTION

STRENGTHOF SPIRITS

Senator THOMPSON:
QUEENSLAND

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

What is the maximum reduction of strength below proof, allowed by his department, in respect of each of the following: - Brandy, whisky, rum, and gin?
What arc the strength reductions adopted by bottlers in bond, of the liquors mentioned, respectively, and the quantities of each strength, in the different States, respectively ?
What is the number of bottlers in bond, in each State?

Senator DOOLEY:
ALP

– The information is being obtained.

page 1830

QUESTION

AVIATION

Use of Duntroon Area

Senator DUNN:
through Senator Ho are

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will the Government instruct the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee to inquire into the advisability of converting the now vacant Duntroon military area into a Commonwealth aeroplane factory and testing ground at the earliest possible date?

Senator BARNES:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · ALP

– It is not considered that any good purpose would be served by such an inquiry, as funds could not be made available for the establishment of an aeroplane factory and testing ground.

page 1830

QUESTION

TASMANIA

Shipping Service: ProposedWork at Cockatoo Island Dockyard - Telephonic Communication.

Is it the intention of the Government, under any parliamentary appropriation, to place orders for the construction of two vessels for the Tasmanian, or other service, at Cockatoo Island Dockyard?
If so, will such proposal be referred to the Parliamentary Public Works Committee for report?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The answers to the right honorable senator’s questions are as follow: -

There has been no appropriation of funds this financial year for the purpose of building additional government vessels at Cockatoo Island Dockyard.
In. the event of the Government deciding to place an order for a vessel at Cockatoo Island Dockyard, a reference would be made to the Public Works Committee for report in the usual way.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Have the Government abandoned the proposal to establish telephonic communication between the State of Tasmania and the mainland; if not, when is it proposed to carry out the work?

Senator DOOLEY:
ALP

– The proposal to establish telephone communication between the State of Tasmania and the mainland has not been abandoned and, subject to Parliament approving of the recommendation of the Public Works Committee, the work will be proceeded with as early as the financial position permits. The department realizes the importance of the service and is anxious that it should be established as early as practicable.

page 1831

QUESTION

WHEAT MARKETING

Empire Quota Proposal,

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Have the Government noticed the published decision of the British Government to institute the quota system for the importation of grain and the giving of a preference to British wheat of standard quality?
If so, will the Government intimate to the British Government that in view of this very important concession to Australia, it in turn will give commensurate consideration to British goods entering Australia?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The Government is not in possession of any information indicating that a decision of the nature mentioned has been reached by the British Government.

page 1831

PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

Audit Act - Transfers of amounts approved by the Governor-General in Council -

Financial Year 1930-31- Dated 18 th November, 1931.

page 1831

CUSTOMS TARIFF

In committee: Consideration resumed from the 20th November (vide page 1828).

Division I. - Ales, Spirits and Beverages

Item 8-

By omitting the whole item and inserting in its stead the following item: - “ 8. Perfumed spirits, per gallon - British, 50s.; intermediate, 55s.; general, 60s.,and ad val. - British, 30 per cent.; intermediate, 35 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.”

Upon which Senator McLachlan had moved by way of request -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duties - British, 45s.: intermediate, 50s.; general, 55s.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– A favorable trade balance as between one nation and another, does not demonstrate solvency, there must be an aggregate favorable trade balance. It is perfectly true that we have at all times had a credit balance in our dealings with France, while at the same time our trade balance with the majority of’ other countries has been adverse. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) appealed to the committee to adopt the amendment because it relates to only one small item; but the multiplicity of small imports helped to create the adverse trade balance. The tendency of the committee seems to be to request the House ofRepresentatives to reduce the duty on each item; if such reductions are made Australia will again find itself in an unfavorable trade position. In 1923-24 the importations of bay rum and perfumed spirits were: from the United Kingdom, £28,529 ; from

France, £32,080; from Germany, £7,060; from United States of America, £4,995; and from other countries, £1,022; a total of £73,686. By 1928-29 the total had advanced to £106,680, but the benefit of the increase went, not to France, but to Germany, the importations from the latter having risen to £28,950. The other importations were: from the United Kingdom, £30,033 ; from France, £45,172 ; from the United States of America, £2,059; and from other countries, £466. Since 1928-29, there has been -a further reduction of imports, and the totals for 1930-31 were: from France, £10,647; United Kingdom, £7,497; Germany, £5,267; other countries, £353; total £23,764. It must be obvious to the committee that if it agrees to the proposed reduction the benefit will go principally to Germany. Looking at the other side of the trading account, we find that in 1927-28, before the allegedly prohibitive duties were imposed, France bought £180,351 worth of Australian wheat. Our importations of perfumed spirits in that year amounted to £41,161. In 1928-29, when our importations of perfumes, &c. were £45,172, France’s purchase of Australian wheat totalled £480,441. In 1929-30, during the greater portion of which the increased duties were operating, we imported £34,967 worth of perfumes and France bought only £51,338 worth of wheat.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– That was because of retaliation against the Australian tariff?

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– No ; France for years has been endeavouring to foster its agricultural industry, and importations of wheat in 1928-29 were heavy because of the failure of the French crops. In imposing a duty on wheat, France is not retaliating against the Australian tariff, but is merely endeavouring to protect her own primary producers. If we bear in mind these facts we shall be better qualified to give unbiased consideration to the tariff items, and reach decisions which will be helpful to our industries and the trade balance. I shall oppose the request.

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– This discussion, and particularly the remarks of the last speaker, illustrate the need for having all proposed duties examined by the Tariff Board before they are submitted to Parliament. The Board has not reported on this item, and we have no explanation why the old duties of 40s., 45s., and 50s., plus ad valorem duties of 20 per cent., 25 per cent., and 30 per cent., have been increased in this schedule. Senator O’Halloran quoted statistics which blended perfumed spirits with bay rum and other commodities, until honorable senators are a little confused as to the facts.” I have received from F. H. Faulding and Company, manufacturing chemists and perfumers of Sydney, a letter which, after referring to the request I have moved for the reduction of this item, continues -

We feel that in making this move you may not fully realize the effect that a reduction of duty on perfumed spirits will have upon the excise revenue and Australian manufacturers. Our firm, like many others, have built up a business in the perfume trade under this protection-

Which protection ? Under the former tariff schedule, this firm was manufacturing extensively boronia, wattle and other perfumes which can be produced nowhere else in the world. The letter goes on to say - and we ourselves pay excise duty amounting to many thousands of pounds in a year.

Foreign manufacturers built up their trade in Australia under duties somewhat similar to those which you now propose to reduce,

The obvious deduction is that Faulding and Company are under the impression that we are proposing a reduction of the duties upon which that firm built up its present trade- and it is only during the last twelve months that such firms have found it impossible to do further trade in Australia, due to the exchange.’ They Iia ve consequently, in some cases, opened factories in Australia. Such firms would also like to feel that their actions and confidence, in Australia are supported by Parliament.

We would point out that all packages and bottles and other containers which Australian manufacturers have to import, pay a duty of 00 per cent, or over, so that a duty of 25 per cent, on the packed articles would not in any way offset the disadvantages that Australian manufacturers have in this regard.

Upon receipt of this communication I telegraphed to Faulding and Company in order that I might be fortified with information, when the Senate met to-day, of the rates upon these items in the tariff upon which they were now required to pay an increase of 60 per.cent. This item is another illustration of the complaint made by a number of honorable senators when speaking to the second-reading debate, that these excessively high duties threatened to ruin some of our secondary industries. Faulding and Company continue -

The duty you propose for the gallon rate is only approximately the same as Australian manufacturers have to pay as excise rates on spirits for high-class perfume manufactures.

We would ask you to particularly give this matter further consideration before pressing for this reduction of duty, and we shall be pleased to put the full facts before you, if you so desire.

– That is so. In yesterday’s’ newspapers there appeared a cabled report that the French firm of Coty proposes to establish a factory in England for the manufacture of perfumes. That is a direct result of the British duties. In a matter of this kind we may well follow the example of Britain.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Would the honorable senator accept the British duty?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– No. I, for one, am anxious to maintain Australian industrial conditions, which are entirely different from those of Britain. I do not believe that a reduction of wages, and a lowering of the standard of living, will prove a panacea for all our industrial ills. Our most pressing duty is to find employment for our unemployed workers. Recently, a conference of the International Chambers of Commerce was held in Washington, United States of America. The British Chambers of Commerce sent to the conference a strong delegation, headed by Lord Luke, and on its return the delegation furnished a report, in which it stated -

It is essential to correct the disequilibrium of the balance of trade, and no other means are open to Great Britain than a drastic reduction in the volume of her imports, either by total prohibitions, or by a general tariff.

The report of the British delegation is given in full in the Statist of the 3rd October last. The position of Australia in the matter of international trade is not so favorable as is that of Britain. For the first eight months of the present year, Great Britain’s trade with other countries, including the export of gold bullion to the amount of £20,000,000, showed an adverse balance of about £260,000,000. Owing to the absence of duties, or the low tariffs on a number of commodities, Great Britain had become the dumping ground of almost every other country, with the result that nearly 3,000,000 of her work-people had been thrown out of employment. It is a reflection on the statesmen of France to suggest that the manufacture of perfume in Australia would provoke French hostility towards us; in my opinion, the French people would take ho notice of it. This is certainly a lucrative industry in France. Quite recently a statement appeared in the Australian press to the effect that Coty. having had a matrimonial disagreement with his- wife, and the latter having retired from the business, was prepared to compensate her to the extent of £3,000,000. The perfume industry has already been established in Australia, and its extension is most desirable. Excellent boronia perfume is made from the native flower of that name, and it is within the range of possibility that an export trade in this particular perfume will be developed, to the great benefit of Western Australia. An English poet has written of the sweet perfume of the tuberose, but his words were penned when little was known of the delightfully perfumed flower which is indigenous to the great western State.

The complaint has been made that we are asked to deal with this and a number of other items in the absence of reports by the Tariff Board regarding them; but we are well aware that increased du ties have been imposed because the industrial and commercial conditions of the world have changed so suddenly that prompt and drastic action had to be taken by the Government to correct what the authority to whom I referred a few moments ago has described as “ the disequilibrium of the balance of trade.” If reports by the Tariff Board were submitted in regard to every duty embraced in the schedule, would honorable senators be guided by them ?

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– It would not make the slightest difference to Senator Crawford.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Not long ago, despite a report by a committee which made a comprehensive investigation into conditions in the sugar industry of Australia, many honorable senators were prepared to vote for such a reduction in the price of sugar as would have brought ruin to the industry. This industry, of course, is carried on in only one State, and, in all probability; the perfume industry would be conducted in only one or two States. It is becoming more and more obvious that a great many members of Parliament have a strictly geographical point of view. I shall support the duty under consideration, and most of the proposals in the schedule, because’ I am satisfied that Australia, like almost every other country, must aim at becoming self-contained in regard to manufactured commodities. Otherwise, instead of unemployment being reduced, it will steadily increase. In the course of this debate, not one speaker in opposition to the Government’s tariff proposals has made a practical suggestion as to how we are to find work for the present army of unemployed, which constitutes a grave national danger, and is doing more to promote communism in our midst than all the propaganda being carried on in Sydney and elsewhere. If conditions are made at all tolerable for the working people of this country, communism is unlikely to progress; but, at the present time, the communists are sowing seed in fruitful soil.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– A prohibitive tariff has been in force for two years.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Yes, but under most abnormal conditions. If many members of this Parliament had not frequently expressed their hostility to the tariff, it would have proved much more effective than it has been in providing employment. I understand the view taken by Senator Pearce, who represents a State whose citizens have decided that they will not have secondary industries. They have put nearly all their eggs into one basket, and, consequently, they are feeling the present depression oven more than the people of the eastern States. It would be a good thing for the latter if the dependent States withdrew from the federation.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– What about the £5,000,000 Queensland has had for sugar?

Senator CRAWFORD:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Queensland has had nothing of the kind.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Senator DOOLEY:
New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

– Any one listening to this debate would be justified in assuming that this was a foreign and not an Australian Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce), Senator McLachlan, Senator Lynch and others, seem to be very much concerned about what France might do. Their speeches are practically an invitation to France to retaliate. We have a right to expect to find in this Parliament patriotic Australians, who desire to do their best for Australia. Surely honorable senators opposite must realize that if we are to square our ledger and correct our adverse trade balance it is essential for us to maintain high duties on imports which are luxuries.

Senator Foll:

– I rise to a point of order. Is the Assistant Minister entitled on this item to discuss the fiscal policy of the Commonwealth? I submit that he should confine his remarks to the item before the Chair.

The CHAIRM AN. - I ask the Assistant Minister to confine his remarks to the item before the Chair, which is perfumed spirits.

page 1841

IMPORTED PERFUMES

Yardley’s 2 oz. Eaude Cologne -11s., less 10 per cent. f.o.b. London; 35s. 2d., landed cost; 45s., wholesale price.

Yardley’s 2 oz. Lavender Water - 18s., less 10 per cent, f.o.b. London; 47s. 5d., landed cost;61s.6d., wholesale price.

The above landed cost includes 50s. per bulk gallon and 30 per cent,ad valorem duty; 10 per cent, primage; 50 per cent, surtax and. the ruling rate of exchange.

page 1842

AUSTRALIAN PERFUMES

Royal Eau de Cologne, 2 oz.,19s. a dozen, wholesale price.

Faulding’s Eau de Cologne, 2 oz., 18s. a dozen, wholesale price.

Faulding’s Lavender Water, 2 oz.,16s.6d., a dozen, wholesale price.

Potter and . Moore’s Lavender Water, 2 oz., 25s. a dozen, wholesale price.

Question - That the request (Senator M cLachlan’s) be agreed to. - put. The committee divided. ( Ch airm an - Senator P l ai n . )

AYES: 13

NOES: 13

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Request (by Senator Payne) proposed

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out from the duties: - “and ad val., British, 30 per cent.; intermediate, 35 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.”

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

. - I should have thought that Senator Payne would welcome the fact that the Australian distilleries are turning their attention to the manufacture of perfumed spirit in place of whisky and alcoholic beverages.

Senator Payne:

– That is the object of my request.

Senator FOLL:

– At least three distilleries in Australia, including wine distilleries, have, under the protection which is given to them under this item, a unique opportunity to manufacture spirits for use in the famous Eau de Cologne scent known as 4711. Already Australian samples of this spirit have been sent to Germany with a view to ascertaining whether they are suitable, because it is absolutely necessary to have an odourless spirit for use in the manufacture of perfume. One would have thought that Senator Payne would be anxious to assist in the manufacture of this spirit in Australia. There is now a golden opportunity for the building up of this industry in Australia. I do not fear retaliation from France on an item of this description. If the French manu- factum’s of famous scents value the Australian trade to any extent, they will establish a factory in Australia, in the same way as French manufacturers, because of the new British tariff, are establishing factories in Great Britain. This item will give valuable assistance to an Australian industry, and will not seriously interfere with our trade with France. The figures quoted by Senator O’Halloran show that the prohibitive duties under this tariff have only partially affected our trade with France. In 1927-28 that country purchased nearly 140,000,000 lb. of our greasy wool, and in 1930-31 it purchased 147,500,000 lb. Our sales of wool to France have, therefore, increased since the operation of our protective policy. The same statement applies to some of our other products, which are purchased by France. Surely, honorable senators, particularly those representing Western Australia, who are so fond of talking about the necessity for building up our export trade in primary industries, will support an item, the object of which is to enable us to manufacture products for export.

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

. - I intend to support the item as it stands. It is a luxury item, and the Government must have revenue.

Senator Sampson:

– This is a prohibitive duty, and, therefore, no revenue will be gained tinder the item.

Senator J B HAYES:

– This item will assist in establishing in Australia an industry for the manufacture of perfumed spirit, and so provide more employment for our citizens. Some years ago a certain gentleman went to Tasmania to exploit French perfume. He expended many thousands of pounds in buying a property, clearing the land and erecting buildings upon it for the production of a distilled oil, which is the basis of some of the best French perfumes. What that man has done, hundreds of others can do. This property of 100 acres provides more employment than the many adjoining farms several times its extent. I am referring to an estate called Bridstowe, in the Lilydale district of Tasmania. The owner, an eminent chemist, has for the past four or five years been growing French lavender there.

Senator McLachlan:

– He started that industry under the Bruce-Page tariff.

Senator J B HAYES:

– I am prepared to assist in establishing Australian industries, particularly those which provide considerable employment. There is plenty of room for this industry in Australia. It is largely a primary industry, and certainly deserves adequate protection.

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

– I shall not support this item, ‘because adequate protection was given under the tariff operating up to 1928-29. One point touched upon by Senator Foll gives us food for thought, and I shall discuss it now in connexion with this item, although it relates to a considerable number of other items. It is easy to talk about the necessity for protecting industries, but I would remind honorable senators that we have in Australia the spectacle of a number of factories operating with plant which is more or less obsolete.

Senator Foll:

– I rise to apoint of order. Is Senator Kingsmill in order in discussing under this item the general policy of protection?

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– If the duties are wiped out altogether there must be free trade.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– This duty will not be wiped out altogether, and the honorable senator knows it. He, in common with several other honorable senators, is continually putting into our mouths words that we would never dream of uttering. That may be all right in a certain kind of dialectics, but it is not playing the game, and will not conduce to the maintenance of our debates on fair, proper and decent lines. I support therequest.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I am quite aware that we have in Tasmania a very fine industry, devoted to the growing of the lavender plant and the making of lavender water, and was pleased when sufficient protection was given in the last revision of the tariff to enable it to perform a useful service.

Senator O’Halloran:

– Now the honorable senator proposes to take away that protection.

Senator PAYNE:

– I am proposing nothing of the kind, and the honorable senator knows it. The suggestion has been made that we should revert to the 1928 tariff; but if my amendment is carried, the duty will become the equivalent of the flat rate and the ad valorem rate of 1928.

Senator Daly:

– That is not so; it will be below the 1928 tariff.

Senator PAYNE:

– I have had no request made to me recently by the gentleman referred to by Senator J. B. Hayes. I had, some years ago, and I placed it before the Government of the day, which recognized the need for giving some protection to the industry. I do not consider that I am justified in supporting this Government when it illegally imposes a tariff.

Senator Daly:

– The statement that the Government has done something illegal is offensive to me, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

That the committee do now divide.

Question - That the request (Senator Payne’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. ( Ch air m a n - S en ator Plai n . )

AYES: 12

NOES: 14

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bequest negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 9-

By omitting the whole item (twice occurring) and inserting in its stead the following item: - “ii. Spirituous preparations, viz.: -

Essences, fruit ethers,aromas and’ flavours, lime juice and other fruit juices and fruit syrups, ‘spirituous preparations, n.e.i. and as to all the goods coveredby paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4)and (5) of sub-item (b), ad val., British, 30 per cent. ; intermediate, 40 per cent.; general, 45 per cent.”

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend sub-itemb by leaving out “and, as. to all the goods coveredby paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of sub-item (b), ad val., British, 30 per cent.; intermediate, 40 per cent.; general, 45 per cent.”

.- It. is all very well for the Minister to try to dismiss these matters lightly. The Tariff Board made a most exhaustive investigation of this item, and its conclusions and the reasons for arriving at those conclusions should be of interest to honorable senators. They are embodied in the report of the board, dated the 9th July, 1926. This afternoon we have been endeavouring to discuss the revenue portion of the tariff. As these additional duties involve the levying of a heavy tribute upon the people of Australia, the onus is upon the Minister to justify the action of the Government, either by another Tariff Board report, or by some statement from an authoritative source. That he has not done. This inquiry was fought most fiercely. There were fifteen to twenty witnesses in favour of the request, a number against it, and 40 to 50 manufacturers’ representatives appeared, representing both sides. The summary to the report reads -

The board heard voluminous evidence on the question of rates of pay and hours of work in Australia and England, but in view of the fact that Australian prices of essences are lower than the imported, the board does not consider it necessary to load this report with figures.

I am sure that honorable senators will be struck by the fact that Australian prices of essences are lower than the imported prices. Why then, are our essences not used? The trade is always anxious to obtain a low priced article, provided that it is of equal quality with the more expensive product. The report continues -

The Tariff Board . was impressed by the unanimity of the opposition to an increase in the duty from the vast majority of the users of essences in the different manufacturing trades concerned.

A dozen or more manufacturing trades were concerned in opposing the request for higher duties, and in the light of the board’s report it behoves us to move cautiously lest we impose a burden not only on the public but also on manufacturers. The report continues -

In addition to this the manufacturers of local essences were by no means unanimous in support of the application.

Despite the solid phalanx of manufacturers ofaerated waters, confectionery, and jelly crystals who were opposed to the application, and the division of opinion amongst the makers of essences, we are asked without further explanation, except parrot-like references to the trade balance, to increase these duties.

Senator Hoare:

– The report was made five years ago.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– If the honorable senator has knowledge of all that has happened in the trade since 1926, I shall welcome the information. In the absence of authoritative and up-to-date data I prefer the considered views of the experts who were appointed to be the eyes of Parliament in regard to the -tariff. The board’s report stated -

All the evidence confirmed the fact that the landed cost at present of the imported essences is higher than the price of Australianmade essences; the difference varies with different essences and according to the evidence was as great as 70 per cent, in some instances.

Local manufacturers who use such essences in the preparation of jelly crystals, custards and blancmange powders and prepared icing sugar, notwithstanding this wide difference in price, swear that they are compelled to use 80 per cent, of the English along with 20 per cent, of the Australian essences in order to enable them to maintain their standard of quality and flavour in “competition with the imported jelly crystals, &c.

Whenever possible they would naturally give a preferenceto the Australian essences., more particularly since the price is so much lower. An increase in duty would only result in an increase in the price of their commodities since they would still be compelled to use the English essences to maintain their standard, with the result that with the present protection on jelly crystals they would be in danger of losing their trade. Already their overseas competitors obtain their other raw materials - sugar and gelatine - on far more favorable conditions. . . .

Consequently any increase in duty on essences would not lead to any greater consumption of fruits in connexion with their business. Synthetic essences are a necessity to them. . . .

Any increase in the duty that might be granted would mainly result in an increase in the price of aerated drinks without benefiting the Australian fruit-grower or essence maker, since they would still continue to use the imported essences in order to maintain their standard.

– Since I must obey your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I shall not be able to take any further part in the discussion upon this item.

Question - That the request (Senator E. B. Johnston’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator Plain.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 11

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Item agreed to subject to a request.

Item 10 (Ethers and chloroform.)

By omitting the whole of sub-item (11) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item: - “ (b) N.E.I., containing not more than 5 per cent. of proof spirit, ad val., British,35 per cent.; intermediate, 40 per cent.; general, 45 per cent.”

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– I move -

That the Houseof Representatives be requested to make the duties, sub-item (b), British, 20 per cent.; intermediate, 25 per cent.; general, 30 per cent.

Until this schedule was placed on the table in another place the duties were - British, 15 per cent.; intermediate, 20 per cent.; general 25 per cent. It is now proposed to increase those rates to 35 per cent., 40 per cent. and 45 per cent. respectively. My request is to reduce them to 20 per cent., 25 per cent, and 30 per cent.

Senator DALY:
Assistant Minister · South Australia · ALP

– When I explain the reason for the increase, the honorable senator will probably withdraw his request. The whole item relates to ethers and chloroform. In 1028-29, the importations of ethers n.e.i. containing not more than 5 per cent. of proof spirit, were as follow: United Kingdom, £1,166; foreign countries, £9,524; a total of £10,690. In the following year the figures were - United Kingdom, £499; foreign countries, £7,325; the total being £7,824. For the year 1930-31, the importations dropped to - United Kingdom, £343: foreign countries, £6,410; a total of £6,753. The action taken in increasing the rates of duty is to circumvent overseas exporters who, in the past, have resorted to the practice of placing more than 2 per cent., but not more than 5 per cent., of proof spirit in amyl acetate in order to gain the advantage of the lower rates operating under this subitem, namely, 15 per cent. British, 25 per cent. general. These rates have, therefore, been made the same as those operating on non-spirituous amyl acetate and ethyl acetate under item 11 a. This step has been taken by the Government, not with the idea of affording protection, as we understand the term in a tariff sense, but with a view to safeguard the revenue. It was the analyst connected with the Customs Department who advised the department as to the manner in which the overseas exporters were taking advantage of the lower rates of duty applying to this sub-item.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– The explanation for the increase of duties is quite satisfactory. I seem to remember that when the last tariff was going through Parliament, this matter was raised, and that there was a suggestion that importers by holding alcohol in some other form could evade paying higher duties. I ask leave to withdraw my request.

Request - by leave - withdrawn.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Rem agreed to.

Item11 -

By omitting the whole of sub-item (b) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item: - “(b) Etherealfruit essences and artificial fruit essences, ethers, aromas and flavours, non-spirituous, n.e.i., per lb. - British. 3s.6d.; intermediate, 4s.; general, 5s., or ad val., British, 30 per cent.; intermediate, 40 per cent.; general, 45 per cent.; whichever rate returns the higher duty.”

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

.- The Tariff Board recommended the following duties: - British preferential, 20 per cent.; intermediate, 25 per cent.; and general, 30 per cent., whereas the present duties are, per lb. - British, 3s. 6d.; intermediate, 4s.; and general, 5s., or ad val., British, 30 per cent.; intermediate, 40 per cent.; and general, 45 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty. In the absence of any information to justify the increase in duties, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the duties, sub-item (b) “ per lb. British, 3s.6d. ; intermediate, 4s. ; general, 5s.:” and make the duties, ad val., British. 25 per cent.; intermediate, 35 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.

Senator DALY:
Assistant Minister · South Australia · ALP

– For the information of the committee, I supplythe following figures with respect, to importations : -

The total values of importations are for 1928-29, £1,116; 1929-30, £479; and 1930-31, £409. In view of these figures, I think the committee should agree to pass the item in its present form. This subitem was introduced as a corollary to the increased rates under sub-item 9 b> If the House of Representatives agrees to the request of the committee with respect to sub-item 9 b, an anomaly would exist unless there were also an alteration in the duties under this sub-item. If the duties under sub-item 9 b are not restored, and these duties remain, an anomaly will exist.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Why have the duties been increased when the importations were falling off?

Senator DALY:

– The committee has to consider the tariff from the view-point of revenue, protection of our industries, and of balancing our overseas trade. The Government does not wish to encourage the person who has credits overseas and wishes to import goods that we can do without. We wish to assist the banks in conserving credits overseas. It has been suggested that if the duties under this sub-item and sub-item 9 b do not harmonize, those using these commodities may substitute one for the other. I do not propose to call for a division, but the committee should understand that tha, Government does not support -the request submitted with respect to sub-item 9 b or this sub-item.

Request agreed to.

Item agreed to subject to a request.

Items 12 and 13 agreed to.

Division II. - Tobacco and Manufactures thereof.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
appears in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 17th November to the effect that Mr. Brookes, the Government Tobacco* Expert, and others have been giving evidence before the Tariff Board in Brisbane, and that further evidence is to betaken in Melbourne. I ask the Assistant Minister (Senator Daly · West

to postpone this* division until the other items in the schedule have been disposed of, or until the board has furnished its report on the tobacco duties.

Senator Daly:

– Perhaps it would meet the convenience of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) if the consideration of these duties were postponed until Division 15 has been disposed of.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I am agreeable to that.

Division’ postponed.

Division III. - Sugar.

Item 27-

By omitting the whole item and inserting in its stead the following item: - “27 Glucose.. ]>er lu., British, 2d.; intermediate, 2d.; general, 2d.”

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

. -The importation of glucose has been prohibited since April, 1930. The Tariff Board recommended that the duties should be increased to £15 per’ ton, but the rate of 2d. per lb. in the schedule amounts to £18 13s. 4d. per ton. I, therefore, move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duties, per ton, British, £15; intermediate, £15; general, £15.

Senator DALY:

– I have not received a single protest from a brewer, a confectioner, or any other person who uses’ this primary product. I have received complaints about sugar, but maize seems to be the only product of Queensland about, which the manufacturers arc nol concerned. So far as I am aware, no confectioner in Australia has complained concerning the cost of glucose. In view of the fact that this duty means so much to the maize industry, honorable senators should not capriciously support the amendment. If they give the matter the fullest consideration, then, under the give and take policy that operates in this chamber, the representatives of the southern States will assist those from Queensland to keep the important Queensland industry of maize production in operation.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

– I cannot see why exception is taken to this duty which, as Senator Pearce has remarked, amounts to 75 per cent, ad valorem, when we have already agreed to a duty on wine which is equivalent to over 400 per cent. It is true that 400,000 bushels of Queensland maize are purchased annually by Maize Products Proprietary Limited, but I am informed that a considerable quantity of the maize bought by that company is grown at Orbost, Victoria. Some years ago, nearly the whole of the maize produced in Australia was used as fodder for working horses, but now there is far less demand for fodder for working animals, and another outlet has been secured for some of the maize. It cannot be shown that since this duty has been increased, the manufacturers of confectionery have raised their prices. I venture to say that confectionery is cheaper in Australia to-day ‘than it has been for years. . In Brisbane, recently, I saw what appeared to be quite good chocolates, made by the largest manufacturer in New South Wales, displayed for sa.le at ls. per lb., and I noticed chocolates similarly priced in Sydney yesterday. Notwithstanding the present depression, manufacturers of confectionery seem to keep fairly busy, and a number of new, though small, manufacturers have established themselves in the principal cities of the Commonwealth. Much has been said about the need for assisting the primary producers, and here is an opportunity for honorable senators to prove their sincerity. If maize-growers in Queensland and elsewhere are not able to retain the present market for their product, it will have to be sold in competition with other products, or the primary producers will have to endeavour to sub stitute something else for what is now sold as raw material for the manufacture of glucose.

Senator Foll:

– Potatoes, for instance.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Yes. The Atherton Tableland, where maize is now grown, is as suitable as any other part of Australia for the production of potatoes. There is hardly a district in Queensland, from Cape York to Tweed Heads, where potatoes cannot be successfully produced, and if the farmers of Queensland decided to grow them, the mainland market for Tasmanian potatoes would be gone for ever. At the present time, Queensland is not growing sufficient potatoes for its own requirements, but it could easily supply the needs of the whole of Australia.

– It is absurd to talk of what action might be necessary if my amendment were accepted. Subsequent to the 1926 tariff, the Tariff Board went fully into this subject. An application was made by Ma Use Products Proprietary Limited, of Footscray, Victoria, which asked that the duty on glucose be increased to 2d. per lb. equivalent to a i.i increase of 100 per cent., ad valorem. Those in favour of the application were five representatives of Maize Products Proprietary Limited, and Mr. Frederick John Riley, secretary of the Manufacturing Grocers Employees Union. Among those who opposed the application were CadburyFryPascall, Limited, Claremont, Tasmania ; Mr. Frank G. Newell, merchant, of Sydney; Mr. Percy Chambers Hemphill, manager of General Household Supplies Company, Melbourne; Mr. John Arthur Hinder, manager of Walton’s Limited, Adelaide; and Mr. Thomas Leonard Taylor, secretary of James Hill and Sons, agents in South Australia for Corn Products Company, of New York. The board reported -

It has been ascertained that imported glucose is being sold to buyers in the Commonwealth at £19 per ton ‘ c.i.f.e. Australia. This, with a duty of f 12 per ton on glucose and £1 10s. upon casks, is equivalent to £32 10s. landed, duty paid, whereas the cost to the Maine Products Company of Australia works out at £33 (is. 4d. per ton. This includes all overhead charges which amount to practically 0 per cent, of the total cost. At this price no provision is made for profit.

In view of this competition the Maize Produets Company is compelled to sell its product to buyers in other States at prices ranging from £33 to £38 per ton. The higher figure applying to distant States which the coastal freight is a greater charge.

During the last few years competition from United States of America has become keener, with the result that the local manufacturer, in order to maintain his connexion, had to meet overseas prices at his own cost.

After dealing with the cost of producing glucose in America the report continued -

The reason that the manufacturer in the United States of America is in the position to undercut the Australian price is due to the favorable position he occupies in respect to the raw material. While Australian maize has cost the local manufacturer from 4s. 7Jd. per bushel, the present price is from 5s. 7d. to 5s. 9d. per bushel as against the American price of 4s. 1 1/2d. in July, 1 025, 3s. 2d. in October, 1025, and 2s. lOd. in March, 192(i.

From these figures it will be seen that while the overseas manufacturer is producing his glucose from maize, the price of which has considerably fallen within the last twelve months, the local manufacturer has to meet’ the higher costs of maize in Australia. In fact at the present time on account of shortage, he has to meet his needs by importations from South Africa.

Were it not for the fact that the loading confectionery manufacturers in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane are shareholders in the Maize Products Company, it is quite likely’ that the competition from overseas would have succeeded in extinguishing the local industry.

Attention is invited to the fact that it costs £33 (is. 4d. per ton to produce glucose in Australia, while American glucose is landed in the Coin mon wealth n.t £33 ls. 4d. per ton duty paid. Whatever has been done in the past with regard to bonus shares, the position now is that the Australian manufacturer is in a very bad position as compared with manufacturers abroad.

It is impossible to speak of the future position of the maize in the respective countries, that is whether the price in America will rise or that in Australia will fall. There is a shortage in the Commonwealth at present necessitating importation from South Africa while apparently on the low American price there is an abundant harvest in that country.

In order to compete with the low American prices the Australian manufacturer is obliged to sell in some cases mi a very narrow margin of profit and in one ease at least, without any profit at all.

The board recommended -

In view of these circumstances as well of the receding prices and increasing importations of American glucose, the Tariff Board considers that the Australian industry is in need of further protection, and accordingly recommends the present duty of £12 per ton to be increased to £15 per ton.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– It is manufactured into cornflour and maizena, or is used for feeding stock. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) stated that this duty penalized the confectionery industry. We learn from the Tariff Board’s report, which was quoted by Senator Sampson, that . leading confectionery manufacturers in Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane are shareholders in Maize Products Limited. These manufacturers must have had some good reason for organizing the maize industry to ensure a supply of glucose, a product which is needed in the manufacture of confectionery. Doubtless they discovered that they were being exploited by the exporting countries. The figures quoted by Senator Daly show that, prior to this Government taking office, the principalcountry supplying Australia’s requirements of glucose was the United States of America.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– That is not so, because the imports from that country declined considerably in 1929.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– In 1926-27, our total imports of glucose were 25,431 cwt., of which the United States of America supplied 21,140 cwt. In 1927-28, we imported 19,358 cwt., of which the United States of America supplied 16,457 cwt. In 1928-29, we imported 9,950 cwt., of which the United States of America supplied 8,708 cwt. During those years the bulk of our imports were from the United States of America, a country which has studiously refused to purchase Australian products although for many years the balance of trade has been against us. We were told by the Leader of the Opposition, during the second-reading debate, that we should so frame the tariff as to encourage trade with those countries which traded with us, and he showed little sympathy with our wealthy uncle across the Pacific. Now he is championing the cause of American glucose as against Australian glucose. I admit that in 1929-30, when our imports were 7,879 cwt., the United

States of America supplied only 793 cwt. But there is a good reason for that. The American competition in the three previous years had been so intense and severe that the Industries Preservation Act was put into operation to prevent the dumping of glucose. In addition this tariff was imposed in November of 1929. By those means we prevented the influx of American glucose, although the application of the anti-dumping provision did not benefit the Australian glucose industry until the latter part of 1929-30. In that year we imported 7,879 cwt., of which 793 cwt. were supplied by the United States of America, and 6,686 cwt. by the Netherlands. The trade statistics relating to the Netherlands show that in 1929-30 the exports of all Australian commodities to that country were valued at £451,603, and the imports to Australia at £1,134,921. When we stopped the importation of glucose from America we turned for our requirements, not to one of our good customers like Great Britain, Prance or Italy, but to the Netherlands, with which country we had an unfavorable trade balance. The point which I am stressing is that the Australian confectionery manufacturers, to avoid being exploited by foreign interests, were forced into the glucose industry to secure the supply of raw material essential to their industry. That venture has been of substantial benefit to the maize-growers of Australia, and having regard to our adverse trade balance with the two countries which were at the time supplying us with glucose, the Government imposed this protective duty. It has been effective, and therefore must receive the endorsement of this committee.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I was amazed at some of the statements that were made by my friend, Senator Carroll. That honorable senator is a direct ‘representative in this chamber of the primary producers; yet he made the statement that the manufacture of glucose in Australia has had no effect whatever upon the price of maize or the stability of the market.

Senator Carroll:

– I did not make any such statement.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That is what I understood the honorable senator to say.

According to the figures that have been given to the committee to-night, the maize used in Australia in the manufacture of glucose is something over 6,000 tons per annum,- while the total production of maize is only something over 7,000 tons per annum.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– The maize produced in the Commonwealth totals 200,000 tons annually.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That certainly alters the position somewhat; but it does not destroy the argument that I am advancing. If a similar proportion of the total production of wheat were suddenly sought by a buyer for some new manufacturing industry, such an industry would receive the hearty support of Senator Carroll, and of others who are opposing this duty. The demand thus caused does and must have a steadying, as well as a rising influence, upon the market. In the interests of the maizegrowers, there is a tariff on imported maize. I remember well the outcry that was made by the poultry farmers, and certain other primary producers, against the imposition of the duty on South African maize, which was imposed in the interests of our maize-growers. The manufacture of glucose furnishes those growers with one of their principal outlets for their product; yet it is seriously proposed that the duty shall be reduced, and that the manufacturer of glucose shall face intense competition from other countries. The fact that that competition was not present in 1928, or even earlier, is no guarantee that it would he absent if the duty were removed. The report of the Tariff Board, read by Senator Sampson, appeared to me to state one of the most complete cases ever made out by that body in support of the imposition of a very considerable duty. The language which the board used on that occasion was, perhaps, stronger than is to be found in any of its other reports. The objection appears to be that the duty imposed by the Government is higher than that recommended by the board.

Senator Kingsmill:

– It was bound to be.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Not necessarily. As the Government has pointed out, the conditions have altered since the board made its report. In that report the competition to which the Australian industry was subjected, the low cost of production in other countries, and the advantage that would accrue to our maize-growers by the maintenance of this industry, were dealt with, and the board then recommended a duty which, in its opinion, would meet the requirements of the case. The Government has made ‘allowance for the altered conditions, and in the interests of the maize-growers, who should be our first consideration, we ought to agree to its proposal.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– The whole question is, whether there is a fair division of profits between the maize-grower and the manufacturer of glucose.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That is an important question, but not one that we can take into account in considering what duties should be imposed. The maizegrowers themselves should have a sufficiently strong organization to secure an adequate return for the maize that they produce.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– How can they, when the quantity of maize used in the manufacture of glucose represents only one-twentieth of the total production ?

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– They can do so to a considerable extent. Action along those lines is taken in connexion with other industries, including the wheat industry. But even if we assume that it is not possible for the maize-growers to protect their own interests in this way, that should not weigh with us in considering the future of an industry and in deciding whether it shall be maintained or allowed to go to the wall. I trust that, in the interests of the maize-growers and of the glucose industry, the item will stand.

Senator DALY:
Assistant Minister · South Australia · ALP

– Senator Hays asked whether there was anything like an equitable distribution of profits between the maize-grower and the manufacturer of glucose. It is impossible for the Government to give any such assurance. But honorable senators should not overlook the fact that to-day the maizegrower in Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria is receiving 2s. 7d. a bushel, although world’s parity is only ls. 10#d a bushel. The matter may best he tested by a comparison of the position to-day with what it was under the Bruce-Page tariff. While the latter operated, the United States of America supplied a portion of Australia’s requirements of glucose, and the present Government had to decide whether it should protect Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria against that country. Is the committee prepared to revert to the Bruce-Page tariff, and to allow the United States of. America to supply Australia with its requirements of glucose, thus driving out of production that section at least of the maize-growers who to-day are meeting this demand? Not one confectioner, brewer, or other user of glucose in Australia has complained by letter, wive, or interview to any member of the Senate, regarding this duty; yet honorable senators are asked to interfere with it capriciously, to humour the lip loyalty to protection of certain members of this chamber.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– There has been no complaint against the duty by those to whom the Minister has referred, because they are all in the swim together.

Senator DALY:

– Of course they are; and I am pleased that we are in it. with them. When I became a member of this chamber, I was told that the present Government had sold itself to the American moving picture interests. Nobody would grumble to-day if we w;ere to put a prohibitive tariff on American moving pictures, notwithstanding the fact that there is no immediate prospect of our producing our requirements’. But we can produce maize with which we can supply our glucose requirements. Yet it is argued that we must not protect the growers in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, and discriminate against our rich uncle overseas!

Senator Cooper:

– What quantity of maize is used in Australia in the manufacture of glucose?

Senator DALY:

– The figures have left my possession. But whatever the quantity may be, if it is not used in the manufacture of glucose another market will have to be found for it. In one State, 400,000 bushels are used. I was amazed to hear Senator Sampson pooh pooh the smallness of the quantity used. It is not. so long since we spent a whole day discussing the

Tasmanian hop industry. If we shut up our markets what are we to do with the maize? Probably the same as with our butter, we pay 4d. per lb. in order that we may export.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– That was not necessary prior to 1929, when the duty was lower than the present rate.

Senator DALY:

– The acreage then under production was not so great as at present, and the world parity was lower. Honorable senators cannot blind their eyes to the fact that in this instance the users of the product have not uttered the slightest protest. On the other hand the primary producers appealed to this Government through the agents, admittedly a company in which, they are shareholders, asking that the industry shall be protected so that the United States of America will not have control of the Australian glucose market, which they desire shall be left in the hands of Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales.

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

– With me, this seems to be simply a matter of which authority Ave are to accept. From the beginning of this discussion I have pinned my faith to the Tariff Board, a body created for the purpose of working out these problems, and advising the Government thereon, and I see no reason for departing from that course now.

Senator Thompson:

– The Tariff Board’s report is four years old.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– And this tariff is two years old. There is no proof that the conditions have altered enough to justify the difference in duty between £15 and £18 13s. a ton. I do not wonder at Senator Duncan getting a bit tied up about these figures, because bushels have been systematically mixed up with tons. Further, I am not a. believer in conclusions which arc worked out on the spur of the moment, or even on parliamentary notepaper, because they are so apt to be tinged by the predilictions of the person working them out. The Tariff Board, which consists of unprejudiced persons, who are experts in these subjects, has thought this matter over, examined a fair number of witnesses of differing opinions, and has come to the conclusion that sufficient protection, shall I say pro- hibition, is given by the imposition of a duty of £15 a ton. Why, therefore, cannot the Government accept for oncethe. advice of those who are by law appointed to be its advisers?

Senator Daly:

– The Government did not seek the advice of the Tariff Board in connexion with the.gold bounty.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– That is a particularly characteristic interjection from my adroit friend. Always the honorable senator offers the deterrent or the inducement that he thinks will win the case, and thus tries to bluff or tempt those whom he wishes to influence. Had he been in politics as long as some of us have been, goodness only knows what Machiavellian practices he would resort to at this stage of his career. Thinking the matter over dispassionately, I believe that the advice given by the Tariff Board is most acceptable, and suited to the purpose. In the circumstances I find myself impelled to vote for the request that has been put forward by Senator Sampson.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– My remarks will follow partly along the lines of those of Senator Kingsmill

Senator O’Halloran:

– Do not forget that things have changed since . 1.927.

Senator PAYNE:

– I am aware of that, but I remind the Minister and honorable senators that when the Tariff Board made its inquiries into glucose in 1927, it dealt with exactly the same questions as those which the Minister put to the committee this evening. The board had the advantage of hearing evidence from all interested parties. After weighing that evidence, and taking into consideration all the circumstances affecting the industry, it came to a conclusion, and made a recommendation. That was two, not four, years before this tariff came into operation. Senator Daly and another honorable senator made reference to the dumping of glucose into Australia by the United States of America. The Tariff Board examined that aspect of the matter, and embodied in its report a statement showing the average quarterly quotations for maize in the United States of America, together with the domestic prices of glucose supplied by the official representative of the Department of Trade and

Customs, New York, and the landed costs which would have been incurred on importations based on those prices, compared with landed costs of actual importations of glucose into the Commonwealth. The Tariff Board also stated in its report that there had been no dumping on the part of the United States of America. That was in 1927.

Senator O’Halloran:

– And in 1930 the board recommended the application of section 4 of the Industries Preservation Act.

Senator PAYNE:

– We have legislation on our statute-book which enables us to deal with dumping at any time. That has nothing to do with the discussion of this tariff item. In its report, the Tariff Board said -

The reason that the manufacturer in the United States of America is in the position to undercut the Australian price, is due to the favorable position he occupies in respect to the raw material. While Australian maize has cost the local manufacturer from 4s. 7½d. per bushel, the present . price is from 5s. 7d. to 5s.9d. per bushel as against the American price of 4s.1½d. in July, 1925, 3s. 2d. in October, 1925, and 2s.10d.’in March, 1926.

To-day the world’s parity is1s. 10¾d., and the domestic price is 2s. 7d., a difference of 8¼d.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– The difference that existed in 1927 could easily occur again.

Senator PAYNE:

– I mention those figures to show that if the present difference in the price of maize had obtained at the time when the Tariff Board made its report, that body would not have recommended so large an increase in the duty. The report concludes -

In view of these circumstances as well as the receding prices and increasing importations of glucose, the Tariff Hoard considers that the Australian industry is in need of furtheir protection and accordingly recommends the present duty of £12 per ton to be increased to £15 a ton.

Senator Kingsmill said that he is prepared to rely on the report of the Tariff Board, which was compiled after hearing evidence from all interested parties, rather than on an ex parte statement by the Minister. I am in precisely the same position. I believe that Senator Sampson is justified in moving his request. I am familiar with the industry, which is now being carried on successfully here, and

I do riot want its future to be jeopardized.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW (Queensland) [9.42]. - This discussion has resolved itself into a consideration of what assistance the glucose industry gives to the maize industry. Any one who knows me, will agree that at all times I do what I can to assist that industry. There is no doubt that the quantity of maize used in the manufacture of glucose has an effect on the price of maize, provided that there is no surplus for export. If there is a surplus for export, the amount of maize used in the manufacture of glucose has no effect on the price of the grain. It then comes down to a matter of export parity. In 1928-29 Australia exported 155,842 centals of maize, so that in that year the amount of maize used in the production of glucose had no effect on the price. I should imagine that there will be an export of maize this year, because of its very low price. When considering an item, the Tariff Board hears evidence from all sides. It is difficult for honorable senators to accept a statement from one party or the other, because it may be biased. The evidence given on oath before the Tariff Board on this subject made the position very clear. It must be admitted that the board is in a far better position than honorable senators to determine the measure of assistance that is required. Evidence was taken from all the interests concerned, and it was found that this industry would be adequately protected by a duty of £15 per ton. I shall vote in favour of the board’s recommendation.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The statement of the Assistant Minister that the tariffs imposed by the previous Government were not effective in protecting the Australian glucose industry is not borne out by the facts. The honorable gentleman must surely have overlooked the official returns. In the five-year period 1925-30 our imports of glucose showed remarkable variations. In 1925-26, when the duty was 12s. per cwt. or £12 per ton, our imports from the United States of America were valued at £22,000. In 1928 the duty was increased to 15s. per cwt., or £15 per ton, and the value of our imports shrank to £8,000. In 1929-30 the imports were valued at only a little over £1,000. The duty imposed by the Bruce-Page Government was operative for only a portion of that year, but it proved to be thoroughly effective. It will thus be seen that the contention of the Minister that the duties imposed by the previous Government were ineffective, was very wide of the mark. Senator Sampson has pointed out that about 95 per cent, of our- glucose requirements are already being provided by Australian manufacturers. The figures that I have quoted show clearly that neither higher duties nor an embargo is necessary to protect this industry. The previous tariff was sufficiently heavy to reduce imports from the United States of America to a negligible quantity.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– Certain honorable senators, including Senator Kingsmill, have argued that, in the absence of more conclusive evidence, the Government should be guided by the report of the Tariff Board as to the degree of protection required for this industry. I point out that, although sub-sections e and / of section 15 of the Tariff Board Act vest in the Minister the power to refer to the Tariff Board for inquiry any questions relating to the necessity for tie granting of bounties or the encouragement of primary or secondary industries in Australia, or for the reconsideration of existing bounties, many substantial bounties have been granted by this Parliament without the making of any such reference to the board. Senator Kingsmill alluded to what he called “ the confusion of authorities “. I do not think that there is any confusion of authorities. This subject was referred to the Tariff Board by the previous Government, which, subsequently, acted upon the recommendations of the board. But, later, the circumstances of the industry altered. Originally the board recommended that a duty of £15 per ton be imposed on glucose; but when it was shown two years later that, notwithstanding the operation of that duty heavy imports of glucose were still being made, the board felt it necessary to recommend that section 4 of the Industries Preservation Act be applied to glucose to prevent the dumping of the American product in Australia.

Senator Lynch:

– Only about £1,000 worth is being imported annually from America.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I am referring to a time earlier than that mentioned by Senator Lynch, when about 8,000 cwt. out of the total importation of 9,000 cwt. was coming from America. It was in these circumstances that the Government felt it necessary to impose higher duties. We know very well that high duties have been imposed on many classes of imports, not only for protective purposes, but also for the purpose of preventing other countries from dumping their surplus products in Australia. The Government felt it necessary to adopt this policy in regard to glucose, and I intend to support its action.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– It has been shown clearly in this debate that at least 90 per cent. of the glucose requirements of Australia are being manufactured here.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– That is because of the prohibition.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– That may be so; but the glucose is being produced from Australian-grown maize. The questions that chiefly concern me are whether the maize-growers are getting a fair price for their product, and whether a fair distribution of profits is being made between the maize-growers and the glucose manufacturers. I believe that the duty imposed on glucose in 1928 had the effect of encouraging the production of maize, and increasing the manufacture of glucose in Australia., with the result that the maize-growers were put on a somewhat better footing than formerly.

May I say quite frankly, by the way, that 1 do not claim any consistency for my voting on tariff questions. I do not think that any honorable senator can honestly make such a claim. Whether we care to admit it or not, we have a decidedly conscious bias in favour of the industries of the States which we represent. After all, we have been elected to this chamber to represent the interests of our various States, Every honorable senator, I believe, has, at one time or another, endeavoured to secure special protection for the primary and secondary industries of importance in his own State.

I do not think that any one of us has turned a deaf ear to the representations made to us from time to time for protection by way of increased duties, bounties or prohibitions for particular industries.

My sympathy is all with the maizegrowers. Maize-growing may truly be termed a family industry. It provides work for a large number of people, and does not require the investment of much capital. Successive governments and parliaments have encouraged people to engage in primary-producing industries. In these circumstances I intend to give the primary producers the benefit of any doubt I have, as to whether the duty on glucose should or should not be maintained at the present rate. I am not actuated by State considerations on this occasion, for there are no maize-growers in Tasmania ; but I have a desire to assist primary producers generally. I do not think that those engaged in secondary industries should be given the first consideration in every instance. I. shall therefore vote for the proposal of the Government, for I believe that the maize-growers are entitled to this degree of protection. This is an opportunity for honorable senators to give practical assistance to one section of our primary producers. If protection isa good thing, let us distribute its favours to all ‘classes of producers. On other occasions I have asked for and obtained Government assistance for Tasmanian hop, potato, and oat growers, as well as for fruit-growers, in the form of a bounty on the production of evaporated apples, and as I wish to do what I can to assist our small farmers, I intend to vote for the item.

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

– I also intend to support the Government. This is one of the few tariff items that will give direct assistance to our maize-growers. I have great respect for the members of the Tariff Board, but we must bear in mind that its report upon the glucose industry is now four years old, and much has happened since then. Since the maize-growers on the Atherton Tableland are asking for the continuance of these duties, we mustassume that they are benefiting by this tariff. Senator Foll has stated that the total maize production in Australia is in the vicinity of 8,000,000 bushels. On the basis of 40 bushels to the ton, this represents about 200,000 tons per annum. Senator Carroll also has informed us that about 76 bushels of maize are required to manufacture 1 ton of glucose, the proportion being, roughly, two to one and, as it has been stated that the production of glucose in Australia is S,000 tons yearly, we may safely assume that onetwelfth of our total maize crop is applied to the manufacture of glucose. If we interfere with these duties, Maize Products Limited, which also manufacture other by-products, may go out of existence, and our maize-growers will lose a valuable home market,.-

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [10.S]. - I cannot resist the temptation to traverse some of the statements made by Senator Herbert Hays, and suggest that, if he expects a quid pro quo, in the form of assistance for Tasmanian potato and oat growers, in return for the vote which he will give upon this item, the Government may have to pay a heavy price for these duties.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– I rise to make a personal explanation. I am aware that the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) is speaking in humorous vein; but, as that will not be apparent to readers of Hansard, 1 take this opportunity to remind him that 1 made no such statement as that which he attributes to me. What I said was that I and other Tasmanian senators had received from the Government assistance for the other primary industries mentioned, and that I intended to support the duties upon this item because they would benefit another section of our primary producers, although maize is not grown to any extent in Tasmania.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The honorable senator has misunderstood me. I said that his remarks suggested that, he expected support for his advocacy of duties on hops, potatoes, oats, and evaporated apples, in which his State is particularly interested, and that as he did not regard geographical divisions, he was prepared to vote for. this duty on glucose.

Senator Herbert Hays:

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– I have been in the Senate for eight years, and have never previously heard an honorable senator wilfully distort and misrepresent another honorable senator’s statement. I leave honorable senators to judge whether the Leader of the Opposition was quoting me correctly, or giving even a fair representation of my remarks on this item.

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

AYES: 11

NOES: 14

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bequest negatived.

Item agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 1866

ADJOURNMENT

Paper Pulp- Industry - Shale Industry

Motion (by Senator Barnes) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– I direct the attention of the Assistant Minister (Senator Daly), to the following paragraph which appeared in the Melbourne Herald of yesterday: -

page 1866

QUESTION

PAPER PULP INDUSTRY

The Minister in charge of Development (Senator Daly), and the Director of Development (Mr. John Gunn), conferred this afternoon with the Prime Minister, Mr. Scull in, on the investigations that Mr. Gunn has lately been conducting into the paper pulp industry in Tasmania. It was agreed that Mr. Gunn should continue his inquiries to enable Senator Daly to present a report to cabinet.

The establishment of the paper pulp industry in Tasmania has been investigated by Mr. Gepp and Mr. Boas, both of whom havestated that the project appears to be economically sound. Unemployment is at present Australia’s greatest problem. We cannot absorb our own population, quite apart from those who may come from overseas. The construction of bridges and underground railways does not add to the absorptive capacity of this country; but the establishment of industries capable of being carried out economically can do so, and make it pos sible for bridges and underground railways to be constructed later. The establishment of this industry and manufacture of paper pulp from timber produced in the northern and southern forests of Tasmania would give employment to about 2,000 men in the bush and in the factories. According to Professor Giblin’s estimate, some 10,000 persons would be profitably employed if this industry were established. The companies concerned do not ask for a bounty, but for relief- from customs duties on machinery and plant. In America to-day there is an over-production of paper pulp, and many Canadian mills have closed down. That being so, there should be every possibility of securing first-class machinery at a reasonable figure. This is not a party matter ; it never has been. The previous Government was keenly alive to the possibilities of the industry, and was prepared to assist it as far as possible. This Government has proved that it realizes the importance of the industry, and is anxious to assist it. The manufacture of paper pulp from eucalyptus wood appears to have passed beyond the experimental stage. I have visited the southern portion of the island in the vicinity of Geeveston, where Mr. Avery has been conducting a good deal of research work, and where the splendid articles produced show that the project is commercially possible. All that is required in the immediate future is a supply of the necessary capital. We all hope that the present financial stringency is now passing and I trust that there is every prospect of this industry being ‘successfully established in the near future. Perhaps the Assistant Minister, who I know is greatly interested in this project, is in a position to make a statement on the subject.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

.- The Director of Development (Mr. Gunn) recently visited Tasmania, and, I understand, submitted a report to the Government on the . shale industry. Is the Assistant Minister able to say whether the necessary funds can be made available, or if further inquiries are still being made?

Senator DALY:
Assistant Minister · South Australia · ALP

– There is no doubt that in the paper pulp and shale industries the Tasmanian people have two very valuable assets. I am not in a position at the moment to make any statement with respect to the paper pulp industry. I had a conference with the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) and the Director of Development (Mr. Gunn), in Melbourne on Monday. As a result of that interview, certain recommendations will be made to Cabinet, and in the meantime Mr. Gunn will continue his investigations. The Government is hopeful regarding the paper pulp industry being successfully established in Australia, and will doall it can to that end.

I think that I nan also give Senator Herbert Hays some encouragement regarding shale oil. The Commonwealth representatives, Messrs. Gunn and Leahey, were favorably impressed with the work which has been done by the company on whose behalf the request has been made. The allocation of funds for the development of the shale oil industry has been transferred to a committee. Mr. Gunn left for Sydney last night, and I expect to hear from him to-morrow. On the adjournment of the Senate to-morrow, I hope to be able to announce the verdict of the committee. I sincerely hope that it will see its way to make an amount available, because the development of the shale oil and the paper pulp industries will increase the capacity of the Commonwealth to absorb population.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.32 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 24 November 1931, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1931/19311124_senate_12_132/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate24 November 1931

QUESTION

TOBACCO DUTIES

Senator DALY:Assistant Minister · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator GUTHRIE:through Senator Plain

Senator DOOLEY:Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

STRENGTHOF SPIRITS

Senator THOMPSON:QUEENSLAND

Senator DOOLEY:ALP

QUESTION

AVIATION

Senator DUNN:through Senator Ho are

Senator BARNES:Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

TASMANIA

Senator BARNES:ALP

Senator HERBERT HAYS:TASMANIA

Senator DOOLEY:ALP

QUESTION

WHEAT MARKETING

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BARNES:ALP

PAPER

CUSTOMS TARIFF

Division I. - Ales, Spirits and Beverages

Item 8-

Senator DALY:Assistant Minister · South Australia · ALP

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DALY:

Senator Payne:

Senator DALY:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DALY:

Senator KINGSMILL:Western Australia

Senator Daly:

Senator KINGSMILL:

Senator Daly:

Senator KINGSMILL:

Senator Daly:

Senator KINGSMILL:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator KINGSMILL:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator KINGSMILL:

Senator PAYNE:Tasmania

Senator Daly:

Senator Carroll:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Daly:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PAYNE:

Senator O’HALLORAN:South Australia

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator O’HALLORAN:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator O’HALLORAN:

Senator McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator Crawford:

Senator McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator Crawford:

Senator McLACHLAN:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator HERBERT HAYS:Tasmania

Senator DALY:Assistant Minister · South Australia · ALP

Senator LYNCH:Western Australia

Senator Daly:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Daly:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Daly:

Senate
24 November 1931

Senator DALY:
Assistant Minister · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator GUTHRIE:
through Senator Plain

Senator DOOLEY:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator THOMPSON:
QUEENSLAND

Senator DOOLEY:
ALP

Senator DUNN:
through Senator Ho are

Senator BARNES:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator BARNES:
ALP

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA

Senator DOOLEY:
ALP

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BARNES:
ALP

Senator DALY:
Assistant Minister · South Australia · ALP

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

Senator DALY:
Assistant Minister · South Australia · ALP

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

Senator CRAWFORD:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator DOOLEY:
New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

Senator DALY:
Assistant Minister · South Australia · ALP