View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
29 November 1932

13^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PAPERS
QUESTION
- AVIATION
QUESTION
- SENATEGALLERIES
AMENDMENTOF STANDINGORDERS
QUESTION
- ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY
QUESTION
- OLD-AGE PENSIONS
QUESTION
- BANANAS
UNITED KINGDOM AND AUSTRALIA TRADE AGREEMENT BILL
BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL
ASSENT TO BILLS
SUGAR AGREEMEN T BILL
- Second Reading.
HOUR OF MEETING
ADJOURNMENT
- Senate Galleries: Wearing Apparel of Visitors

The President(SenatortheHon. P. J. Lynch) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2929

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Norfolk Island Act - Ordinance No.6 of 1932- Export of Bananas.

Papua Act- Ordinances of 1932 -

No.6 - Arms, Liquor and Opium Prohibition. No. 7 - Native Taxes.

Science and Industry Research Act - Sixth Annual Report of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, for year ended 30th June, 1932.

Seatof Government, Acceptance Act and Scatof Government ( Administration)

Act - Ordinances of 1932 -

No. 20 - Trespass on Commonwealth Lands.

No. 21 - Court of Petty Sessions.

page 2929

QUESTION

AVIATION

Reportof Inter-Departmental Committee

Senator O’HALLORAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Senate if the committee appointed by the Government to investigate questions concerning aviation has completed its inquiry and presented a report. If not, can the right honorable gentleman say when the report is likely to be available, or when a statement of Government policy will be made with respect to the future control of aviation in Australia?

Senator Sir GEORGE P PEARCE:

– The committeehas presented its report, which is now being considered by the Government. It is expected that a decision upon the matters investigated will be made shortly. Anannouncement of Government policy will then be made, and the report of the committee will be available.

page 2929

QUESTION

SENATEGALLERIES

Wearing Apparelof Visitors

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

– Will the Leader of the Senate state whether there is a regulation which prohibits the entrance toany of the public galleries of the Senate of a person who is not wearing acoat? The reason that I ask is that men who are keenly interested in our debates, and are affected by some of the legislation that comes up for consideration, cannot obtain entrance because they do not possess coats.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The control of the House lies with the presiding officers.

SenatorBARNES. - Will you, Mr. President, reply to the question that I have asked ?

The PRESIDENT:

– A curtain standard of decorum must be observed in the Senate, and I should say thata person who seeks admission to one of the galleries minus his coat has certainly not endeavoured to comply with it, regardless of what excuse he might advance for the omission.

page 2930

AMENDMENTOF STANDINGORDERS

Motion (by Senator Sir George Pearce) agreed to -

That the Standing Orders Committee be requested to give consideration to Standing Orders 195a and196 with a view to their simplification, andalso to consider the advisability of their amendment so as to prevent repetition of debate.

page 2930

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Alleged Disaffection - Prosecution of Newspaper

Senator DUNN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

What have been the monetary costs to the Commonwealth Government in relation to the recent law court proceedings held in Melbourne, Victoria, against the Truth newspaper and its editor onthe question of the published reports of unrest in the Royal AustralianNavy?
Did the evidence show in the above law court proceedings that there had been stopwork meetings of the naval ratings in Port Melbourne, or is the word of the Minister for Defence to be accepted that no such meetings were held; and does the Minister for Defence intend to give the general ratings of the Royal Australian Navy the right to present their complaints before acommittee appointed outside of navalor military officers; if not, whynot?

Senator McLACHLAN:
Minister in charge of Development and Scientific and Industrial Research · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

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

The total cost to the Commonwealth was £100 17s.
There was no stoppage of work in any ship and all ratings (except one) absent on leave returned at the proper hours. There were no stop-work meetings. The Minister for Defence has informed me that it is not proposed to appoint any external body for the purpose suggested. The regulations make full provisionfor the submission of representations by general ratings through their own representatives.

page 2930

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Senator MacDONALD:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

Is it permissible under Commonwealth law for political propagandists to circulate party literature to old-age pensioners on pay day?
is the Minister aware that propagandist literature headed - “ Protect Your Pensions, Vote National; Authorized P. T.G. Shaw, Terrica House, Brisbane,” has recently been circulated to Brisbane old-age pensioners on payday?
If so, will the Government take steps to ensure that the circulation of such literature is stopped in the interests of the old-age pensioners?

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

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

There is no Commonwealth law which prohibits such action.
No. if. See answers to Nos.1and 2.

page 2930

QUESTION

BANANAS

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

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

Would the diverting of the 40,000 centals of imported bananas (allowed under the Ottawa agreement from Fiji), to the bananastarved peoples of Western Australia be constitutional. If so, would the Government take immediate steps to divert these imports from Sydney and Melbourne to WesternAustralia?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– Sydney and Melbourne are specified in the agreement as the ports at which bananas fromFiji admitted to Australia, pursuant to the agreement, may be landed. Any diversion to a Western Australian port would involve a variation of the agreement which could only be offered with the consent of all the parties.

page 2930

UNITED KINGDOM AND AUSTRALIA TRADE AGREEMENT BILL

In committee:

Consideration resumed from the 25th November (vide page 2958).

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the following new clause be added: - “3. In operating theagreementthemargin of preference in favourof British goods set out in Schedule F shall be obtained by lowering British,and not raising foreign duties, except on items where British duties are so low that the margin could not otherwise be obtained.”

Senator Daly:

– I rise to order. If wo have approved of the agreement how can we now amend it ? I submit that the only course open to the honorable senator is to move to have the bill re-committed for the purpose of enabling him to move his amendment on clause 2. Otherwise I submit that the proposed new clause is out of order.

Senator E B Johnston:

– Speaking to the point of order, I may say I cannot think that the honorable and learned gentleman has read the amendment; it, does not propose to alter any portion of the agreement.

SenatorDaly. -What does it propose to do?

Senator E B Johnston:

– It does not propose to affect in any way the ratification of the agreement. If adopted, it would not have the effect of amending the agreement in the slightest degree. I should not have moved it if it would have that effect, because it had already been fully explained that any alteration of the agreement would mean its nullification and I was one of those who were anxious to see the agreement ratified, as has been done under clause 2. The proposed new clause which I have moved is merely providing machinery instructing the Government as to lines upon which effect shall be given to the agreement. It does not affect the agreement any more than does clause 1. It merely sets out the way in which the Government should administer the agreement. As showing that it is strictly in order, I may say that it is to ensure that the agreement is administered in keeping with its spirit.

TheCHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays). - Early in the committee stage I gave a ruling as to the procedure to be adopted in considering this bill in committee.

I have given thought to the amendment moved by Senator Johnston and it appears to me that the only point of order that could be raised is one of relevancy. In my opinion, the new clause moved by Senator Johnston does not affect the agreement which has been made between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Commonwealth - this Parliament was not a party to it - but it does suggest a way in which, without altering the margin of preferences, effect shall be given to the agreementby the Commonwealth Government without in any way involving the Government of the United Kingdom. It seems to mo that if the proposed new clause were agreed to, the course it suggests would not clash with article 16, under which the two parties to the agreement may settle any difference that may arise between them. It is quite within the province of this Parliament to say how the Government of the Commonwealth shall carry out the agreement provided it does not, in any way, interfere with the terms of the agreement itself; it is quite in order for it to say that the British preferential duties should be reduced. I, therefore, rule that the proposed new clause is in order.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Schedule F of the bill provides for certain margins of preference being granted to Great Britain. This proposed new clause seeks to ensure that the real spirit of the Ottawa agreement shall be observed, and that we shall live up to the undertaking given by Mr. Bruce andMr. Gullett at Ottawa on behalf of the Commonwealth. I contend that so far we have failed to do so, as out of the 440 items on which the tariff schedule tabled by this Government has been increased to give effect to the agreement, in no fewer than 317 cases could the same margins have been retained by reducing the British preferential duties. In 123 cases it has been found necessary to increase the tariff to the foreigner to obtain the necessary margin of preference, but in. 20 cases only has the Government reduced the existing British rates, compared with the 317 in connexion with which there was ample room to vary them either way. The Government, however, preferred to increase the duties against foreign countries rather than lower the duties against Britain. Any onereading the agreement would not have expected the result desired to be achieved by increasing the duties against foreigners. I have before me a copy of the United Empire Review, a journal published by the Royal Empire Society, which for many years was better known as theRoyal Colonial Institute. It contains an article on the Ottawa Conference headed, “ The Historic Achievement of its Deliberations “, and written by Sir Benjamin Morgan. It says -

In the recent past it is not an unfair generalization to say that while, in the main, dominion preferences have been effective, alarge proportion have been totally ineffective through the growth of the practice of increasing British preferences by increasing the duty to the foreigner in an alreadyhigh tariff. In the present agreements, the opportunity and more effective practice has been widely followed of decreasing the duties on British goods to effect a preference in addition to extending the free list. It has, moreover, been generally widely recognized that protective duties should only be applied in future to industries that have a fair prospect of success, judged by ordinary manufacturing considerations, or alternatively, unless the industries protected are essential to the particular dominion fromthe point of view of national security or otherwise.

I have read many other articles on similar lines, but there is no doubt, as the portion of this article which I have just quoted says, that it was expected that under this agreement the British preferential duties would be reduced. I have shown that that course has not so far been followed by this Government, although it has had the opportunity to do so. It is clear that Mr. Fenton thought that the policy of reducing the tariff against Britain would be followed, as the people of Britain also” expected. Had Mr. Fenton realized that the Government would put this agreement into operation by increasing the tariff against the foreigner in the majority of cases he would probably not have resigned. He expected that the Government would carry out both the spirit and the letter of the Ottawa agreement. It seems to me that we have sold the Old Country a gold brick. In increasing duties against the foreigner, we have not given Britain preferential treatment. The high tariff policy of the Scullin Government has, to a great extent, been retained, and, in addition, we have increased the tariff againstthe foreigner, in a large number of cases, allegedly in accordance with this agreement. The Government appears to have overlooked the fact that since the Scullin tariff was imposed, primage duty amounting to 10 per cent. in many cases, and also the exchange rate, has placed an added burden on our people.

Senator Daly:

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that in referring to the Scullin tariff and the effect of the exchange rate, the honorable senator is not discussing his own amendment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have been waiting for the honorable senator to connect his remarks with the amendment, and I now ask him to do so.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– In support of the amendment, I am submitting that the high tariff of the Scullin Government, together with the primage duty and the high exchange rate, has placed an extra burden on the consumers of imported goods. These extra charges are an added reason for reducing the tariff on British goods.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator would be in order in making passing references to these matters; but he should not dwell unduly on subjects not directly associated with his amendment.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– In his budget speech, the Treasurer forecast a lower customs revenue because of the reductions of customs duties which would result from the Ottawa agreement. But instead of reducing duties, the Government has adopted the opposite course; it has raised the tariff barrier against the foreigner, leaving the Britishtariff where it was. My amendment is in direct opposition to that policy. If carried, it would implement the announced policy of the Government, and ensure that the Ottawa agreement, the object of which is to permit trade to flow freely between Australia and the Motherland, would be carried out. The carrying of the amendment would assist Britain, and also Australia, because it would reduce the costs of production and thereby give increased employment in primary industries. The barrier against Britain is already too high, and it will not help the Old Country if we run another barbed wire along the top of the fence in order to keep out foreign goods.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

[3.25]. - I remind Senator Johnston that this agreement is one between Great Britain and Australia, and that Britain is not concerned with the duties we impose against the foreigner. The amendment deals with the action of the Government in raising the duty against foreign goods. If honorable senators will study articles 9 to 12 of the agreement, they will see what was agreed to by the Governments of Australia and the United Kingdom. No promise was made by Australia, either verbal’y or in the agreement itself, that the duties against Britain would he lowered. The promise made to Britain is contained in articles 9 to 12. First of all, articles 9 and 10 lay down the principles which are to be observed. Then article 11 provides -

Hia Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia undertake that a review shall be made as soon as practicable by the Australian Tariff Board of existing protective duties in accordance with the principles laid down in article 10 hereof, and that after the receipt of the report and recommendation of the Tariff Board the Commonwealth Parliament 8ha.ll be invited to vary, wherever necessary, the tariff ou goods of United Kingdom origin in such manner as to give effect to such principles, while article 12 is as follows: -

His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia undertake that no new protective duty shall bc imposed and no existing duty shall be increased on United Kingdom goods to an amount in excess of the recommendation of the Tariff Tribunal.

Australia’s obligations to Britain are set out in those articles, and it is, therefore, useless for the honorable senator to attempt to make it appear that the action of the Government is in any way opposed to either the spirit or the letter of the agreement. Nor was the honorable senator quite fair to the Government when he said that only twenty duties had been decreased. Reductions of duty have been made by the Government in 100 cases on the recommendation of the Tariff Board. The honorable senator also suggested that Mr. Fenton resigned because he thought that the Government would reduce duties against Britain, but he ignored the fact that, at the time of his resignation, Mr. Fenton knew that the Government did not propose, by its own act, to reduce the duties against Britain, but that it intended that the relevant part of the tariff schedule should be reviewed by the Tariff Board in the light of the articles contained in the agreement.

Senator E B Johnston:

– I did not know that.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– That was the policy to which the Government was pledged. The honorable senator’s suggestion is unfair to Mr. Fenton who, in a public statement, explained that he resigned because he objected to the articles in the agreement.

I was surprised at the argument of the honorable senator that a high exchange rate is equivalent to an increase of the tariff. I have a lively recollection of the Leader of the Country party (Dr. Earle Page) conducting a campaign throughout the country in which he urged that a higher exchange rate would benefit primary industries. It may be well if I were to give the reasons why the Government increased the duties against the foreigner instead of reducing the duties against Britain. The Government acted in accordance with its promise that duties would be reviewed by the Tariff Board. The present tariff is a temporary one. The Tariff Board will review all the remaining items which it has not yet considered. Had the Government reduced the duties against Britain, it would have prejudged the case to be submitted to the Tariff Board, and it would have broken its promise to follow a certain procedure. Under the agreement, protective items will come under review by the board, after which the Government will take action. The honorable senator may then vote either for the retention of the existing duties or for the duties recommended by the Tariff Board. I contend that the Government’s action is in accord with the spirit of the agreement, and with the pledges that the Government made to the electors. Moreover, I say it is the fair course to take, because it does not prejudice Britain - the other party to the agreement - and it leaves Australia free to review, not only the British duties, but also the duties against the foreigner, for the Tariff Board will review the duties against both Great Britain and the foreigner. Therefore, I appeal to the committee to reject the amendment. I assure honorable senators that it is the desire and the intention of the Government that the Tariff Board shall. as speedily as possible, pass under review both the foreign and the British duties. The Government will thus honour its promise to the electors - a promise which is repeated in the agreement - and Parliament will have ample opportunity to take action in whatever direction it desires in regard to the reports of the Tariff Board. The Government will, of course, announce to the Parliament the board’s decisions, and the action proposed to be taken upon them. To take any other course would be to act in violation of the pledges that the Government would not, of its own volition, arbitrarily alter the tariff. To give effect to the agreement, which provided for a wider margin of British preference than in the existing tariff, there were only two courses open to us - either to increase the duties against the foreigner or to reduce the duties against Britain. We have undertaken to review the duties against Britain, but any reduction of duties against Britain will come about through the Tariff Board, and not as the result of arbitrary action on the part of the Government.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [3.33]. - I trust that the committee will accept the proposed new clause. It seems to me that the Leader of the House (Senator Pearce) is losing sight of all the facts of the position. He is not taking cognizance of the fact that the present tariff” schedule was tabled in 1929, and has been buttressed too by increased primage and exchange. It is the tariff which the great majority of members of this chamber denounced as extravagantly high. Surely we are now entitled to maintain the attitude that we took up when that schedule was tabled in 1929. We are told that a number of duties have already been reduced in compliance with the Tariff Board’s report. Surely that is utterly inconsistent with a statement made the other day that no instruction had been given to the board to base its recommendations on undertakings given to Great Britain in the agreement; and if honorable senators will take the trouble to read the Tariff Board’s reports, they will see that it is entirely inconsistent with any suggestion that the board has been instructed to act in accordance with the agreement; because, in case after case where a reduction of the Scullin duties has been recommended by the board, it has specifically said, “ The duty we now recommend will secure the entire market to the Australian manufacturer, even without the advantage of exhange “. So, in these cases, the Government is not carrying out the spirit of thi* agreement. Neither is the board, and tfe were told the other day that it had not yet been instructed to carry out the agreement. Senator Pearce now says that certain duties have been decreased in accordance with the recommendations of the board - recommendations that are not based on the Ottawa agreement. Finally, “we are told that this is only a temporary tariff. How is that statement to be reconciled with the avowed determination of the Government to push on with this “temporary” tariff and secure for it parliamentary authority, something which has not been obtained for any tariff since I have been a member of this Senate? Surely these two statements are utterly inconsistent. If it is only a temporary tariff, why is it proposed to put it in the statute-book?

Senator Sir GEORGE Pearce:

– Not until we have received the reports of the Tariff Board.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.Senator Pearce knows as well as I do that, so long as the tariff remains in its present form - merely a tariff collected upon resolutions submitted in the House of Representatives - it is competent for the Government to reduce any one of those items directly it receives a Tariff Board report upon it. But once the tariff is passed by Parliament - and the Government persists, apparently, in getting its schedule passed through Parliament - a Tariff Board’s report can have no effect, and effect cannot be given to this agreement except after a lengthy process, lasting many months, possibly years. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Senate is not within its power in prescribing, consistent with the views expressed by the majority in this chamber twelve months ago, that the method by which effect shall be given to the agreement is by a lowering of the British duties, and not by increasing the duties against the foreigner.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

– The honorable senator who has just resumed his seat said that he hoped that the Government would accept the proposed new clause. There are others who hope so, particularly the members of the Australian Association of British manufacturers, who arc anxious, not that the duties shall be lowered in the interests of British manufacturers, but that they should be lowered all round in the interests of im- porters, and to the destruction of Australian industries, and the throwing out of employment of a great many Australian workers.

Honorable senators interjecting,

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I hear expressions of dissent. I am as much entitled to express my views as are those who hold freetrade opinions, and are always seeking to have tariff schedules amended in the interests of the importers. Complaint is made that the Government is not carrying out the Ottawa agreement. I understand that the agreement will not operate until it has been approved by the Parliament. Why should any action have been taken to forestall what either branch of the legislature might do with regard to the agreement. I consider that the Government has acted consistently throughout, and I hope that it will stand firm to the agreement, and repel all attacks made against it by those who are seeking to forward the interests of the importers.

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

.- I intend to follow the course that I indicated in my secondreading speech on this measure. I then said that it was a matter of disappointment to me that the Government had made up its mind to afford the preference to the Mother Country by a system of increasing foreign duties and leaving the British duties where they now are. I remember very well that when the Scullin duties were tabled and became effective, a number of honorable senators on this side said that they were not protective but prohibitive, and were intended to be prohibitive. That is what impressed me, and, believing as I do, without being a freetrader and without “ wishing to protect the importer “, that the only way in which a fair thing can be done by the people of the States of Australia is by giving preference in the way that I have indicated, by reducing British duties, and leaving foreign duties as they stand, I shall support the amendment. If honorable senators will read the various articles of the agreement, they will see that behind it there is the fear that duties may be increased so as to prejudice the natural trade of Britainwith her dominions. That is one thing which makes me think that, when the conference was being held, and when the agreement was being reached, the underlying thought, at all events of the British delegates, was a fear of duties being increased beyond a reasonable limit. It is provided in the articles in at least two cases that the duties are not to be increased to the exclusion of Britain. When the Scullin tariff schedules were introduced, many honorable senators expressed the view that the duties were prohibitive. I am still of that opinion. I fail to see how we can talk of giving preference to Britain if we allow to remain duties which practically keep her goods out of the Australian market. It seems to me that a majority of the people’s representatives in this Parliament have gone protection mad. Because of the tariff increases in recent years, the smaller States have not been given a chance to developalongsoundlines.As a representative of Western Australia, and as one who has at heart the interests of Australia, I hope that the duties on British imports will be lowered.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– I am more concerned about the maintenance of the existing Australian tariff than I am about the admission of foreign goods. Although the amendment has been submitted by Senator Johnston, it is really the handiwork of Senator Colebateh, whose freetrade views are so well known.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– There is not a word of truthin the statement that I drafted the amendment.

Senator DUNN:

– I recognize, of course, that Senator Johnston is entitled to bring forward his amendment in the name of the United Country Party.I admit that, in these abnormal times, tariff protection is merely a palliative for the financial and economical troubles that beset all countries, Australia included; but it is the best expedient that we have yet devised for the protection of Australian industries and Australian workmen, and I cannot support any proposal to lower duties merely to enable farmers in Western Australia to obtain a little more cheaply a few sheets of galvanized iron for the construction or repair of farm outbuildings. My concern is to protect Australian industries against the foreigners, including the United States of America which is now demanding its pound of flesh, not only from Australia, but also from the British Empire. I feel very much annoyed at this an ti- Australian attitude of the honorable senator and of Senator Colebatch who is supporting him. I also give notice of my intention to move an amendment to article 10 to provide that nothing in the agreement shall affect the standard of wages of the Australian workers.

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

– I admit that, in view of what I said in my second-reading speech, it might be thought that, to be consistent, I should vote for the amendment; but I hope to be able to show that it is possible to reconcile those views with an objection to the amendment now before the committee. It is quite clear that, if this amendment is in order, it would be equally in order to move an amendment expressing the view that preference to Great Britain should be given by raising the duties against the foreigner, and not by lowering them against Great Britain. “What would Senator Johnston say if a majority in this chamber carried an amendment on those lines? What objection would be urged? It would be said, “ You are seeking to direct the Tariff Board as to how it shall recommend that this preference shall be given. You are interfering with a quasijudicial tribunal which this Parliament has set up, and that is most improper.” With that criticism, I should feel bound entirely to agree. By means of the proposed new clause, Senator Johnston seeks to direct the Tariff Board as to what line it shall pursue. I cannot but think that constitutionally that is entirely improper. In the present state of feeling in both Houses of this Parliament, we must rely more and more upon the judicial calm of the Tariff Board for any relief that we are to obtain. Senator Colebatch has referred to the fact that no instruction has yet been given to the Tariff Board as to how it shall pursue its inquiries, in view of the fact that this agreement has been signed. With great respect to the honorable senator, with whose political views generally I. usually find myself in agreement, I consider that the reply made to him by the right honorable the Leader of the Government (Senator Pearce) puts the position in the correct light, namely, that this agreement not having been ratified by both Houses of the Parliament and given the force of law, it would be premature for the Government to issue instructions to the Tariff Board. But so soon as it becomes a part of the law of the land, it will then be the duty of the Tariff Board, and of any other board or tribunal set up under the powers of the Parliament, to take cognizance of the fact that it is upon the statute-book. The Tariff Board will bear in mind that the Commonwealth Government has agreed, in the language of article 10, that “the tariff shall be based on the principle that protective duties shall not exceed such a level as will give United Kingdom producers full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of the relative cost “. In considering what is a full opportunity of reasonable competition, the board will have to take into account both branches of the tariff, namely, that which operates against Great Britain and that which operates against foreign countries. It will surely realize that if the tariff is so raised against Great Britain that that country has not a full opportunity of reasonable competition, the terms of an agreement solemnly entered into between the Australian and the British people are not being observed. Therefore, when the board comes to consider the tariff in the light of this agreement, it will have to mould it in such a way that, irrespective of British or foreign importations, the British manufacturer will have reasonable opportunity of fair competition. That appears to be the fiscal policy of the Government, and the protection which Senator Johnston is seeking to obtain by what I venture to suggest are constitutionally improper means-

Senator E B Johnston:

– What about article 16?

Senator BRENNAN:

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

– I did not intend to speak to the proposed new clause, which I oppose, because it’ does not appear to me to get us anywhere; but certain remarks that have been made during the debate demand a reply.

It has been said that the last Government altered the tariff without consulting the Tariff Board, and that a similar practice has been adopted by the present Government. I wish to make clear my opinion of such a practice. The Government, and not the Tariff Board, is responsible for the tariff, and any administration would be utterly stupid if, to avoid the destruction of the country, it failed to alter it, even though the alterations might be contrary to recommendations of the board

Senator MILLEN:
Tasmania

.- “Who is to be bound by. the terms of the proposed new clause, if agreed to - the Tariff Board, or the Government?

Senator Daly:

– It does not bind any one.

Senator MILLEN:

– It must bind some one. If it is to bind the Tariff Board, I say, with respect, that article 12 of that agreement must be deleted.

Senator Payne:

– It merely binds the Government to carry out a principle.

Senator MILLEN:

– Under article 12, the Tariff Board is to be given the right to carry out a definite principle; that is unquestionable. Then we’ have the suggested new clause, which proposes a reduction of duties against Britain. If adopted, there would be no restriction on the Tariff Board, as article 12 is binding upon, that tribunal. I cannot, therefore, support the proposed new clause.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I intend to support the proposed new clause because I believe that it embodies the principle that should govern this legislation. It is proposed to give preference to Britain wherever possible, and that is all that the proposed new clause seeks to do.

Senator BRENNAN:

– It seeks to direct the Tariff Board.

Senator PAYNE:

– I submit that it does not. If Senator Brennan will read the articles in the schedule, he will find it difficult to mention one in which any instruction is given to the Tariff Board. Article 12, which has already been referred to, instructs the Government not to impose duties higher than those recommended by the Tariff Board, but there is nothing in that article to say that this Parliament shall not reduce the existing British preferential rates instead of increasing the duties on foreign goods in order to preserve the margin of preference set out in the agreement. The existing tariff schedule was tabled last month, and we know that it will operate for some time. Most of the prohibitive duties contained in it have been imposed without any reference to Parliament excepting by way of a resolution. In view of the attitude I adopted, and the illustrations which I gave during my second-reading speech, I cannot doother than support the proposed new clause moved by Senator Johnston. I do not regard it as embodying an instruction to the Tariff Board. The only instruction it contains is that the Government shall not impose duties higher than recommended by the Tariff Board; but there is no instruction to the Government not to impose duties lower than those that may be recommended by that board.

Senator DALY:
South Australia

– I agree with ‘the opinion expressed by Senator Millen, and I hope that the committee will not waste too much time over this proposed new clause. If “we were to accept the advice of Senator Payne and Senator Johnston, we should make the committee appear ridiculous. To ascertain what is desired all that we have to do is to read the proposed new clause. Senator Brennan forcibly explained the position and Senator Millen also put his finger on its real effect. It would be better to get the committee to the height of intelligence displayed by Senator Brennan than to aspire to the height desired-

Senator Payne:

– I should like to get the honorable senator to the heightaspired bySenator Brennan.Will the honorable senator read the amendment ?

Senator DALY:

– I have done so. Whatdoes the agreement provide? Two formulas are prescribed, one in respect of certain goods and another in respect of other goods. Great Britain is satisfied with the preferences decided upon under this agreement, and we are merely tinkering around to sweeten up some one.’ The proposed new clause should be disposed of to enable us to proceed with more important business. I therefore move -

That the committee do now divide.

Question put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Herbert Hays.) Ayes . . . . . . 12

Noes . . . . . . 19

Majority . . 7

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

– While I agree entirely with the object of the proposed new clause moved by Senator Johnston, I feel that the honorable senator has overlooked the fact that its adoption by the committee would have the effect of delaying the ratification of the agreement for some considerable time. For that reason I intend to oppose it.

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

– I am generally in favour of supporting any proposal to provide the fullest opportunity for freedom of speech, but, on this occasion, I supported the motion moved by Senator Daly, “ That the committee do now divide “, because if I have even a glimmering of the intelligence to which Senator Brennan referred, I see in this proposed new clause an attempt to direct the Tariff Board to introduce even a greater measure of freetrade than exists to-day. The proposed new clause provides that -

The margin of preference in favour of British goods set out in Schedule F shall be obtained by lowering British, and not raising foreign duties, except on items where British duties are so low that the margin could not otherwise be obtained.

Senator Elliott:

– Would not its acceptance delay the passing of this measure?

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– No. The only reason given why the Government did not reduce duties was that it stated it had given a pledge to the electors that it would await the report from the Tariff Board before doing so. Personally, I gave no such pledge. I have always held my own view regarding tariff matters. I made no pledge that the tariff would not be reduced. In fact I went to the other extreme. In article 12-

Hia Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia undertake that no new protective duties shall be imposed, and no existing duty shall be increased, on United Kingdom goods to an amount in excess of the recommendation of the tariff tribunal.

There is no undertaking that existing duties shall not be decreased. Apparently, the governments were careful to avoid including any such undertaking. In any case, I do not think that Great Britain would object if we reduced duties.

Senator Millen:

– A reduction of duties would be in keeping with the agreement.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– And with the general attitude of the whole conference. On his return to New Zealand the Premier of that dominion, in a speech delivered in the House of Representatives, made the position clearer than it has been made in any speech by a member of the Australian Government which I have read. I presume that the Tariff Board deals impartially with matters that come before it, and is not concerned whether a duty is raised or lowered. The amendment, in my opinion, does not interfere with the board. In any case, I shall vote for it because it provides the first real opportunity that I have had to say whether I favour a general reduction of tariffs.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

– As I interpret the amendment, it gives a specific instruction to the Tariff Board. Otherwise, what is its purpose? I regard the Tariff Board as exercising what are practically judicial functions, and it seems to me that the amendment interferes with its authority in that it does not leave the board free to base its decisions on the evidence submitted to it.

Senator Foll:

– Does the honorable senator think that it would be right for the Tariff Board to take primage ami exchange into consideration in fixing duties?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– In my opinion, it would be wrong to base its duties on conditions which may alter at any time. Of course, the existing high exchange rate may ,10 6 be evanescent, because both freetraders and protectionists appear to favour it. A large majority of our primary producers favour the retention of the existing high rate of exchange, if not ai» Increase of that rate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– A general discission on the question of exchange is not permissible under this amendment’.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I hope that the Senate will reject the amendment and so uphold the independence of “ the Tariff Board.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– In reply to Senator Brennan’s remarks, I point out that the agreement came into operation on the signing thereof, subject to certain legislative or other action being taken as soon as practicable thereafter,.. The agreement was signed on the 20th August last, and the Government then proceeded to aUer the tariff schedule to give effect to the margin of preference set out in it. In 317 cases in which it could have reduced the duties on British goods, it took the opposite course and raised still higher the duties against foreign goods. My amendment expresses my disapproval of that action on the part of the Government.

The remarks as to the necessity for the Tariff Board being consulted before alterations of duty are made, do not affect my argument, because in 317 cases duties have been increased without that body having been consulted. On the 15th October last the present Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce), at a meeting of the majority of the Senate, moved a motion along the lines of my amendment. From that meeting Labour senators were absent, as was also Senator Crawford.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Having spent the week-end in reading the opinions expressed in British magazines, I have come to the opinion that there was unanimity of British thought that this was the way in which effect was to be given to the agreement.

Question - That the proposed new clause (Senator E. B. Johnston’s amendment) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 9

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

SenatorDUNN (New South Wales) [4.43]. - In accordance with notice already given by me, I move -

That the following new clause be inserted: - 2a. Provided that nothing in the agreement shall affect the standard wage of the Australian worker.

The CHAIRM AN. - The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the point of order.

His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom will invite Parliament to pass the legislation necessary to impose on the foreign goods specified in Schedule B appended hereto, the duties of customs shown in that schedule in place of the duties (if any) now leviable.

Senator Dunn merely proposes to insert, after clause 2, a proviso that the standard of living of Australian workers shall be maintained. I submit that Senator Dunn’s amendment is clearly in order, and that the committee should have an opportunity to say whether it stands for the maintenance of the Australian standard of living.

In the Senale:

The Chairman of Committees. -i have to report, Mr. President, that during the discussion in committee of the United Kingdom and Australia Trade Agreement Bill, Senator Dunn moved for the insertion of a new clause which read as follows: - 2a. Provided that nothing in the agreement shall affect the standard wage of the Australian workman.

A point of order was taken by the righthonorable the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) on the question of relevancy, and I ruled that the amendment was not in order, for the reason that the bill has nothing whatever to do with the fixation of wages or working conditions in Australia; that other tribunals govern those matters. Thereupon, Senator Dunn moved dissent from my ruling.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Leader of the Government has raised a point of order on the relevancy of a proposed new clause moved by Senator Dunn. I shall necessarily be obliged to inquire into the merits of the clause, and shall do so at a later stage. In the meantime, I point out that I am bound to administer the Standing Orders which, as honorable senators are aware, have long stood the test of time. Parties having varying shades of political belief have been represented in this chamber and, from time to time, action has been taken to alter or amend certain standing orders, but those which bear upon the question now before the Chair have never been varied. The presumption, therefore, is that they have been acceptable to all parties in this chamber in the past. The words of the proposed new clause are -

Provided that nothing in this agreement shall affect the standard wage of the Australian worker.

As has been previously pointed out by honorable senators, Standing Order 201 provides -

Any amendment may be made to any part of the bill, provided the same be relevant to the subject-mutter of the bill, and be otherwise in conformity with the rules and orders of the Senate.

Another standing order that bears directly on the same point, because it deals with the quality of relevancy, is No. 224, which states -

No amendment shall be proposed to an amendment of the House of Representatives that is not relevant thereto; nor can an amendment be moved to the bill unless the same be relevant to, or consequent upon, either the acceptance, amendment, or the rejection of a House of Representatives amendment.

I cite this latter standing order in order to show the importance that in the past has been attached to the quality of relevancy. These Standing Orders have never been challenged ; as I have already said, they have stood the test of time.

I must now seek definitions of “ relevancy “ and “ subject-matter.” According to the Students English Dictionary, the latest authority available in the Library, “ relevant “ means “ Having applicableness or pertinence; applicable; pertinent; to the purpose; appropriate “ ; and “ subject-matter “ means “ That matter or theme presented for’ consideration “. Having those two difinitions I now proceed to “a further examination of this point of order. I am asked to say that the proposed new clause is not relevant - that it would not be in order to insert it in a bill of this description. Broadly, the purpose of the bill is to ratify an agreement; nothing more and nothing less, and I cannot find in it any reference to “ the standard wage obtaining in Australia “. So from a literal point of view, the proposed new clause is not appropriate to the bill. The bill contains two clauses, sixteen articles, and a schedule embracing eight subdivisions from A to H, and its terms clearly show that its purpose is solely to approve of an agreement; and since it contains no reference to the standard wage of Australia, I must conclude that the proposed new clause is not only literally, but also substantially not appropriate to the matter presented for consideration. In other words it is not relevant to the subjectmatter of the bill.

I always hope that whatever grounds I give for my rulings will be upright - perpendicular so long as Mother Earth stands under them to keep them so. I. do not believe in basing rulings on subsidiary or inferential grounds. It would require a very severe strain of the imagination to bring to my aid the application even of inferential grounds to support the amendment proposed by Senator Dunn. The condition sought to be incorporated in this measure, is, after all, a social one and part of our national economy. Apart altogether from the question of relevancy, it has to be borne in mind that there are other social conditions that could easily occur to me. For instance, if the honorable senator’s proposal were relevant it would be quite permissible for an honorable senator to propose that the value of the goods passing under the terms of this agreement should be subject to assessment by some tribunal. That would be a social condition equally important to that mentioned by Senator Dunn. It would be also permissable for an honorable senator to propose that nothing in the agreement should affect the standard rates of interest payable in this country. How would Senator Dunn view a proposal of that kind? If the amendment were permitted, other honorable senators would also be in order in submitting amendments dealing with other phases of our social and industrial life. In the circumstances, I have no option but to uphold the point of order raised by the right honorable the Leader of the Senate, and rule that the new clause proposed to be moved by Senator Dunn is not relevant to the subject-matter of the bill.

Senator Dunn:

– As I have not the opportunity to criticize your ruling, Mr. President, will you indicate how I may give effect to the suggestion which you have made?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must know that this is not the time or place to discuss that matter. I suggest that, he is sufficiently resourceful to devise the ways and means to give effect to what may be in his mind.

In committee:

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2950

BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives and (on motion by Senator McLachlan) read a first time.

Sitting suspended from 6.11 to 8 p.m.

page 2950

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported : -

Designs Bill.

Nauru Island Agreement Bill.

Wire and Wire Netting Bill.

New Guinea Bill.

Public Works Committee Bill.

page 2950

SUGAR AGREEMEN T BILL

Second Reading.

Senator GREENE:
Assistant Minister · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Those honorable senators, at all events, whose memory stretches back over the history of the Commonwealth Parliament, will agree with me that there is, perhaps, no subject to which the Parliament, at different periods, has devoted more time than that of sugar. Many debates upon sugar have taken place in this Senate, although, perhaps, not in Canberra; and I may be permitted to make one or two passing references to the legislation that has been passed in connexion with it. It will be within the memory of the majority of honorable senators that when federation was consummated, the sugar industry in Queensland, and to some extent also in New South Wales, was conducted very largely with black labour. One of the first tasks which the Commonwealth Parliament set itself was to rid the industry entirely of that class of labour.

Senator Barnes:

– At the instigation of the Labour party.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I am not dealing with the subject from a political viewpoint, but am merely reminding the Senate of what this Parliament has done. We are not concerned to-night with why or how it was done. The Parliament took upon itself the responsibility of saying that in future the sugar industry of Australia should be conducted with white labour. Personally, I agree with that decision; some honorable senators may disagree with it. The way in which that step was taken was considered by some persons to be of great benefit to the sugar industry; but those who were actually engaged in the industry at the time know that the net result was to impose on it a tax of £1 a ton. That was done by imposing an excise duty on all sugar grown in Australia and by granting a bounty of £1 a ton less than the amount of the excise on such sugar as was produced entirely with white labour. That was the position, with an added duty, up to 1913. From the outbreak of the war, and for some considerable time thereafter, this Parliament assumed control of the sugar industry, among others. The control exercised was to a very large extent similar to that proposed under this bill, but it was in the interest of the Australian consumer of sugar and not of the sugar industry. That really brings us to the point with which we now have to deal. First, this Parliament said to the sugar industry “ Henceforth you shall grow sugar with white labour under the protection of a tariff,” Then, from the latter end of 1914 until at all events 1922, control was exercised by this Parliament in the interest of the consumers of Australia. Those who remember the tremendous prices to which sugar rose in the markets of the world, and the way in which the sugar producers of Queensland and New South Wales were prevented from obtaining world prices, will realize that, at any rate during that period, the sugar industry had a considerable grievance against the rest of Australia.

I come now to the bill. It provides for the parliamentary approval of an agreement relating to sugar, which has been come to between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland. The conditions appertaining to the ratification of this agreement are identical with those that apply to the ratification of the Ottawa agreement under the bill that we have been discussing within the last several days; that is to say, the agreement has to be either ratified or rejected, because it is a completed agreement subject to the ratification of this Parliament.

In the second place, thebill provides for the prohibition of the importation of sugar into the Commonwealth, except with the consent in writing of the Minister for Trade and Customs in accordance with the terms of the new agreement. Honorable senators are well aware that this provision takes the place of the present prohibition, which was imposed by proclamation under the Customs Act. In so far as it does that, it meets the views of quite a number of honorable senators who believe that these prohibitions ought to be subject to review by the Parliament. It will be open to this Senate to say whether that prohibition shall be accepted or rejected. My duty to-night is to ‘invite the Senate to consent to it in the terms of the agreement.

– If the honorable senator persists in displaying his ignorance, I cannot help it. I have said in the most emphatic way that the Government qua Government would not raise its little finger in the direction of breaking the old agreement, and by that decision it still stands. All these matters were put before the two sugar conferences distinctly and fully, and not in any sense as threats. The Government, with the consent of the Senate, now proposes to give the sugar industry the protection of the law, and if Parliament passes this bill, the sugar industry will be secure for the term of the agreement. The delegates were told that they could continue under the old agreement, but that if they did so they must be prepared to face the risk. In return for a reasonable concession in the Australian selling price of sugar, the sugar industry delegates were offered substantial advantages as a quid pro quo. First of all they were offered the exceptional security, which wa3 not given in respect of any- previous sugar agreement, of the new agreement being submitted with the support of the Government for the approval of the Commonwealth Parliament in the form of a bill. Obviously this was an enormous advantage from the point of view of. security for an industry in which £30,000,000 had been invested, as it would remove the exceedingly dangerous menaces to an agreement such as possible adverse decisions of the High Court, or action by this Parliament under the Customs Act. The Commonwealth Government also offered to waive .the unrestricted right given to it. under the current sugar agreement to review the domestic price of sugar in August, 1934, for the last twoyears of that agreement. The new agreement covers the whole term during which there will be no alteration of price, instead of the price being reviewed in 1934 as provided in the old agreement. The position then arrived at was that the old agreement had been voluntarily surrendered for a new agreement. The sugar industry obtains the advantages of certainty for uncertainty, and a four-year agreement against one that had to be overhauled in two years, while in return, the industry had agreed to a reduction of price equivalent to id. per lb. on refined sugar sold retail. In these circumstances it is not surprising that the responsible leaders of the sugar industry decided that it was in the interests of the whole of the producers, and of the enormous amount of capital invested, to choose security under reasonable conditions, rather than insecurity and, possibly, chaos under the old agreement.

I now propose to survey generally the terms of the new agreement, but more particularly those relating to the price of sugar. Under the new sugar agreement, all sugar prices will be reduced as from the 5th January next. The reductions on best refined sugar will be id. per lb. retail, and £4 ls. per ton to all manufacturers, except fruit processors. The new prices in capital cities will be 4d. per* lb. retail, and £32 10s. 9d. per ton to all manufacturers, except fruit processors. Fruit processors will receive a domestic rebate of £2 4s. per ton off the ordinary manufacturing price of £32 10s. 9d. per ton if they pay the growers for fresh fruit not less than such prices as the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee declares to be reasonable. In such case, the net cost of sugar to fruit processors for home consumption will be £30 6d. 9d. per ton, or virtually the same as at present. In addition, fruit processors will continue to receive the ordinary export sugar rebate, which reduces the cost of Australian sugar to the equivalent of the world’s parity price, plus £110,000 per annum for special assistance on manufactured fruit products exported from the Commonwealth. They get their sugar at the export parity price in Australia, and, in addition, £110,000 per annum from the sugar industry. The total assistance to the fruit industry is to be £200,000 per annum as from 5th January, 1933. This is worth £6 a ton on the basis of the present consumption of sugar by that industry. All prices and concessions will continue in operation until the 31st August, 1936, the date on which the old agreement would have expired. The price reductions will be worth approximately £1,000,000 per annum to domestic consumers, and about £300,000 per annum to manufacturers. A portion of the latter saving will doubtless be passed on to the domestic consumers in the form of cheaper commodities. In the aggregate, Australia’s sugar costs are, therefore, being reduced by £1,300,000 per annum, which may be regarded as tantamount to a similar reduction of taxation.

With regard to new-price sugar required by manufacturers and wholesale merchants, special arrangements will be made by the Queensland Sugar Board for adequate supplies to be invoiced at the new price, and made available at all necessary points on the 5th January next. Similar arrangements in 1923, when the last price reduction took place, proved quite successful, and I have no doubt that they will meet the requirements on this occasion.

The Queensland authorities recognize, however, that exceptional difficulties exist in Tasmania, where there are no refinery stocks, and only limited transport connexions with the bulk sources of supply at’ Melbourne and Sydney. The Queensland Sugar Board has already made special provision to ensure that adequate supplies of sugar shall be available in Hobart and Launceston on the 5th January next, without loss to those concerned in its distribution.

Senator Grant:

– The arrangements were not very satisfactory in the past.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I believe that they will be found satisfactory on this occasion. I have already referred to theconcessions to the fruit industry. In view of its importance, I think the matter should be elaborated somewhat. The effect on the fruit industry of the new agreement and government policy may be seen from the following table : -

Under the proposals of the Government, the fruit industry will be much better off than it has been in the past. An examination of these figures reveals that the fruit industry -will be better off to the extent of at least £91,000 per annum than before the agreement, without taking into account the considerable savings from the recent abolition of sales tax and primage on agricultural implements, fertilizers, .lime and many other items used on orchards, together with the new measure of assistance granted for the purchase of fertilizers. The Government can fairly claim that the measures it has taken will assist the orchardists and fruit-growers of Australia to the full extent that the finances of the country will allow. Fruit processors will still have the sole advantage of the specially low net price of £30 6s. 9d. a ton for home consumption, which in future will be worth £60,000 per annum compared with what all other manufacturers will pay. They will also enjoy a continuance of the exceptional privilege of the £110,000 per annum for export assistance. These two valuable concessions are equivalent to the fruit processors receiving sugar at £6 a ton less than the price to be charged to all other manufacturers. The fruit processors should know that the £6 os. Id. domestic rebate was expressly introduced in 1925 by the then Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce), as a temporary provision to meet the prevailing depression in the fruit industry. They also are well aware that the 1930 Sugar Inquiry Committee specifically recommended that this rebate and the proposed total fund of £315,000 per annum should be temporary, and that each should be reduced by the equivalent of any reduction of the ordinary price made during the five years of the 1931 sugar agreement. That agreement provides accordingly, and its terms were widely circulated.

The new agreement provides for no real reduction of the exceptional privileges extended to the fruit processing industry.

The old agreement gave practically an unrestricted right to reduce both the domestic rebate and the total fund for the benefit of the fruit processing industry at August, 1934. The new agreement is more favorable to the fruit processing industry than was the old one, because of the fixation of the status quo for the next four years. The fruit concessions have been administered with much success since September, 1931, by the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee. All the available fruit was processed last season at prices to the growers at least equal to the minimum prices prescribed by the committee. The same system will be continued under the new agreement. So far, it has benefited the berry-growers in Tasmania, the pineapplegrowers in Queensland, and the stone fruit-growers in practically all the States. It is expected that fruit-growers, and the fruit industry generally, will derive further advantages from the sugar concessions under the new agreement. The Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee has just voted £30,000 from its funds for the purpose of encouraging the production and disposal within Australia of jam and canned fruits made from the coming season’s fruit crops. This assistance will be additional to next year’s domestic sugar rebate of £2 4s. a ton, and should help to maintain reasonable prices for fresh fruit to the growers of stone and berry fruits, as well as assist processors.

Except in regard to certain clauses of the old agreement relating to adjustments of Australian prices through the trust account, and in accordance with the fluctuations in the retail price index figure for food and groceries, the new agreement is similar to the old one. The Government agreed to exclude those two clauses from the new agreement for several reasons. Conditions had arisen whereby they would most probably not have been effective in bringing about a reduction of the price of sugar. Moreover, the purpose for which they were inserted in the last agreement, namely, to bring about a reduction of price before the 31st August, 1934, has now been achieved by the assent of the sugar producers to reduce the price in January, 1933. The deletion of these clauses will enable the sugar industry to calculate with reasonable accuracy its Australian earnings for the next four years, and, because of the security and stability thereby created, to reorganize itself under the new level of prices. That will be a task of some magnitude.

The pending reduction of £d. per lb. in the present retail price of 4-^d. per lb. is equivalent to 11 per cent. The new retail price of 4d. per lb. in the capital cities will be 33 per cent, less than the peak price of sugar in Australia - 6d. per lb.

Senator Payne:

– Does the agreement provide that the retail price of sugar shall be 4d. per lb.?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– This Parliament cannot fix the price, but I have no doubt that that will be the rate charged.

Senator Kingsmill:

– The retailers will probably make a profit equal to that of the growers.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The retailers would probably deny the soft impeachment and say that -Jd. per lb. is as much as they can allow.

That percentage reduction is almost exactly the same as the percentage reduction of all foods and groceries below their peak level of the year 1920, and, therefore, the Government feels that the recent contribution from the sugar industry is fair and reasonable..

In commending the bill to the Senate, I point out that the rejection by Parliament of the new sugar agreement would result in one of two things. Either the old agreement would continue - in which case housewives would lose the saving of £1,000,000 per annum and ordinary manufacturers the £300,000 per annum provided under the new agreement - or it might he destroyed hy legal or parliamentary action.

In the event of the destruction of the old agreement, disaster would result to both the sugar and the fruit industries. The cessation of sugar concessions to the fruit industry would throw growers, with their over-production and lack of solid organization, on the mercy of manufacturers who could not purchase all their fruit as is now done under the sugar agreement, and they would thus be compelled by circumstances to accept much less for their fruit than at present. If this Parliament took action to destroy both the new agreement and the old one, no industry, apart from the sugar industry itself, would suffer more than the fruit industry. These two industries are so inter-related that each actually supports the other. While the destruction of the two agreements would cause chaos in the sugar industry, its effect on the fruit industry would be even worse. I do not suggest that the bill is perfect; but I submit that it is the best compromise possible in all the circumstances. The Government would like to do many things which are not provided for in the bill, but it must take things as they are. It realizes that the sugar industry is a great Australian industry which cannot be wrecked without serious consequences to the whole of Australia. If the sugar industry of Queensland were wrecked, the effect would be felt throughout the length and breadth of the land; there is no part of Australia that would not suffer.

Senator Guthrie:

– Could not the same argument be used in regard to the wheat and wool industries?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– It is the duty of this Parliament, within the limits of the financial resources of the Commonwealth, to help all industries to get on their feet. The Government is assisting both the wheat and the wool industries.

Senator Guthrie:

– What is it doing for wool?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– We have removed the sales tax from many articles, and, in cases in which, owing to the low prices obtained for primary products, losses have been sustained by producers, they are not required to pay any land tax; but, even if the Government were unable to do anything to help the wool and wheat industries, that would be no justification for wrecking the sugar industry. We should do all that lies in our power to protect and help the great primary industry of sugar production, and in that way we shall confer a great benefit, also, on the fruit industry, which, I suppose, in point of numbers, supports a great many more persons than even the wheat industry, When we consider the large number of persons employed in the sugar industry of Queensland, it must be realized that the clear duty of this Parliament is to see that, in these difficult times, it is not thrown to the wolves.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– I desire at the outset to thank my leader for having given one of his Queensland colleagues the opportunity to open the debate from this side of the chamber on this very important measure. Members of the Opposition intend to support the bill, and I am hopeful that many honorable senators opposite will vote with us. As a Queensland representative, and as one who has an intimate knowledge of the sugar industry, I am anxious to see this bill passed. I do not approve of the measure in its entirety, but I recognize that it offers the best arrangement that the industry can obtain at the moment. I submit that it is only doing bare justice to Queensland and this great industry that such information concerning it as Queenslanders on both sides of the chamber can give should be made available to the Senate. Thi3 industry is of such vast importance, not only to Queensland and the Northern Rivers District of New South Wales, but also to the Commonwealth as a whole that I regard this as a fitting opportunity to examine its position closely and critically. In spite of all that Senator Greene has said in his able speech, in moving the second reading of the bill, we do not admit that there was any justification for abrogating the agreement made with the industry by the Scullin Government. We realize that much anti-sugar propaganda has been indulged in for years in the southern States, and, in the course of my remarks, I hope to show the absolute injustice of that agitation. We are not at all surprised that the Government yielded to it, probably because it did not correctly estimate how little there was behind it. At the same time, we submit that, once an agreement has been made, its provisions should be rigidly adhered to.

Seeing that, as the result of two conferences, the industry has accepted the amended agreement which we are now asked to ratify, it is not correct to say that those who wished to vary the original agreement put up the stronger case.

It seems rather remarkable that I should have this opportunity to defend the industry against its traducers. Although I was a candidate at the last election, I was not then certain of being returned to this Senate; but I told the people concerned in the industry that they were facing a great danger, because the propaganda being directed against them was insidious and insistent. It had been claimed that a reduction of the retail price of sugar was overdue as an act of justice by the industry to the sugar consumers of Australia, but the truth of that statement I do not for a moment admit. There is no industry in Australia, not excepting the wool and wheat industries, that has done so much as has the sugar industry to make its commodity available to the people at a reasonable price. I pass over some remarks that I had intended to offer regarding the departure from the original agreement, because Senator Greene has, to a large extent, covered that aspect of the matter. During the last election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) said -

A definite agreement was entered into by the previous Government with those associated with the sugar industry. The present Government recognizes the existence of that agreement, and it docs not propose that by any direct action that agreement should be broken. . . I may say definitely that only on a voluntary basis would an amendment of the agreement be suggested.

Senator Greene has stated that the amendment was accepted on a voluntary basis; but at the same time he showed that that was not quite the position, because the facts he mentioned indicated that there was little choice left to those engaged in the industry. The Prime Minister proceeded -

The United Australia Party will regard the sugar agreement as binding.

In August, 1929, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Gullett) said to a deputation at Rockhampton -

He wished to clear the air regarding the position of sugar and cotton in Australia from the point of view of government assistance. The position of the sugar industry was an entirely different one. The people in the south subscribed with great goodwill to the cost of the sugar industry in this country because they believed in the White Australia policy. They did it on particular national grounds, because on that coastal margin it was sugar or nothing, the sugar industry or no industry. When they came to cotton as connected with the Dawson and Callide areas, the position was different. There was no parallel between sugar and cotton required in the irrigated) areas of New South Wales and Victoria.

When the recent federal election was being fought, the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) said -

The position regarding sugar is that United Australia Party, in accordance with general principles on which it stands, regards the sugar agreement as binding on any Commonwealth Government.

– The refineries are doing a wonderful work; but if their figures are analysed it will be seen that, in comparison with the services which they render to the industry and to Australia, their profits are by no means extravagant.

Senator FOLL:

– And they have to finance the industry too.

Senator COLLINGS:

– Exactly ; the refineries carry the whole of the burden of financing the business during the year. Those who have not an intimate knowledge of the industry are under the impression that the growers are all doing very well when, as a matter of fact, they are not. The latest available figures show that in the year 1928-29, only two canegrowers out of ten were assessed by the Income Tax Commissioner of Queensland for the payment of income tax, although I make bold to say that no income tax department in any other State is as active or thorough in its administration as is the Queensland department.

It may not be out of place if, now, I show to what extent the sugar industry of Queensland benefits the southern States. It is desirable that I should do this, because of the very insidious propaganda that has been directed against this great primary industry of the State which I assist to represent in this chamber. My purpose is to convince honorable senators from the other States - I know that all honorable senators from Queensland will support this measure - that they will be doing an act of base ingratitude to industries in their own States if they withhold their support from this bill. I also remind the representatives of Western Australia, South Australia, and Tasmania, that when appeals are made to this Parliament for assistance to be given to those States, because of disabilities which they suffer from federation, Queensland senators are always willing to support them, so on that ground, if on no other, we are, I think, entitled to their support for this bill.

The estimated value of farm implements and mill machinery required by the industry is over £20,000,000, and it is safe to assume that 80 per cent, of it is made in Australian factories, the remainder being obtained from Great Britain. The length of portable tram lines in the sugargrowing areas is over 1,000 miles, and as practically the whole of this material is now being manufactured in New South Wales, the value of the industry to that State must be apparent to its representatives in this Parliament. I may add that because of the climatic conditions, the life of rails is somewhat limited, so the Queensland industry is a very good customer of the New South Wales steel industry. In addition, thousands of tons of corrugated iron and hundreds of miles of fencing material, most of which is manufactured in New South Wales, are required by the industry.

I now invite my honorable friends from South Australia to consider the value of the sugar industry to important primary industries in their State. Every wine shop or hotel throughout Queensland - and hotels are numerous in the thirsty tropical sugar belt - is stocked with South Australian wines, and South Australian dried fruits are on sale in all grocery stores and similar establishments right along the 1,200 miles of coastline. Tasmania supplies the 8,000 people engaged in the industry, and its 23,000 employees and their families, with apples which, I may add, are the best we could hope to get after we have exhausted the product of the Stanthorpe fruit-growing area. The island State also sends us hundreds of tons of potatoes yearly. The southern States supply at least 20,000 workmen and 10,000 farmers and their families with manufactured goods, including clothing, boots and shoes, &c.

I think I have said enough to convince honorable senators from the southern States, from the sordid stand-point of commercial advantages, that their interests would be served by supporting this bill. But I would appeal to them on national grounds. The latest figures show that Queensland purchases from the southern States goods to the value of nearly £12,000,000, two-thirds of which is paid for with’ sugar, and the southern States purchase from Queensland slightly over £9,000,000 worth, of goods. What would happen to the southern States, as well as to Queensland, if the protection which this industry has enjoyed hitherto, were withdrawn from it?

Senator Barnes:

– What is the nature of the goods that Queensland sends south ?

Senator COLLINGS:

– Mostly sugar, but also some tropical fruits.

Senator Crawford:

– And all the goods purchased from the southern States are produced under a protectionist policy.

Senator E B Johnston:

– Does Queensland take from Western Australia anything except money?

Senator COLLINGS:

– Whenever labour is being signed on at any hig mill in Northern Queensland, there ;ire men from Western Australia looking for work, which that State lias been unable to provide for them. But is it a question of one State getting money from another? Has not this Senate frequently voted grants for Western Australia? Honorable, senators will probably accept the statements of Professor Brigden where they might think i hat my perfervid utterances are the result of political enthusiasm. This gentleman says -

Queensland’s imports of commodities of Australian production from the other States during the year 1931 amounted to £11,332,617, whilst the value of good3 sent to them was £9,314,058, of which two-thirds of the total value was represented by raw sugar. The significance of these figures lies in the fact that whilst the balance in favour of other States of the Commonwealth was something over £2,000,000, two-thirds of what we did send them (£6,144,G10 in value) consisted of a commodity which did not in any Way compete with any of their productions, and which in the refining process in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Fremantle furnished direct employment for large numbers of their workers, to say nothing of interstate transport in and out.

Put in another form, Professor Brigden says that the imports of Queensland goods, including stock and wool overland, by the other States during 1931 amounted to 37s. lOd. per head of the population of those States, while the value of the imports of Australian origin into Queensland was £2 0s. lid. per head of the population of the other States; and sugar represented 22s. 2d. of the 37s. lOd. per head. What people are benefiting from the wages that are paid to the 23,000 workers who are engaged in the sugar industry in Queensland and New South Wales? Our railway services, our shipping companies, our shops and factories - all are benefiting from this great industry. Thousands of tons of steel and iron,, hundreds of miles of fencing wire and copper telephone wire, boots, clothing and hats, dried fruits, wines; hundreds of tons of potatoes, thousands of dozens of jams, and thousands of bushels of fruit, are purchased out of the proceeds of the industry. In addition, those who are engaged in it are placed in a position to pay their rates and taxes, and are not subjects for sustenance or the dole - and in these strenuous days that is worth considering.

I wish to say a few words concerning the efficiency pf the ‘labour engaged in the industry. In 1900, the tons of sugar produced per acre were 1^, and over 10 tons of cane went to the making of one ton of sugar. In 1930-31, the tons of sugar produced per acre -were 2.4, and only 7 tons of cane went to the making of one ton of sugar - the best extraction in the world. That is a tribute to the efficiency of the industry, which is now carried on entirely by white labour. Let us now look at the results produced by coloured labour. The average number of tons of cane cut per man per day in Queensland is 4^. In Java, according to Senator Colebatch, it is about half a ton. The cost of production in Java, where men receive lOd. for a day of twelve hours, and women and children from 3d. to 4d. for a day of the same number of hours, is £9 a ton. In Queensland the cost of production, 55 per cent, of which is labour, is £18 7s. a ton, apart from interest on capital. Seeing that the wages paid in Queensland are about 70 times as great as those paid in Cuba, this is a wonderful tribute to the Australian workman. Recently, the South African Sugar Journal proved that cane harvested with South African natives is about as expensive as harvesting in Queensland, taking into account all expenses incidental to native employment.

Another point that I wish to impress on the Senate is that the sugar industry has not reached the position that it occupies to-3ay without criticism and searching inquiry. It has stood up, unflinchingly, to a more searching inquiry into its methods, its capacity, and its profits, than has been made in connexion with any other Australian industry. Nor must it be forgotten that it is not the only Australian industry which has been granted bounties, prohibitions and high tariffs. It has proved its steadily progressive nature under the, at times, extremely irksome and costly regulation of prices, wages and hours, and has not, at any time, in any direction, presumed upon the sheltered position accorded to it by the Commonwealth. The latest of these investigations is that held last year.

I” said earlier in my remarks that the industry does not owe Australia anything, but that Australia owes it something. On this point, I shall refer briefly to what happened to it during the Great War. From 1915 onwards the Commonwealth Government, under an unfettered control, commandeered the entire Australian sugar output at a price fixed by itself, which was far below world parity. It placed an embargo on the exportation and private importation of foreign sugar, fixed prices for both the wholesale and the retail trade, and made arrangements to finance any authorized imports that might be required to make good any shortage in the Australian crop. The workers were guaranteed fair wages, and, by the fixation of retail prices, the consuming public was protected from any possible attempt to exploit the situation created by the war. From 1915 to 1919, the wholesale price of sugar in Australia did not exceed £29 5s. a ton, while the retail price to the consumer was 3-£d. per lb. In 1920, the price of sugar in England was ls. 2d. a lb., in Canada and the United States of America ls. 3d. per lb., and in Italy and France ls. 6d. per lb. On the basis of the English price, the Australian industry saved the people of this country many millions sterling, bv providing them with cheap sugar. That fact should not be forgotten.

Senator Guthrie:

– Why is the price of the £20 shares of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company now £55?

Senator COLLINGS:

– I shall have something to say about that company at a later stage. I assure the honorable senator that every avenue, and particularly that which he has in mind, has been exploited by those who are directly interested in the business. We have nothing to do with the price of the shares and are not complaining at the moment of the services rendered. to the industry by the refiners.

It is pertinent to ask, who are the consumers of sugar on whose behalf we are supposed to bubble over with sympathy? The industry has agreed to make them a concession of id. per lb. in the retail price. That is a very serious matter to the industry as well as to the Queensland Government, because the reduction will affect the receipts from taxation. The workers of Australia - not simply the men who work on the roads, the railway permanent way, and in like occupations, but those who are employed in the necessary processes of wealth production and distribution - comprise at least 60 per cent, of the community. That is a most conservative estimate; I should put the figure at no less than SO per cent. If, al a referendum or a general election, any party enunciated a policy the object of which was the withdrawal of the protection given to the sugar industry, or the removal of the embargo on the importation of foreign-grown sugar, it would not have the remotest chance of succeeding. If there is one thing for which the nation stands solidly, it is the White Australia policy. I tell honorable’ senators to-night, that if the sugar industry in the tropical portions of northern Queens land is damaged to the extent of extinction, the White Australia policy must go overboard, because without the industry that part of the Commonwealth cannot be protected against the invasion that is so often spoken of. There is no doubt that the majority of the electors of Australia are consumers of sugar, and that they stand for a White Australia. Recently, the Launceston Trades Hall Council held a meeting at which it carried the following resolution, which was forwarded to the Government : -

That in view of the importance of the sugar industry (which employs some 30,000 persons) to the nation, considering the number of investigations into its advantages or otherwise, this council considers care should be exercised in any action taken that white labour is not displaced by black labour, or the door left open for sugar to be imported from black labour countries, with little or no corresponding advantage to the household consumer, and that this council further considers that efforts should be made in the direction of completing nationalization of the industry.

Other sections of the community are demanding the adoption of this agreement. The primary producers are supporting it ; the Australian Natives Association has by resolution from head-quarters definitely declared its allegiance to the industry and the continuance of the embargo. The All f®r Australia League, and Young Australia League, which do not represent the political party with which I am associated, have also carried resolutions asking that the protection provided under this agreement shall continue. The concession made to the consumers can be regarded as a satisfactory gesture, although I say quite frankly that, in view of all the circumstances, I do not think that the industry was under any obligation to them. Under this agreement the retail price of sugar will be reduced by id. per lb. as from the 5th January, 1933. The agreement provides for a reduction of the price of sugar to the manufacturer from £36 Ils. 9d. to £32 10s. 9d. a ton, a reduction of £4 ls. a ton on sugar used for all manufactures except fruit products. Fruit processors will still pay £30 6s. 9d. a ton as hitherto for their home consumption requirements, or £2 4s. a ton less than the other manufacturers. That will be £32 10s. 9d. a ton, less £2 4s., or £30 6s. 9d. a ton. In addition, £110,000 will be granted for special export assistance, plus the usual export sugar rebate to reduce the cost of sugar in exported goods to the Australian equivalent of world’s parity. This means a considerable concession to some of the big manufacturers of Australia, who, I may say, are not in any sense allied to the Labour party. As they, too, are to receive considerable benefits under this agreement, I feel confident that there will not be any opposition from them to the bill.

In all the propaganda against the sugar industry, and in all the academic debates in this and other Parliaments, as well as in the resolutions carried by the Housewives Associations in the south, and by the National Council of Women in Tasmania. care has been taken to avoid the great national issue of our White Australia policy. We have to determine whether it is worth while continuing this experiment which has been carried on by the sugar industry for the last 30 years. The sugar industry has proved conclusively that in the tropics white men can carry on arduous toil in the fields and in the mills better than the workers in any other country on God’s earth. This experiment has never been attempted in any other country in the way in which it has been attempted by those controlling the sugar industry. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that white labour can be employed in tropical regions, and for that reason, if for no other, the Senate should pass this bill. The late Mr. Donald MacKinnon, formerly Commissioner for Australia in the United States of America, has given considerable attention to the coloured labour problem. At the time he made the statement I propose to quote, he was in that country which would give all the gold it possesses to solve its coloured labour problem. Mr. MacKinnon said -

Nowhere else in the world is the white man handling tropical production with success. There is a big Australian responsibility on those who are building up this part of our country. It is our vulnerable frontier, and we must be watchful lest through misconception we do them an injustice and discourage them in their important responsibilities.

Those words are as true to-day as they were on the day on which they were uttered. It is not only honorable senators on this side of the chamber who are demanding a continuance of the protection afforded under this agreement. Let me quote the opinions of others. Mrs. J. H. Goldsmith, President of the Queensland Women’s Electoral League with, a membership of 16,000 throughout Queensland, has stressed the inconsistency of opposition to adequate protection of the sugar industry while so many others continue to enjoy the benefit of high protection. In a memorandum to the Prime Minister, Mrs. Goldsmith said -

It was urged that the proposed interference with the sugar industry would react most adversely against (1) the employment of many workers; (2) the occupancy and opening up of the land; and (3) the continued flow of trade between the various Status.’ Recalling “the adoption of the White Australia policy at the time of federation, opponents of the embargo had a deal to say about a mythical £7,000,000 per annum which the embargo was costing Australia. America would be a proud nation if, in 50 years, she could be 100 per cent, white and would not cavil at £20,000,000 per year for the next 50 years if she could tiring about such a position.

Mr. F. Nicklin, who was recently elected for Murrumba electorate in the Queensland Parliament, and who supports the policy of honorable senators opposite, said -

The sugar industry must not be made a political issue. Both parties should combine towards seeing that the sugar industry is maintained for Queensland, and, speaking on behalf of the fruit-growers, a considerable number of “whom reside in my constituency, I can say that they are right behind the sugargrowers in their fight to maintain the stability of their industry. They realize how much the sugar industry has assisted them by a grant of £20,000 by the Sugar Industry Concession Committee to allow them to can the winter crop and export it overseas.

Recently a royal commission which inquired into the conditions of the sugar industry, in dealing with its national aspect, reported that -

While the social aspect of the sugar industry is more important than the industrial, the political aspect is perhaps more important than cither. Unsettled areas in the tropical parts of Australia are not only a a source of strategic weakness, “they constitute a positive temptation to Asiatic invasion and may give to the White Australia policy a complexion which must inevitably weaken the claims of Australia to external support. As we have already remarked the ultimate and, in our opinion, the effective justification of the protection of the sugar industry lies beyond questions of industry or wealth production. It must be sought in the very existence of Australia as a nation.

– I appeal to honorable senators to vote on this question as big Australians. I appeal to them to support this bill as a means of maintaining Australia’s ideal of keeping this wonderful country for the white race.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [9.52]. - I have no quarrel with Senator Collings. His attitude towards this question will probably also be the attitude of his fellow representatives from Queensland, irrespective of party. That is only a natural and, from their point of view, a proper attitude to adopt. Iam however, rather amused at the splendid enthusiasm with which representatives from Queensland now support this agreement, which only a few weeks ago they condemned as amonstrous injustice which was being forced on them by the LyonsGovernment. Evidently they realize now that they have made a good bargain - a better one than they imagined.

Senator Collings:

– That is not so.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.Because I have no quarrel with Senator Collings regarding his support of this bill, I shall not refer at length to his remarks. But I remind the Senate that, in speaking of the value of this industry, Senator Collings perpetuated an error that the Commonwealth Statistician indulged in for two or three years, until he saw the absurdity of it and corrected the statistics for some years back. The Statistician made the error of assessing at the Australian price the value of the sugar exported to other parts of the world. That was an absurdity which could not be maintained statistically; but it was no more wide of the truth than was the estimate of the value of the sugar production given to us by Senator Collings to-night. The value’ of the sugar is what we can buy it for; that price to-day is approximately one-third of the figure quoted by the honorable senator.

Senator Collings:

-Would the honorable senator apply that reasoning to everything ?

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:

– Yes. The honorable senator made reference to a report by Professor Brigden since he received an important post in Queensland. Some four years ago, when Professor Brigden was attached to the University of Tasmania, he came before a commission of which I had the privilege of being a member, and pointed out the tremendous burden that the sugar industry imposed upon Tasmanian industries. Although I always listen with respect to professional utterances, I confess that I lose a little of my faith in people when I find them so easily influenced by their environment. In my opinion, economic fact is superior to geographical considerations. I cannot accept Professor Brigden’s utterances without recalling the entirely contrary statement that he made when he was associated with Tasmania in somewhat the same way that he is now associated with Queensland. Senator Collings proved too much. He told us of the extraordinary improvements which took place in the sugar industry between 1900 and 1931. The importance of any industry is generally assessed by its capacity to serve. I admit that there has been a great technical advance in this Queensland industry, and I have no doubt that the figures quoted by the honorable senator as to the increased production of sugar per acre and the increased sugar content in sugar-cane are absolutely accurate but it is none the less a fact that the

Australian consumer of sugar is paying practically double what he paid for that commodity in 1900, when the conditions in the industry were supposed tobe so much worse than they now are. I entirely agree with the honorable senator that coloured labour is not cheap labour ; but, in making that point, he gave away one of the strongest arguments against . the prohibition of sugar. The honorable senator told us, moreover, that Australian manufacturers are not allied with the Labour party, and that he and those associated with him did not complain about the attitude of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. I know neither the nature nor the extent of the alliance between Australian manufacturers and the Labour party; but I know that there is such an alliance, and I regard it as an unholy one. When we find these monopolistic companies agreeing with advanced thinkers whose slogan is “ The socialization of industry in our time,” we are justified in wondering what will happen next. Senator Collings referred to the necessity for the nationalization of industry.

Senator Collings:

– I quoted a resolution from Tasmania.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.While the honorable senator spoke, I was reminded of the old limerick -

There was a young lady of Riga.

Who smiled as she rode on a tiger;

They returned from the ride with the lady inside,

And the smile on the face of the tiger.

Are the big monopolistic companies going to swallow the Labour party, or will the process be reversed? Whichever happens, the development will be most interesting. I assure honorable senators from Queensland that I ‘do not want to damage the Queensland sugar industry. I have visited the cane-fields on three occasions, and I have friends engaged in the production of sugar whose regard I value highly. Rather than seek to damage the industry, I would see it strengthened. But I do not think that any industry can be truly strong unless it is self-reliant to a much greater extent than is the sugar industry. So long as Australia continues her present protectionist policy, the people engaged in the sugar industry will have to pay exorbitant prices for some of their requirements, such as galvanized iron, which they use in large quantities; and so long as the burden imposed by the coasting trade provisions of the Navigation Act remains, those engaged in primary production will be entitled to that measure of protection which is afforded to other Australian industries; but not the measure of protection they are now receiving. I think that I shall be able to show that it is political interference with the industry which is reducing it to its present unhappy position, for an industry is in a deplorable position, when it is bound to restrict its output for fear of. bringing disaster to those engaged in it. When an industry gets into a position in which it is afraid to expand, it can be of no help to the White Australia policy or to any other useful feature of Australian politics. Whilst I have no quarrel whatever with Queensland senators in their attitude, I say without fear of successsful contradiction that nobody who opposed the old agreement can with any shadow of consistency support this one.

We have had certain historical references from Senators Greene and Collings. I shall take up the story just where they left off. I accept all that they have said about the advantages obtained during the war period through having the Australian sugar industry. When political influence crept in, what was done in pretending to help the industry really desperately injured it. In 1920-21, the production of sugar in Queensland was 182,000 tons, that being considerably less than the quantity required for Australian consumption. The price was then £21 a ton. The producers waited on the then Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Hughes, and asked that the price be increased to £23 10s. a ton. Mr. Hughes appointed a royal commission - the usual method of disposing of a difficult and unpleasant matter. The chairman was Mr. Piddington, and he reported that a fair price was £22 a ton, or 30s. a ton less than the industry asked for, but £1 a tonmorethan it was then receiving. Mr. Hughes, in a characteristic burst of generosity, fixed the price at £30 6s. 8d. a ton, nearly £7 a ton more than the industry had asked for, £8 6s. 8d. more than the royal commission had recommended and £9 6s. 8d. more than the then prevailing price.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– What was the world price at the same time ?

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

– About £100 a ton.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:

– I do not know that that has the slightest bearing on my argument. If the world price was higher than the Australian price, there was no need to fix the price, because the grower had no need to fear competition.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Then the honorable senator does not know much about the conditions.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:

– I know as well as the honorable senator that the conditions following on the war were entirely abnormal, but I do not think that he will dispute the fact that there was an investigation by a royal commission, which recommended the price of £22 a ton, and that the price Mr. Hughes granted was £30 6s. 8d. a ton.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– But the conditions in the meantime had entirely changed.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.The first result of that action was to increase the yield by 50 per cent in a single year.

Senator Elliott:

– In what year was that?

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:

– In 1921. To-day the production is about 600,000tons, which is about double the local requirements. The price of raw sugar before this new agreement was made was £26 a ton. The 300,000 tons exported were sold at £9 7s. a ton, of which £4 5s. 7d. represents British preference. That preference alone is worth a great deal more than £1,000,000 per annum to the Queensland sugar industry. The result of the whole business is that one-half the raw sugar sold fetches £26 a ton, and the other half only £9 7s. a ton, which means an average of £18 a ton. To-day the producer is getting £3 a ton less than he received in 1919, although the consumer is paying something like £8 a ton more - far less for the producer and far more from the consumer. Surely this suggests that the industry has been placed in a strangly uneconomic position. It is one of the fruits of political interference. I am sure that Senator Elliott is greatly interested in this matter, because the other day, in supporting the Ottawa agreement, he told us that what the world wanted was more trade and less politics. He said that in support of an agreement which, if it contemplates anything, contemplates almost complete control of trade by means of tariffs, quotas, &c. I should say that what has happened to the sugar industry of Australia because of political interference should afford a useful lesson to those who think that good can be derived by tariffs and quotas. What are we doing to-day? Not only are we dumping our sugar, but we are given a preference on the thing that we are dumping. It is curious that those who support this policy are the loudest in their outcry against dumping by any other country, whether it be dumping in Australia, or the dumping ofRussian wheat in Britain. Yet we are actually dumping half our sugar at less than half what it costs us to produce it, and at one-third the price at which it is sold locally, and we look to be encouraged in that dumping by means of preference!

Senator Brown:

– Does not dumping mean selling at a price lower than that at which anybody else can sell it in the country inwhich it is sold?

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:

– Nothing of the kind. It means selling in another country at a price lower than that at which a commodity can be produced, and making up the difference by overcharging our own people.

Senator Guthrie:

– How much above world price are we forced to pay in Australia to-day for sugar?

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.Considerably more than double. I shall give the figures later. It is impossible to increase the production of sugar in Australia. Senator Collings has admitted it. He said “ If we grow an extra ton of sugar, we have more to export. That increases our losses and injures everybody”.

The sugar industry is carried on in three districts. The southern district extends from the New South Wales border to Carmilla, which lies about 70 miles south of Mackay, and produces one-tenth of the total crop. The central district extends from Carmilla to Burdekin, 40 miles north of Bowen, and this produces 20 per cent. of the crop. The northern district, which is responsible for 70 per cent. of the output, and produces sugar much more cheaply than any other part of Queensland, extends from Burdekin to beyond Cairns.

Senator MacDonald:

– The northern land is much richer.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.Yes. The strip of coastal country from Burdekin to beyond Cairns is, I think, the richest land in Australia. It has a rainfall ranging from 50 to 160 inches, and the soil is of unrivalled richness. There is no nation on the face of the earth that would not regard the possession of that strip of country as a priceless heritage. It would be regarded as land that must be developed to its highest capacity because of its ability to contribute to the wealth of the rest of the nation. Yet we treat it as a piece of country that it is necessary for the much poorer portions of Australia generously to subsidize.

Senator Foll:

– Better than he has had for years.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.Because of the reduction from £350,000 to £200,000 under the new agreement, the manufacturer of jam for local consumption has actually to pay more in the future than he has paid in the past. True, the difference is only fractional; but there is the fact. The price under the old agreement was £30 6s. 8d., whereas under the new agreement it is £30 6s. 9d. The difference is entirely unimportant, the point being that this consumer had just as much right as any other to anticipate a reduction of £d. per lb. - which he might reasonably have been expected to pass on. The final paragraph of the report of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concessions Committee makes of the report a priceless document. In the whole of my experience I have not come across such a piece of official impudence, such -

insolence of office, and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes.

This is what the committee says to the people who are engaged in this industry, which is dependent on cheap sugar -

The committee considers that a note of warning should be ‘sounded against overoptimism arising out of the new British preferences and the revised sugar agreement. The preference may be nullified wholly or in part by the return of exchange on London to normal and/or the restoration of parity between sterling and the American, dollar.

I do not think that either of those things is at all likely to happen; consequently the advice is gratuitous, and certainly not valuable. But let us see what follows -

The export assistance from the sugar industry, substantial though it proved to be last year, might not go very far in the event of prolific seasons. Furthermore, the new sugar agreement will terminate in August, 193fi, and there is no guarantee that the special fruit concessions, which have always been officially announced as temporary will be continued on the same scale or continued at all.

Is not that a supremely insolent statement for the sugar industry to make to the fruit industry - that there is no guarantee that the concession will be continued? What has the sugar industry given to the fruit industry ? At the most, in the case of jam for export, it has merely supplied sugar at the price at which it could have been obtained elsewhere; and for local consumption, a great deal more than that has had to be paid. Yet these people have the impudence to talk about the concessions which the sugar industry is making to the fruit industry ! They, apparently, write on the assumption that this embargo - -under which the Colonial Sugar Refining Company can make profits amounting to £750,000 a year - and all the other conditions relating to the industry are to be maintained, but that the poor fruitgrower and manufacturer is not to depend on even getting a little of his own back; he must prepare for the time when he will have to pay the full price dictated by prohibition and price fixing, on a scale that is intended to enable the sugar producer to sell overseas one-half of his product at less than half what it costs to produce. The Minister referred ito -the matter in almost the same terms. It is strange how circumstances affect one’s outlook. ‘ The honorable gentleman spoke of the way in which the sugar industry is helping the fruit-grower - by supplying him -with sugar at about double the price at which he could obtain it elsewhere. The committee goes on to say -

It is to bo hoped therefore that in connexion with ‘future production programmes, the industry will give due heed to its ability to secure profitable and reasonably permanent markets. The committee further commends tothe earnest consideration of all sections of the fruit industry concerned, the great advisability of taking full advantage of the fortunate circumstances of the next few years by unremitting endeavours to achieve maximum possible reduction in overhead, production and selling costs, and in all outstanding liabilities, and where possible to build up capital reserves to meet future emergencies.

What are the future emergencies to which reference is made? One is suggested in the previous paragraph - the time when the sugar industry will no longer make any contribution out of all that is paid to it by the general community, and when the fruit industry will be expected to allow itself to be bled white. It is expected to pile up reserves, so that it will be able to pay twice or three times world value for sugar in order that jam may be made. I say again that this is the most insolent report that I have read in my life. Why should we not suggest to the sugar industry that it should secure profitable and reasonably permanent markets? Why not commend to its earnest consideration the advisability of making unremitting endeavours to achieve maximum possible reduction in overhead? Why not suggest that it is its business to produce sugar at something reasonably approximating the cost at which it can be produced under similar conditions elsewhere?

I do not know what procedure it is intended to follow with regard to this agreement. I maintain that it should be the right of this Senate to amend it in any way thought desirable. Failing an assurance in that direction, I shall certainly vote against the second reading of the bill; because the agreement a§ it stands is infinitely worse than the old agreement for the people of Australia. If we are permitted to amend it, - by striking out the portion which embodies the prohibition, and that which continues the present price beyond the year 1934 contemplated in the agreement that is being varied, and by calling upon the sugar industry to continue to contribute to the fruit industry the £350,000 fixed by the previous agreement - I shall be prepared to withdraw my active opposition to the bill.

Senator J B Hayes:

– What about the arbitration clause?

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.That clause is one of the most curious features of the bill. Honorable senators who at present occupy the Government benches, and who are responsible for this bill, strenuously opposed in the past the inclusion of a similar provision in other measures, and even went to the length of dividing the Senate on the matter; yet now they are prepared to accept it. Again I say that it is an extraordinary illustration of the fact that these -wretched socialistic nostrums, which no Labour party can enforce, are placed on the statute-book by our own people. It is one of the most melancholy consequences of our present system of government, that the very people who denounce these things when out of office, are the first to advocate and embody them in legislation when they get in office. I repeat, that I think it should be the privilege .of the Senate to amend the bill in the directions that I have suggested. I venture to think that a majority of the Senate is in favour of some of those amendments. If that permission is not given, I shall certainly oppose the bill.

Senator Elliott:

– In what way is this agreement much worse than the old agreement for the people of Australia ?

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.Under the old agreement, the prohibition was not established by act of Parliament ; and in the second place, there had to be a revision of prices in 1934, whereas under this agreement there is to be no revision until 1936.

Senator Elliott:

– Is not this a revision?

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.There is to be a reduction in the retail price of ½d. a lb. If the honorable senator thinks that a reduction of 11 per cent, is more than the industry is called upon to make in compliance with the general 224 per cent, reduction imposed everywhere else, he is welcome to his opinion. I say that, quite apart from any other concession to the industry, it is only half the reduction that ought to be made.

Senator Elliott:

– “With a reduction’ at the end of 1934, would it not average up?

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.I say that there should be a reduction by at least another penny in 1934. But that leaves the matter open. I do not wish to convince Senator Elliott against his will. I know the painful uncertainty under which he laboured in regard to theold agreement, and I am not surprised to find him in practically a similar position with respect to this. I. have tried to indicate to him the directions in which I consider that this agreement is worse than the old one. I have shown pretty clearly that it is worse from the point of view of the manufacturer, because . the contribution by the industry to the fruit processors and jam makers is to be £115,000 per annum less. I cannot imagine any one who opposed the old agreement supporting this.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queeusland

– Having had considerable experience as a grower of sugar cane, I desire to make a few observations on this bill. It is 37 years since I, in company with my wife, settled in what is still the northern outpost of the sugar industry. I have had a great deal of experience in the industry both in pre-federation days and since, and it is ‘ most unfortunate that the Senate should be considering a subject of such grave importance to the whole of Australia concerning which so few honorable senators have a. personal knowledge. I venture to say that if the sugar-growing industry were carried on as are many industries in the six States of the Commonwealth, the tirade of abuse which has taken place during the past 32 years would not have been directed against it. “When the colonies, as they were then termed, were considering whether they would enter the federation, Queensland was definitely promised that although the coloured labour then employed in the industry would be repatriated, sufficient protection would be afforded to enable it to carry on under white labour conditions.

Senator Daly:

– No one is making any great complaint about the sugar industry.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Many persons have complained about the price of sugar. Important interests are concerned in obtaining a reduction of price, more particularly the manufacturers who use sugar a9 an alleged raw material. In most manufactures, sugar is no more a raw materia] than is the cloth used in making a suit of clothes or the silk used in making a frock. As a matter of fact sugar is a more highly manufactured article than are many of the manufactured products in which it is used. What do these proposed reductions mean? To the brewers alone they represent a reduction of £50,000 per annum. We know that such interests have been spending a considerable sum of money with a view to stirring “up general antagonism throughout, Australia against the sugar-producers of “Queensland, and before I conclude, I shall give some examples of the abuse and misrepresentation which have been directed against an industry upon which scores of thousands of worthy citizens depend for a livelihood. We have just listened to a very critical speech by Senator Colebatch which was directed, not merely against the bill, but against the very existence of the sugar industry. I am sorry that Senator Colebatch is temporarily absent, because I should like him to hear what I have to say. I have never heard that honorable senator make a single proposal or suggestion which would provide Australian citizens with one hour’s profitable work. The whole of his criticisms of the measures which the Senatehas considered have been of a destructive character, and I have often wondered what would be the position of the country if Senator Colebatch directed its policy. I ask leave to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

page 2974

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Sir George Pearce) agreed to -

That the Senate at its rising adjourn till to-morrow at 10.30 a.m.

page 2974

ADJOURNMENT

Senate Galleries: Wearing Apparel of Visitors

Motion (by Senator Sir George Pearce) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

– This afternoon I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Pearce) whether there is anything in the Standing Orders to prevent a deserving Australian citizen who does not possess a coat from entering the King’s Hall or the galleries provided for the use of strangers. I was astounded to learn that a very decent chap who is interested in the debates inthisParliament,butwho through no fault of his own, does not possess a coat, was prevented from entering this building. I do not think that any honorable senator believes that any person so unfortunately placed should not be allowed to enter the building merely because he does not possess a coat. Will the Minister say if the position is as I have stated?

Senator Dunn:

– Can the Minister say when the Senate is likely to discuss the bill in which provision is made for granting assistance to the wheat-growers?

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

.- With reference to the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Barnes), I may say that, although I deplore what has happened, I am not at all astonished. It seems to me that we are wrapped up in conventionalism to an absurd degree. On a sultry day, why should not honorable senators be permitted to attend to their parliamentary duties without wearing coats. But I suppose that if one were to doso, it would be looked upon as more sacrilegious than if one were to spit on the King’s statue. It seems to me that we are too conventional altogether. Reasonable latitude should be afforded, particularly when the climate sometimes renders it necessary forone to be protected from the cold with an overcoatand an eiderdown, and, onother occasions, makes it necessary for one to remove one’s coat and vest to be cool and comfortable. If persons are decently clothed, why all this humbug?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

[10.56]. - This afternoon, when the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Barnes) raised the subject to which he and Senator Rae have just referred, I said that the control of Parliament House, as he who was a member of a former Government shouldknow, was under the President and Mr. Speaker, and not the Government. I sympathize with a man who cannot afford a coat, but I think that there are very few in that position. I should be extremely surprised to learn that there are men in Canberra who do not possess coats, particularly as I was informed to-day that, within the last week or two, when prices were invited in the

Territory for carrying out certain work involving labour 110 offers were received, ifthatisso,Ishould imagine that if a man was without a coat and needed one, he would have submitted a price, which, if accepted,would have enabled him to purchase one.

SenatorBarnes. - But is it necessary for men in the strangers’ gallery to wear a coat on a warm night?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.There are some, of course, who think that there is no necessity to conduct our parliamentary work in a dignified manner, and who believe in makingour parliamentary institutions like a Dounybrook fair conducted underRaffertyrules, permitting every one to behave as he likes. J do not share that view. I think that, there is some value in having the proceedings of Parliament conducted in a dignified manner. Many years ago, an honorable senator adopted the habit of removing his boots, and ] know that those honorable senators seated near him had reason to protest, against what they regarded as an objectionable practice. Speaking seriously, I do not think that it would be wise torelax those rules which provide that those who occupy scats in this chamber or in the galleries should be properly garbed. However, that is a matter for the President and Mr. Speaker to decide.

In reply to the point raised by Senator Dunn, I understand that another place is now discussing the Financial Belief Bill in which provision is made for granting assistance to the wheatgrowers. I am hopeful that that measure willreach the Senate to-morrow, and when the Sugar Agreement Bill hasbeen disposed of, doubtless it will be proceeded with.

The PRESIDENT ( Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch).- The Louder of the Opposition and other honorable senators have referred to persons without coats seeking admission to the Senate. In every state of society there is sucha thing as convention, and even were the greatest innovatorto achieve his desires that wouldstillbethecase. In this place we must be guided by our ideas of what is decorous. Were we to depart from the established custom so far as to allow a man to enter this chamber not clothed in a coat, the time would not bo far distant when hewould want to leave off his waistcoat, and perhaps other parts of his attirealso, and the proceedings and dignity of the Senate would be held in contempt.. Those who would appear in this chamberwithout a coat would not, I suggest, attend a friend’s wedding similarlyattired. That there are men in Canberra who do not possess a coat is to . be deplored; but from the remarks of the Leader of the Government it would appear that they have not availed themselves of opportunities for work which would have provided them with the means of purchasing one. The Senate has more important matters to deal with, and at this stage I do not propose to make any departure from the long-established custom.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.3 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 29 November 1932, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1932/19321129_senate_13_137/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate29 November 1932

PAPERS

QUESTION

AVIATION

Senator O’HALLORAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir GEORGE P PEARCE:

QUESTION

SENATEGALLERIES

Senator BARNES:VICTORIA

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

The PRESIDENT:

AMENDMENTOF STANDINGORDERS

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator DUNN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McLACHLAN:Minister in charge of Development and Scientific and Industrial Research · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Senator MacDONALD:QUEENSLAND

Senator McLACHLAN:UAP

QUESTION

BANANAS

Senator BROWN:QUEENSLAND

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

UNITED KINGDOM AND AUSTRALIA TRADE AGREEMENT BILL

Senator E B JOHNSTON:Western Australia

Senator Daly:

Senator E B Johnston:

Senator E B Johnston:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Daly:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

Senator E B Johnston:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

Senator Sir GEORGE Pearce:

Senator CRAWFORD:Queensland

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator KINGSMILL:Western Australia

Senator DUNN:New South Wales

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

Senator DUNN:

Senator BRENNAN:Victoria

Senator E B Johnston:

Senator BRENNAN:

Senator Collings:

Senator BRENNAN:

Senator Collings:

Senator BRENNAN:

Senator Collings:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Collings:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Collings:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator BRENNAN:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Collings:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator BRENNAN:

Senator Collings:

Senator BRENNAN:

Senator BARNES:Victoria

Senator MILLEN:Tasmania

Senator Daly:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Payne:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator PAYNE:Tasmania

Senator BRENNAN:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator DALY:South Australia

Senator Payne:

Senator DALY:

Senator ELLIOTT:Victoria

Senator MacDONALD:Queensland

Senator MacDONALD:

Senate
29 November 1932

Senator O’HALLORAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

Senator DUNN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McLACHLAN:
Minister in charge of Development and Scientific and Industrial Research · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator MacDONALD:
QUEENSLAND

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

Senator MILLEN:
Tasmania

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator DALY:
South Australia

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP