View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
22 June 1933

13^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- NORFOLK ISLAND
TARIFF BOARDREPORTS
- Acetyl Salicylic Acid
PAPERS
QUESTION
- ARTICLES ON FINANCE BY MR. F. W. EGGLESTON
QUESTION
- RESTRICTION OF WHEAT PRODUCTION
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
QUESTION
- POST OFFICES IN DEPARTMENT STORES
QUESTION
- IMPORTATIONS OF LOCKS
QUESTION
- DUTIES ON OREGON
QUESTION
- IMPORTATIONS FROM JAPAN
QUESTION
- CUSTOMS TARIFF 1933
ADJOURNMENT

The President (Senator the Hon.P. J. Lynch) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2517

QUESTION

NORFOLK ISLAND

Sale of Liquor

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA

– Three or four weeks ago, I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question concerning the very large increase in the consumption of alcoholic liquor at Norfolk Island. Can the right honorable gentleman tell mewhenI may expect the reply ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I shall see that it is expedited.

page 2517

TARIFF BOARDREPORTS

Senator Sir WAL TER GREENE laid on the table reports andrecommendations of the Tariff Board on the following subjects : -

Acetyl Salicylic Acid

Alum, Alum Cake and Sulphate of Alumina, including Alumina Ferric.

Bonnets and Instrument Boards, being vehicle parts,

File and Chisel Handles unattached and ToolHandles unattached.

Gelatine of all kinds.

Woven and Embroidered materials in the piece or otherwise as covered by Tariff Item 107 (a); and Ribbons and Galoons us covered by Tariff Item 107 (b).

Ordered to be printed.

page 2517

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act - Regulations amended- Statutory Rules 1933, No. 09.

Northern Teritory Acceptance Act -

Northern Territory (Administration) Act -

Ordinances of 1933 -

No. 2 - Criminal procedure.

No. 3 - Local Courts.

No. 4 - Aboriginals.

No. 5 - Darwin Town Council.

page 2517

QUESTION

ARTICLES ON FINANCE BY MR. F. W. EGGLESTON

With reference to the articles stated by the Leader of the Senateon the 15th instant to have been written and published by Mr. F. W. Eggleston regarding the finances of (a) the Commonwealth; (b) Tasmania; (c) Queensland; and (d) South Australia, will the Minister state the names of the newspapers in which such articles were published, and the date of their publication?

The articles mentioned will be found in The Herald, Melbourne, of the following dates : -

Commonwealth - 8th September, 1932:
Tasmania - 30th September, 1932.
Queensland - 3rd November, 1932.
South Australia - 10th November, 1932.

I understand that some of these articles were also re-published in the evening papers of other States, but I have not been able to obtain specific information on this point.

page 2517

QUESTION

RESTRICTION OF WHEAT PRODUCTION

Senator GUTHRIE:
through Senator Foll

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

If it is a fact that the wheat-growers’ organizations in Victoria and Western Australia have expressed themselves definitely in favour of some all-round restriction of wheatsowing with the object of improving world prices, will the Government instruct the Resident Minister in London not to oppose the proposed restrictions at the London conference?
Has the Government any definite information regarding the reported proposal of the United States of America to dump 360,000,000 bushels of wheat upon the worldsmarkets it Australia does not fall in with the suggestion to restrict areas to be sown in wheat ?

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

– The Minister for Commerce has furnished me with the following information : -

Views have been expressed by wheat- growers’ organizations in Victoria and Western Australia as indicated by the honorable senator. The Resident Minister in London has, on the authority of the Commonwealth Government, indicated Australia’s preparedness to consider any definite scheme of restriction proposed at the World Conference.
No.

page 2518

– The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following information: -

page 2518

QUESTION

DUTIES ON OREGON

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Will the Tariff Board have completed its inquiry into the question of’ duty on Oregon, and will the report of the board be laid on the table before the Senate reaches the item in the tariff schedule which the report affects?

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Inquiries into the question as to the necessity for the present rates of duty on

Oregon have already been completed in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, hut have not yet been held in Adelaide. The inquiry for that place is listed for the 3rd J uly, 1933. If the report is received, and finally considered by the Government, before the Senate has completed its consideration of the tariff schedule, it will’ be laid on the table of the Senate.

page 2518

QUESTION

IMPORTATIONS FROM JAPAN

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice. - 1.Is it a fact that large quantities of merchandise - the products of Japanese factories - are lining landed in Australia at prices which must prove ruinous to Australian manufacturers of similar articles?

Is it a fact that samples of collars, the product of Japanese factories, are now being shown in Melbourne at a landed cost of 2s. 6d. per dozen after all charges, including sales tax, have been added, and that a collar of comparable quality, made in Australia from British material, would cost at least 9s. per dozen, and that the manufacturers of this Australian collar assert (Melbourne Age, 17th June) that the cost of the material alone landed in the Australian factory is more than that of the finished Japanese article?
Is it a fact that Japan is landing in Melbourne bicycles at 26s. each and perambulators at 4s. 6d. each after all charges have been paid ?
Will the Minister make a statement to the Senate regarding the action,’ if any, the Government proposes to take to prevent dumping of foreign goods into Australia?

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied me with the following information : -

Goods sold at very low prices are being imparted from Japan. Investigations are at present proceeding in regard to a number of classes of these goods to ascertain whether such are detrimental to Australian industries. 2 and 3. No reports regarding the particular goods mentioned have been received by the Minister for Trade and Customs. Inquiries will, however, be made.
After investigation the Government will consider what action, if any, it is necessary to take.

page 2519

QUESTION

CUSTOMS TARIFF 1933

In committee: Consideration resumed from the 21st June (vide page 2512).

Schedule

Group 1. - Items under which the rates are the same as those operating under the 1921-30 tariff.

Division 9. - Drugs and Chemicals

Item 281, sub-items (e) (h) to (l1, 2)-

Carbon bisulphide, ad valorem - British, 25 per cent.; general, 45 per cent.

Upon which Senator E. B. Johnston had moved -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (h) - British, free.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

. -There is little information available in regard to this subitem, upon which there is is no report from the Tariff Board. The present rates are those which were embodied in the 1921-30 schedule. The importations of carbon bisulphide in recent years have been infinitesimal, being nil in 1930-31, and 36 lb., valued at £4, in 1931-32. I have had the history of the position examined. It appears that the Interstate Commission went into the subject, and, after dealing with the methods of preparation, reported that Cuming, Smith and Company, of Melbourne, had furnished a report to the Minister to the effect that for several years it had been making carbon bisulphide, but because of the importations of the product from foreign countries at low prices it had not been able to secure sufficient of the local trade to permit it to continue manufacturing the commodity. The firm asked for adequate protection in order that it might extend its operations and cater for the home market. Apparently, carbon bisulphide was admitted until 1914 free, and was later placed upon the tariff schedule at the present rates, since when the subject has not been investigated by the Tariff Board. I understand that our requirements are met from local sources, and that the Australian price is slightly higher than that charged in Great Britain. Our only comparison is with quotations in British trade journals, as we do not import the commodity at present. Carbon bisulphide is used for solvents, varnish, in the manufacture of matches, preservatives, insecticides, for the extermination of the sugar cane grub, and for the manufacture of carbon tetrachloride. Senator Johnston pointed out that it was also used for rabbit poisoning, but I believe that it has since fallen from favour for that purpose. The price in Australia for a five-gallon drum is £53 16s.8d., the price in Great Britain for a similar quantity on the same date being £30 10s., without the drum. A number of quotations are given for smaller quantities, but the major sales of the commodity are to merchants and storekeepers. Our importations from Great Britain in 1928-29 amounted to 420 lb., and in 1929-30 to 1,120 lb., valued at £21. There have also been importations from the United States of America, Western Australia, apparently, having taken most of the carbon bisulphide which came from that quarter in 1928-29. I suggest that the duty should remain as it is. The matter, which is not an urgent one, will come before the Tariff Board for consideration.

Bequest negatived.

Sub-items agreed to.

Remainder of division, viz., items 282, 283, 284 (a) (b), 285 (b), 286 (a), 289 (a1, 2) (b1) (c), and 290 (a) (b), agreed to.

Division 10. - Wood, Wicker and Cane

Items 291 (a) (b) (cl) (e) (g) 296 (b1 to 5), 297, 298 (a), 299 (a), 300 (a to j), 301 (a to c), agreed to.

Item 303, sub-items (b) (d) (Incubators, foster mothers and brooders).

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– To me this duty appears to be unduly high, and I should like to know whether these rates have been recommended by the Tariff Board.

Senator McLACHLAN (South Australia - Vice-President of the Executive

Council) [11.22]. - This sub-item was before the Tariff Board in 1931, and that body recommended that there should be no alteration of the existing rates. The importations are as follow : -

Sub-items agreed to.

Item 304 agreed to.

Division 11. - Jewellery and Fancy Goods

Items 307 and 308 agreed to.

Item 310, sub-item (b) (Toys).

– How can there be room for expansion of the local industry, when the total imports last year were worth less than £60,000?

Senator HOARE:

– My contention is that we should try to keep in circulation in our own country the money sent overseas for the purchase of toys. By adopting that policy at every opportunity, the aggregate benefit to the community will be considerable.

SenatorRAE (New South Wales) [11.58]. - My experience - and I have brought up a fairly large family - is that if children are not provided with expensive toys they will improvise their own, and they are usually quite as content with the least expensive ones. Personally, I would discourage the importation of costly toys from abroad. Therefore, I disagree, to some extent, with Senator Collings, who said that toys should not be classed as luxuries. There is no need to import toys of any description. Senator Duncan-Hughes says that New South Wales and Victoria seem to be the two most prosperous States, judging by their importations of toys. It is a matter for regret that some States are worse off than others, and I suppose, therefore, that it is a matter for congratulation that some States are better off than others. That toys to the value of between £50.000 and £60,000 are imported each year is a reflection on the people of Australia. We are capable of making in Australia all these articles that our children need. I am opposed to importing them from countries in which the standard of living has been reduced to starvation rates; fair competition with toys made under such conditions is impossible.

Sub-item agreed to.

Item 311 agreed to.

Item 316 (Imitation reconstructed and synthetic precious stones and pearls).

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the item be postponed.

I do so because it is desired to deal with this item in conjunction with item 309, group 3, which covers somewhat similar goods. The department has experienced difficulty in classifying the goods covered by these items.

Motion agreed to; item postponed.

Items 317. 318(c). 319(b2) agreed to.

Item 320, sub-items (a) (cl, 2a, b1, 2) (Home kinematographs, sensitized films, &c).

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– I should like some information regarding sub-itemc 2b1, which deals with films in respect of which certificates have been issued by an organization in pursuance of the protocol for facilitating the international circulation of films of an educational character. Has this subitem any reference to such films as “ The Five-year Plan,” which was banned notwithstanding that it had been shown to English audiences in the vicinity of Buckingham Palace, at the centre of the Empire ?

Senator McLachlan:

– The sub-item refers only to home kinematograph films.

Sub-items agreed to.

Remainder of division, viz., items 321 (a), and 322 agreed to.

Division 12. - Hides, Leather and Rubber

Items 323 (a) (b), 324 (b) (cl) (d), 327, 331 (cl) (b1), and 332 (d) agreed to.

Division 13. - Paper and Stationery

Items 334 (a) (b) (e) (g2, 3) to (j), (o4) (r) (s2) (t) (u), 337 (a), 338 (b), 339, 340 (d) agreed to.

Item 344, sub-items (a) to (c) (Maps).

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Can the Minister explain why “Maps of Australia or of any part thereof “, are subject to ad valorem duties of British, 30 per cent., and general, 40 per cent., whereas maps of other countries covered by sub-item b, are respectively free and 10 per cent. ? One would imagine that it would be easier to make maps of Australia in Australia than elsewhere. Is it that maps of countries other than Australia are not made here?

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– The importations of maps of Australia in 1931-32 were valued at £11, and in the previous year at £414. The explanation of the differentiation in duties is that it is desired to have maps of Australia printed in this country in order to ensure greater accuracy. The Interstate Commission dealtwith this matter, and reported that there was no need to import any maps of Australia. At one time all maps were grouped under one heading ; the division of the item into sub-items has not altered the principle of protection to local map-makers.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– Are we to understand that Australian makers of maps do not make maps of countries other than Australia?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– That is the position.

Sub-items agreed to.

Item 345 agreed to.

Item 346, sub-items (a) (e) (Pencils, &c).

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– Can the Minister inform the committee whether any action has been taken, or is contemplated, regarding the branding of lead pencils, to which Senator Johnston referred last year? Honorable senators will remember that the honorable gentleman produced a packet containing a dozen lead pencils of the kind ordinarily used in schools, and that on the label, alongside a representation of. an Australian kookaburra were the words “Kookaburra brand,” and in letters so small that 99 persons out of 100 would not observe them, the words “ Made in Germany.” Is it possible to prevent a repetition of such a practice?

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– This matter does not come under the control of the Trade and Customs Department, but I am assured that it has been dealt with by the Department of Commerce.

Sub-items agreed to.

Remainder of division, viz., items 347, 348 (a) (b), and 349 agreed to.

Division 14. -Vehicles,

Items 352 (a2) (c), 354 (b), and 358 (a) agreed to.

Item 359, sub-items (cl), (d1, 2), (e1, 2, 3) (Vehicle parts).

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

.- The duties on vehicle parts are a heavy burden on both private and public transport. I am afraid that the committee is not likely to agree to a reduction of the duties, but I should like to know whether the item has been referred to the Tariff Board, and, if not, whether such action is intended. It is not right that transport should be penalized in this way.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

.- The Tariff Board reported on sub-items d and e in 1925, but it has not submitted any report in regard to sub-item c The board recommended that there should be no alteration of the dutieswhich existed in 1925; those duties still operate. These sub-items have been referred to the Tariff Board for investigation in terms of the Ottawa agreement.

Senator Brennan:

– A report by the Tariff Board in 1925 is not of much value to us now.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– The department is constantly watching the position.

Sub-items agreed to.

Item 360 agreed to.

Division 15. - Musical Instruments.

Item 366 (b) agreed to.

Division 16 - Miscellaneous..

Item 368-

Articles specially designed and imported for the use of the blind, deaf, and dumb, when imported by governing bodies of public institutions having the care thereof, British, free; general, free.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

.- I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the item to read - 308(a) Articles specially designed and imported for the use of the blind, deaf and dumb, when imported by governing bodies of public institutions having the care thereof, British, free; general, free;

Articles designed for the alleviation of deafness, not being electrical, ad valorem, British, free; general, 20 per cent.

This request is made to provide for the free admission from the United Kingdom of non-electrical articles designed for the alleviation of deafness, such as conversation tubes. Electrical appliances on the telephone principle used for improving the hearing of the deaf are at present admitted free of duty from the United Kingdom as telephones, and as the non-electrical articles are not manufactured locally the high duty under the generic items in the tariff are serving only a revenue purpose. The Government has no desire to place a tax on deaf aids and accordingly desires that this request be agreed to. This alteration was suggested in another place, hut the item then having been passed, an undertaking was given by the Government to reclassify it in order to afford some relief with respect to the particular class of instrument concerned. This request is to give effect to the undertaking then given.

Request agreed to.

Item agreed to subject to a request.

Items 370 to 373 (a) (b), 374 (a), 375 (a), 376 (g), 377 to 379, 380 (a2). 381 (a) (b) (c), 382, 383, 384 (b), 385, 387, 388 (a), 389, 390 (b), agreed to.

Item 391-

Reaper and binder twine and yarn, per cwt., British, 6s.; general, 7s.

Senator HARDY:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty per cwt., British, 3s.

It is unnecessary for me to emphasize the fact that binder twine, which is used extensively by farmers and others engaged in primary production, should be obtainable at the lowest possible prices. It is unnecessary for me to stress this fact. I have therefore moved that the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the duty on importations from Britain to 3s. per cwt.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– Importations have been made principally from the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand, which countries are entitled to the British preferential tariff rate of 6s. per cwt.

During the last four years, the ad valorem equivalents of this duty were - 1928-29, 9 per cent.; 1929-30, 9 per cent; 1930-31, 101/2 per cent; 1931-32, 131/2 per cent.

In 1925, the Tariff Board recommended that no alteration be made to the existing duties. Requests were made for increased duties as well as for reduced duties. The Tariff Board recommended against any reduction of the duties for the following reasons : -

The present duties are the lowest protective duties in the tariff schedule. At the time of the hoard’s inquiry, they represented from 4 per cent. to 6 per cent. only.
Large modern and efficient factories are established in each State except Tasmania.
Approximately 90 per cent. of the reaper and binder twine used in Australia is of local production.
The duties simply ensure the market to the Australian manufacturers, and enable large-scale manufacture without the necessity to take full advantage of the duties.
Little or no advantage would accrue to the farmer in a reduction of prices by the removal of the duty.
The industry is necessary to Australia in order that no shortage of supplies would occur. The local manufacturers set themselves out to cater for all requirements irrespective of the nature of the season.

Those are the reasons which actuated the Tariff Board in recommending the duties now embodied in the schedule. In the circumstances, the Government cannot accept the request.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– I cannot support the request of Senator Hardy. According to the report of the Tariff Board, this duty has been in operation since 1921. I know that the reaper and binder twine and yarn industry in Australia is efficiently conducted, and is at present turning out a good article at a reasonable price. I cannot see my way clear to vote against the recommendation of the Tariff Board.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– My remarks are prompted by what I consider the reasonable explanation given by the Minister (Senator McLachlan), who made it clear that the binder-twine industry haspractically captured the whole ofthe Australian trade. I bear testimony to its efficiency, and also to the quality of its product, which I have used for many years. But I direct particular attention to the fact that the Minister has shown that this industry has captured practically the whole of the Australian trade with a duty of 9 per cent. If that is correct - I accept the Minister’s statement without any reservation - what is the reason for such enormous duties being sought by other industries? Surely it shows that industries requiring excessive duties are not as efficient as those engaged in the manufacture of binder twine. If they were, they would not need such high duties.

Senator McLachlan:

– The raw material used in the manufacture of binder twine is admitted free of duty, which is an important factor.

Senator CARROLL:

– I am glad to have that admission, which has an important bearing on the matter. I remind the Minister that the raw material used in the manufacture of machinery of all kinds in Australia is also an important factor, but those engaged in this class of manufacture do not obtain it free of duty. Their raw material is subject to heavy customs impost’s. We have, therefore, a very clear argument why these duties generally should bereduced.

Senator BADMAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

– Can the Minister say under what heading in the Oversea Trade Bulletin the raw material used in the manufacture of binder twine is included? Am I correct in assuming that it is item No. 212 on page 165 ? I should like some information from the Minister as to the protection afforded to sisal hemp, which, in this case, is the raw material, and which I do not think is grown in any quantity in Australia. An attempt was once made to grow it at Drouin, in Victoria.

Senator J B Hayes:

– That was flax.

Senator BADMAN:

– But it was used in the manufacture of binder twine. Although the raw material comes in free of duty, importers have to pay exchange. Under a duty of 9 per cent. the manufacturers of binder twine have captured practically the whole of the Australian trade, and are. producing a first-class article. While the price of wheat, and also of hay, in the handling of which binder twine is used, is so low, a heavy duty is not warranted. We have also to remember that the Tariff Board reported on this item as long ago as 1925.

Although the raw material is imported at £21 10s. per ton, the finished article is sold at from £55 to £65 a ton. Last year there was friction in South Australia with respect to the retail price of this commodity. South Australia draws some of its supplies from Melbourne, where there are factories producing a first-class article, but one firm in Adelaide, the Adelaide Rope and Nail Works, is manufacturing some of the local requirements. Friction was caused recently, because importations from Victoria were being sold at a lower price than the local product, and an attempt was made to prevent certain South Australian distributors from importing further supplies from Victoria and selling at a lower price than the South Australian product. After investigation it was found that the Victorian farmers were purchasing binder twine at a cheaper price than that at which it was available in South Australia. I trust that the Minister will take these facts into consideration. I intend to support the request for a reduction of the duty.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– The imports from the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and other British countries, and their value, for 1930-31 and 1931-32, will be found at the foot of page 165 of the Oversea Trade Bulletin. An interesting point emerges from this discussion. The argument of the honorable senator is, that as the price of wheat is low, and the manufacturer of this twine gets his raw material free of duty and is the exclusive supplier of the market, we should reduce this duty. But what would he have to pay for his raw material if the rate of exchange with New Zealand were as it was until a few months ago? That is an example of the exchange operating in a different direction. The extra cost in Australian currency would amount to 25 per cent. As a matter of fact, however, the New Zealand exchange rate is on a parity with our own, so that that consideration does not arise. But I do not ask the committee to consider the matter from that point of view. This is one of the lowest duties in the tariff, and I suggest that it be maintained.

Bequest negatived.

Item agreed to.

Items 392 (b), 394 (a) (b), 395 (a) (b), and 396 agreed to.

Item 397, sub-items (c) (d) (e) (Explosives).

Senator E. B. JOHNSTON (Western

Australia)[12.35]. - Powder for sporting purposes, wads for cartridges, percussion caps, cartridges for military purposes, detonators, empty cartridge cases, capped or uncapped, fuse cotton, and electrical mining fuses, are admitted free from Great Britain. I agree with that. But why should a duty of1d. a coil of fuse, n.e.i., of 24 feet or less, and in proportion for any greater quantity, be charged? Admittedly it is only a small duty. I point out, however, that this fuse is used for mining purposes, and urge that it be given the same treatment as explosives for sporting purposes. .

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– This matter was very carefully investigated by the Tariff Board in 1925, and I have a vivid recollection of the debate upon it in Parliament in 1926. Shortly, the explanation sought by the honorable senator is, that the fuse on which duty is charged is produced in this country, whereas the other things mentioned by him are not. The Tariff Board recommended the rates that are now operating. It may interest honorable senators to know that the Ottawa agreement formula was not applied in this case; as the United Kingdom holds practically the whole of the trade, the granting of preference to it was not necessary.

Sub-items agreed to.

Items 399, 400 (a), 401 (a) (b), and 402 agreed to.

Item 403, sub-items (a) (b) (c) (Manures).

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– The duty on superphosphates, n.e.i., is, ad valorem, British, 10 per cent. ; general, 25 per cent. A country like Australia should be able to obtain without tariff charges all the superphosphates and fertilizers that it needs.

Senator Barnes:

– It has that.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– -Both the British and the general tariff should be free. I invite the Minister to amend the item accordingly, so that there may be no restriction on the importation of superphosphates and artificial manures of any kind.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– Honorable senators, I take it, are aware that the Tariff Board reported on this matter as late as 1929, and recommended that the duties be not reduced. It is a striking fact that nearly one half of the 8,000,000 cwt. of rock phosphates imported in 1931 came from the island of Nauru. The importations of other fertilizers, principally from Italy and Germany, were very small indeed for the years 1930-31 and 1931-32.

In the effort to ensure that superphosphates and other fertilizers should be available to primary producers at fair and reasonable prices, the position in Australia with regard to prices and supplies of fertilizers has been the subject of very full inquiry on different occasions. During 1929, the Tariff Board made a detailed investigation into the fertilizer industry, to determine whether superphosphates were being sold in Australia at prices which were not fair and reasonable, and whether there was any necessity for new increased or reduced duties. As a result of its investigations, the board came to the conclusion that, while manufacturers were not making excessive profits, the prices charged were not fair and reasonable. The responsibility for the high prices, however, rested on the users as well as the manufacturers of fertilizers. The directions in which economies were considered possible are as follow:-

Co-operation between users and manufacturers in the return and re-use of bags, thus enabling the enormous annual expenditure to be reduced.

Extension of facilities for direct business between farmers and manufacturers, to reduce the burden of agency charges, which the board considered were, in many cases, out of all proportion to the services rendered.

The adoption by manufacturers of a policy of maximum production and minimum prices.

A reduction in the number of grades of superphosphate produced by different manufacturers, and the elimination of wasteful competition.

In regard to the duties, the Tariff Board expressed the opinion that . the existing duties on superphosphates of 10 per cent. British, and 25 per cent, general, which had been in operation since 1921, should not be removed. In making this recommendation it was influenced by the following factors : -

Although the selling prices of superphosphate in Great Britain were below the Australian prices, the phosphoric acid content was also lower. Compared on the basis of the phosphoric acid content of the fertilizer, the cost of landing British superphosphate in Australia if no duty wore charged would be well in excess of the Australian price for an equivalent product.

Japan, a former source of cheap superphosphate, is precluded from exporting to Australia by the price which she now has to pay for phosphate rock.

The highly concentrated double or treble superphosphate produced in America could not pay overseas freight and compute with Australian standard phosphate even if it were admitted free of duty.

Holland, where the prices vary, might occasionally ship superphosphate to Australia.

The removal of the duties would probably encourage importations, but shipments would bc too infrequent and too spasmodic to give a regular supply. Overseas manufacturers would probably be” tempted to dump occasional shipments, and thus interfere with the regularity of the operations of local factories and increase their costs of production.

Last year, the Government, in further recognition of the importance of superphosphates in the economic development of the primary industries of the Commonwealth, arranged with the Director of Development to conduct another inquiry into the superphosphate industry. This inquiry showed that, on the average, since the Tariff Board’s inquiry there had been a slight decline in the prices of superphosphate. The manufacturers’ position, however, had been rendered difficult by the decline in the production of superphosphate, resulting in higher overhead charges pelton of superphosphate. In 1930-31, the decline in production was 30 per cent. While there had been a fall in the price of rock phosphate, it was more than offset by an increase in the landed cost of sulphur.

Since the report of the Tariff Board was made in 1929, most of the companies have offered facilities and special low prices to farmers who desire to deal direct with them. Farmers generally have failed to take advantage “ of this opportunity to purchase their requirements under more favorable conditions, possibly because of shortage of funds due to the low prices of primary products. Allowances are now being made ‘ to farmers who return empty bags for refilling. Some reductions have also been made in agents’ commissions, but not in all cases to the extent suggested by the Tariff Board.

The following extract from the report of the Director of Development regarding the variations in the price of superphosphate in Australia since 1913-14, is of interest: -

It is of interest to record that, in 1913-14, when the price of rock was approximately £2 7s. (id. per ton, of sulphur £4 18s. Gd. per ton, and of bags Gs. 7d. per’ dozen, the list price of 17 per cent, water soluble superphosphate was £4 7s. Gd. per ton. Just after the war, the price of raw materials increased considerably, and the price of 17 per cent, superphosphate went up to £G 3s. per ton. In 1031-32, with rock costing an average of £2 5s. lOd. per ton, c.i.f., and sulphur averaging £7 10s. per ton, landed in store, Melbourne, and with bags at an average price of 9s. per dozen, the list price of 22 per cent, superphosphate (20.5 per cent, water soluble) is £4 10s. per ton for terms, and £4 10s. per ton for cash. The price of £4 10s. for 20.5 per cent, water soluble is equivalent to £3 14s. 8d. per ton of 17 per cent, water soluble. In 1913-1.4, there was no difference between terms and cash prices.

The figures indicate that, although there has been an increase in the cost of raw materials (excepting phosphate rock) since 1913-14, the price of superphosphate to the farmer has decreased by 14.7 per cent.

With a view to increased production, the Commonwealth, under the Financial Relief Act 1932, made £250,000 available for distribution through the States to assist primary producers other than wheat-growers in the purchase of artificial fertilizers, the amount to be expended in the payment of a flat rate of 15s. a ton on fertilizer used in the production of primary produce other than wheat. The subsidy would, therefore, apply to artificial manure used, in the production of oats, maize, hops, beans, peas, apples, pears, citrus fruit, tobacco. &c, and would also be- payable on fertilizers used in the top-dressing of pastures. Farmers using fertilizers for wheat-growing purposes have been assisted by bounties in another form.

Sub-items agreed to.

Items 405 to 407, 408 (b), 409, 410 (b1, 2, 3) (c) (d), 411, 412, 414, 415, 415a (1), 416 (a) (b) (c), 417 (a) (b) (c), 418 (a) to (f), 419 (b1, 2), 421, 422 (a) (b), 423, 424 (c) (e) (f1, 2, 3) (g), 426 (a) agreed to.

Items 427, sub-items (a) (b) (d) (Works of art, statues, antiques).

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- Under sub-item b, works of art being statues, artists’ original products, not less than £10 each in value, are admitted free of duty. I suggest to the Minister that a request be made to another place to leave out the words “ being statues “, so that works of art generally, of the value of not less than £10 each, might be admitted free.I know that Australian artists do not really require the existing protection of 10 per cent. British, and 20 per cent general, and if there is anything in the policy of encouraging and developing the artistic side of our people, private individuals should be allowed to import works of art duty free. I am assured that such a policy will assist, rather than interfere with, the work of Australian artists.

Senator Hoare:

– Lindsay told me that it would have the opposite effect.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– Under the grouping system which we have adopted for convenience of discussion, it is possible that the honorable senator has overlooked the provision in item 410 which the committee has passed. Under paragraph 2 of sub-item b, oil or water colour paintings . presented or bequeathed to the owner, and not imported for sale, are admitted free.

Senator Elliott:

– I am aware of that provision. Under paragraph 3 of the same sub-item the duties on oil or water colour paintings, n.e.i. are £1 British, and £1 10s. general, or ad valorem, 10 per cent. British, and 20 per cent. general, whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– I have every sympathy with what I know is in the honorable senator’s mind, and I will see what’ can he done. It might be necessary to recommit item 410 and have it re-cast. I am afraid that, if I adopt the honorable senator’s suggestion with regard to the item now before the committee, it may prove to be unworkable.

Sub-items agreed to.

Items 428 to 431, and 432 (c) agreed to.

Postponed item 121, sub-items (a1, 2) (b) (Division 5) - 121(a) Curtains and blinds, n.e.i. (not including blinds attached to rollers) -

1 ) When not containing wool, ad valorem, British, 20 per cent.; general, 35 per cent. ‘
When containing wool, ad valorem, British, 35 per cent.; general, 50 per cent.

Upon which Senator Payne had moved -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duties, sub-item (a), ad valorem, British, 20 per cent.; general, 35 per cent.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– The discussion on this sub-item was postponed in consequence of an important point which was raised by Senator Payne, who asked why there was a differentiation between the duties on curtains and blinds made from wool, and those made from other materials.

Prior to the 1921 tariff, the rates of duty on curtains and blinds were 15 per cent. and 20 per cent., whereas the duties on woollen piece goods were 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. In other cases, that is, blinds made from other materials than wool, the duties on the finished articles were higher than on the piece goods. As a result of an application by a concern interested in the production of art furnishings for either (1) reduction in duty on woollen piece goods, or (2) increase in duty on finished curtains, &c, the Interstate Commission recommended increased duties on finished curtains, &c., as follows: - When of cotton or linen - 20 per cent. British, and 25 per cent. general; when of other material - 35 per cent. British, and 40 per cent. general. Action along the lines suggested by the commission was taken in the 1921 tariff, and the duties on woollen curtains and blinds became higher than on the woollen piece goods from which they were manufactured.

The present position of the duties on the raw materials and the finished goods is:Raw materials - 35 per cent. British, and 55 per cent. general; finished goods - 35 per cent. British, and 50 per cent, general. It is acknowledged that there is a slight disparity between the duties on the raw materials and those on the finished goods, but the disparity is not so great as before the 1921 tariff.

The practice of charging higher duties on articles made from wool than on goods from other materials is also followed in the case of the following items : - Group 4 - 110 (a3), blouses or skirts, not knitted; 110 (a4), girls’ and women’s coats, not knitted; 110 (a5), costumes, dresses, &c., not knitted; 110 (b1), blouses, skirts, underwear, knitted; 110 (b3), costumes, dresses, &c, knitted. Group 5 - 120 (a), articles of textile drapery and napery.

The reason for the higher rates on woollen apparel is apparent. First, we protect the producer of wool tops with duties of 6d. per lb. and 20 per cent. British, and ls. per lb. and 20 per cent, general, while the duty on raw cotton is only 3d. per lb. general. Secondly, the manufacturer of woollen yarns is protected by duties of 6d. per lb. and 25 per cent. British, and ls. per lb. and 45£ per cent, general, which, taken by and large, ure higher than the duties on other yarns, as will be seen from the following examples: - Item 121 (a) - Silk, 20 per cent. British, 37^ per cent, general; artificial silk, free British, 17-i per cent, general ; cotton - mercerized, free British, 111 per cent, general; bleached or dyed, free British, 15 per cent, general; single ply yarn of count 50 or finer, free British, 15 per cent, general; other cotton yarns less than No. 50 count, from 4d. per lb. and 35 per cent. British and 7d. per lb. and 55 per cent, general, to 9d. per lb. and 35 per cent. British and ls. per lb. and 55 per cent, general.

Thirdly, the manufacturers of woollen piece goods are protected to a greater extent than the manufacturers of other piece goods as will be seen from the following rates of duty : - Cotton piece goods for outerwear, weighing more than 3 oz. per square yard, per square yard, 6d. British, ls. general; and ad val., 20 per cent. British, 40 per cent, general; or alternative rates of, ad val., 35 per cent. British, 55 per cent, general ; whichever is the higher. Other cotton piece goods, 5 per cent. British. 25 per cent, general; silk piece goods, 10 per cent. British, 30 per cent, general; artificial silk piece goods, 20 per cent. British, 40 per cent, general ; woollen piece goods for outerwear, weighing more than 3 oz. per square yard, per square yard, ls. British, 2s. general ; and ad val., 30 per cent. British, 50 per cent, general ; other woollen piece goods, 35 per cent. British, 55 per cent, general. . Thus the manufacturer of woollen apparel, by virtue of the higher duties on his raw material, is at a considerable disadvantage compared with the manufacturer of apparel made from other materials. It is logical, therefore, that the protection granted to the manufacturer of woollen apparel should be higher than that on, say, silk or cotton apparel. In the 1921 tariff schedule the rates proposed by the Government on item 110 b, “ other apparel,” were 40 per cent. British, 50 per cent, intermediate, and 55 per cent, general, but a request was moved by Senator Payne, and agreed to by the committee, that the House of Representatives be requested to provide differential rates of duty on woven undershirts, undervests, underpants, or combinations, according to whether they were made of wool or cotton. The request made was that the following duties be applied: -

When of wool or containing wool, 30 per cent. British, 40 per cent, intermediate, and 45 per cent, general.
Cotton 20 per cent. British, 25 per cent, intermediate, and 35 per cent, general. The request was not agreed to by the House of Representatives, and when the tariff was returned to the Senate, the request was not pressed. Differentiation is now made on underwear - item 110, b1 - according to the class of raw material from which it is’ made. It will thus be seen that the committee of this chamber in 1921 was a party to the departure in tariff-making which is now being challenged. On that occasion Senator Payne agreed that a reduction of the , duty would put the local manufacturer at a disadvantage, although at first glance the duty appeared ‘to be a penalty on .the wool industry.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- To make out a case against my proposal the Minister must show that the materials from which curtains are made is commercially manufactured in Australia. The fact is that these materials are not produced locally, and that is the basis of my objection to the duty proposed in the schedule. A certain rate of duty is applied to blinds and curtains of cotton or linen, and a higher rate to those containing wool. Mrs. Brown, having only limited means, buys a pair of curtains manufactured in the United Kingdom of material of a kind not produced in Australia. On those curtains a duty of 20 per cent. has been paid. Her neighbour, Mrs. Thompson, being more affluent, buys a pair of curtains manufactured by the same firm, but containing 1 per cent. of wool, and on them a duty of 35 per- cent. has been paid. This differentiation does not protect Australian industry, on the contrary, the higher rate against the material containing wool penalizes the wool-grower. The more we can encourage overseas manufacturers to use our wool the greater will be the demand for it. Curtain materials are not manufactured in Australia, and, therefore, are not in the same category as under-garments, which are produced locally.

Senator McLachlan:

– In both cases we impose a higher rate of duty on articles containing raw material produced in Australia.

Senator PAYNE:

– Why should we penalize an imported article made of material not commercially, manufactured in Australia, merely because it contains wool? I hope that the committee will agree to my request.

Question -That the request (Senator Payne’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 14

NOES: 16

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Sub-items agreed to.

Motion (by Senator McLachlan) agreed to -

That the consideration of the remaining items other than those included in group 2 of the Customs Tariff groups memorandum be postponed until after the consideration of the items specified in group 2.

Group 2. - Items which have been amended in accordance with the Ottawa agreement, but not otherwise amended.

Division 1. -Ale,Spirits, and Beverages

Item 11 (a) agreed to.

Division 2. - Tobacco and Manufactures Thereof

Item 23, sub-items (a) (b) (Tobacco, unmanufactured, entered to be locally manufactured into cigars).

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– The duty on tobacco entered for the manufacture of cigars is only 2s. British preferential, and 2s. 6d. general, whereas in group 3, under a similar division, tobacco entered to be locally manufactured into cigarettes or into fine-cut tobacco, is dutiable at a much higher rate. I wish to know from the Minister the reason for that differentiation. It seems to me that the finest leaf should be used in the manufacture of cigars, and that it is only the wealthy section of the community which can afford to buy them. Other sections are satisfied with cigarettes, and, because they are in the great majority, they arebeing penalized under the tariff.

SenatorFoll. - Dowe make cigars from our own leaf?

Senator CARROLL:

– If we cannot produce a leaf suitable for cigars, we should cease production. I do not smoke at all, and, therefore, can judge only by appearance; but I have seen some locally-grown lemon-coloured leaf which certainly appears to be of equal quality and appearance to the imported leaf. I wish to know from the Minister the reason for this tariff anomaly. I am totally opposed to the items in this group, and I reiterate what I said during my second-reading speech on the United Kingdom and Australia Trade Agreement Bill, that this tariff is not in accordance with the spirit of the Ottawa agreement. While I hold that view, I still consider that I am free to debate or oppose any item in this group.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– The honorable senator has almost sensed the reason for this differentiation between the two items to which he has referred. No leaf is grown in Australia suitable for the manufacture of cigars, and while efforts have been made to produce a suitable leaf, they have not yet been successful. No additional duty has been imposed upon this class of leaf, because it was considered that, even if the duty were raised, there would be no increase of revenue. This item has on more than one occasion been carefully examined by the Tariff Board, and the reduction of duty by 6d. has been made in accordance with the terms of the Ottawa agreement. The importations of this leaf are largely from the United States of America.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- This class of leaf is imported apparently for the benefit of those who can afford to buy expensive cigars. I should like to know from the Minister whether any of this leaf is grown in the United Kingdom.

Senator McLachlan:

– No.

Senator BARNES:

– If that is so, why is there a British preferential tariff?

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– This item covers British colonies which come under the Ottawa agreement.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

.- Although I do not doubt the explanation of the Minister, I should like to know definitely, before I vote on this item, whether none of our Australian leaf is suitable for the. manufacture of cigars. I am certainly not in favour of allowing American leaf to be imported into this country if it can be shown that our own leaf is suitable for the manufacture of cigars.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– I give the honorable senator the official, and my personal, assurance that no cigar leaf is grown in this country. In 1925, the Tariff Board made a thorough investigation of this item, and unless this class of leaf were subject to a low duty the whole of the cigar-makers of Australia would be thrown out of employment. The Cigarmakers Union was a party to the application made to the Tariff Board for a lower duty, and this ratehas been fixed in order to encourage the manufacture of a better class of Australian cigar.

Senator MILLEN:
Tasmania

– Group 2 covers items which have been amended in accordance with the Ottawa agreement, and in it we provide a British preferential tariff. Does this cover Empire production, or is it limited to Great Britain ? We are dealing with the Ottawa agreement, and, if it does not cover Empire preference, for what reason do we provide a British preferential tariff only ?

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– The British colonies have, in some instances, already been brought under the Ottawa agreement, but in other instances the way to that is being paved. As I informed honorable senators the other day, we have, in certain instances, imposed a deferred duty in order to give the colonies an opportunity to implement the preliminary arrangements made on their behalf at Ottawa.

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

– I direct the attention of the Minister to one or two small matters. Group 2 includes “ items which have been amended in accordance with the Ottawa agreement but not otherwise amended “. The United Kingdom and Australia Trade Agreement sets out in part 2 of schedule F the formula which shall apply in the case of goods of the class or kind commercially manufactured in or the produce of the United Kingdom. It is contended, apparently, that this class of goods is not commercially manufactured in the United Kingdom. But the Minister has said these items are included in this part of the schedule in order that British colonies may be covered.

Senator McLachlan:

– If the honorable senator will look at schedule G of the United Kingdom and Australia Trade Agreement Act, he will find that “ Tobacco, unmanufactured, entered to be locally manufactured into cigars “ enjoys a margin of 6d. per lb.

Senator BRENNAN:

– That probably answers the point I have in mind. I now direct the attention of the Minister to a provision which does not appear anywhere else in this measure to the effect thatthe duty on “ tobacco, unmanufactured, entered to be locally manufactured into cigars “ is “ to be paid at the time of removal to the factory”. That is a machinery provision, but no comparable provision appears elsewhere in the schedule. It seems to me that this provision violates the provision of our Constitution which says -

Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.

Perhaps no harm will be done by the inclusion of this provision, but if the insertion of it will have no effect, we should not pretend to exercise a power which, in fact, we cannot exercise. I remind honorable senators that separate sales tax bills have to be brought down, and also separate measures providing for the collection of the taxation, in respect of each class of sales taxation. This was necessary for the reason that our taxing power under the Constitution is limited. If the provision to which I have directed attention cannot be put into effect, it should be deleted.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– Perhaps on a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the learned senator is right; but on such an interpretation the manufacturers would have to pay duty on the tobacco leaf they imported immediately it came to hand, and long before it went into consumption.

Senator Sampson:

– Under that interpretation the tobacco factories would be turned into bonded stores.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– As honorable senators know, all the tobacco leaf is manufactured in bond, and the duty is levied only when it is removed to stores. This is a slight concession to the manufacturers. If any one took action which had the effect of declaring unconstitutional the provision to which Senator Brennan has referred, it would be so much the worse for the manufacturers. It would not help the Government, but it would harm the manufacturers. I do not know that this is a taxing provision, for it simply specifies the time at which the taxation shall be paid. The provision goes back to the time of the Kingston tariff. Perhaps it is technically ultra vires, but so far it has operated quite satisfactorily.

Sub-items agreed to.

Division 4. - Agricultural Products and Groceries.

Items 44 (a) (c1) and 51 (c3) (d) agreed to.

Item 52-

Fruits, fresh, viz. -

Bananas, per cental, British, 2s.6d.; general,8s. 4d.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- The effect of this item is to alter the British preferential duty on bananas from 8s. 4d. per cental, at which it stood from 1921 until the Ottawa agreement was made, to 2s. 6d. This subject was discussed when clause 9, whichhas been postponed,, was under consideration. I understand that all the items in this group of. the schedule conform with the provisions of the Ottawa agreement. I presume that the quantity of bananas admitted under the duty of 2s. 6d. per cental will be limited to the 40,000 centals provided for in the Ottawa agreement;but there seems to be no reference anywhere in the schedule to such a limitation. I wish to know whether there is any possibility of bananas from any other nonselfgoverning colony being admitted at a duty of 2s. 6d. per cental. I ask the Minister for a definite assurance that bananas will not be admitted at this rate from any part of the Empire exceptFiji, and that importations from Fiji will be strictly limited to 40,000 centals a year. Inno circumstances should more than that quantity be admitted into Australia. It is because the admission of Fijian bananas to Australia is a serious matter to many primary producers in Queensland and New South Wales that I ask the Minister for an assurance that importations will be limited.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– This item provides, as Senator Poll has said, for a reduction of 5s.10d. per cental on the British rate of duty on bananas, but the reduction is to apply only to the 40,000 centals which we have agreed to receive from Fiji in accordance with the Ottawa agreement. The assurance that the honorable senator has asked for has already been given; but I repeat that importations will be limited to that quantity. I give the followingbrief reasons for the reduction of the British duty to 2s. 6d. per cental in respect of Fijian bananas : -

The reduction is a result of the Ottawa agreement, and is covered by article 15.
Schedule G to the agreement provides for the admission of 40,000 centals of Fijian bananas at the ports of Sydney and Melbourne, at a duty of 2s.6d. per cental, the previous duty having been 8s. 4d. per cental.
Forty thousand centals represent about 2.7 per cent. of the Australian production, for 1930-31, of 1,471,297 centals, and, therefore, forms an infinitesimal proportion of the Australian consumption.
Under the Ottawa agreement, Britain regards as concessions to herself concessions given by the dominions to her colonies. In granting concessions to British colonies, Australia has made it possible for Britain to grant her concessions on her primary products.
Australia is the largest exporter to Fiji. Between 1923 and 1931 Australia shared from 25 per cent. to 31 per cent.of Fiji’s import trade. During the same period the Australian imports of Fijian goods never exceeded 7 per cent. of Fiji’s total exports.
The one-sided tariff resulted in Australia being placed on the Fijian intermediate tariff, whereas Britain, New Zealand, and Canada wore placed on the lowest tariff.
These concessions on bananas automatically place Australia on the lowest tariff, and will enable Australia to maintain her favorable trade position.
These small concessions on bananas affect Queensland and part of New South Wales, but the value of the preferences in the United Kingdom market, on primary goods largely produced by Queensland are as follow: - Sugar, £1,000,000; butter, £400,000; cheese, £30,000.

Import restrictions imposed by Great Britain on meat will also considerably benefit Queensland. The duty, but not the primage, collected on Fijian bananas is being transferred to a trust fund, which will be used for, the benefit of the banana industry of Australia. The fund will be used to assist the banana industry in the following ways:-

Scientific research into the diseases affecting the banana plant.
Improvement of cultural practices.
Improvement of maturation methods.
Publicity for the purpose of increasing the sale of bananas on the local market.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– I do not think that the Minister has quite grasped the point which Senator Foll desired to have cleared up, and which I also desire to have elucidated. We recognize that the reduction of duty from 8s. 4d. to 2s. 6d. per cental provided for in this item is intended to give effect to the provision of the Ottawa agreement that 40,000 centals of Fijian bananas shall be admitted to Australia. We are aware of the reasons which the Minister has just given for granting this reduction. Incidentally, we also know that the concession that the £5,000 anticipated to be received from the duties on this item will be spent in assisting and encouraging the banana-growing industry, was wrung from the Government in consequence of the action taken by some honorable gentlemen in this chamber and in another place. As the present Minister will not always hold the portfolio of Trade and Customs, some provision should be made definitely limiting this concession to the40,000 centals of Fijian bananas which we have agreed to receive. Unless some provision of this kind is included in the bill, it may be argued at some future time that, as bananas are being received from Fiji, they should also be received from other banana-growing nonself -governing British colonies. It is true that the quantity of bananas to be imported from Fiji represents only 2 per cent. of the Australian consumption of bananas; but, if 2 per cent. be received from one place, 2 per cent. from another, and 2 per cent. from somewhere else, the Australian banana-growing industry will be seriously jeopardized. We have ratified the provision that 40,000 centals of bananas shall he received from Fiji, and be dutiable at 2s. 6d. per cental; but we are not prepared to agree to any further increases of banana importations.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– The British preferential trade column applies only to products from Great Britain, a country which grows no bananas. If Senator Collings will examine article 15, which is the governing section relating to schedule G, he will see that it contains the words “ preferences on the commodities and at the rate shown in schedule G “, and that the schedule itself specifies the quantity and rates of preference that will apply to the commodities which are enumerated. No greater quantity of bananas could be admitted to Australia unless other arrangements were made similar to those which were agreed to at Ottawa.

Senator GRANT:
Tasmania

. -On a previous occasion I have stated that I cannot accept the interpretation that is given by the Minister to article 15. I am not at all clear in my mind as to the meaning of the words “ and also any preferences for the time being accorded to the United Kingdom if His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom so request”. I do not think that those words are governed by the words “ at the rate shown in schedule G”. To have the effect desired by the Minister, it would be necessary for those words to appear at the end of the paragraph. According to my interpretation, if, at some future date, His Majesty’s Government should request the Australian Parliament to accord this preference to another of the non-self-governing colonies, this Parliament would have to accede to the request.

Senator McLachlan:

– Not in connexion with bananas.

Senator GRANT:

– Article 15 says “ and also in preferences for the time being accorded to the United Kingdom if His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom so request”. Heretofore the tariff on bananas has been, British,8s. 4d. ; general, 8s. 4d.

Senator McLachlan:

– If the honorable senator examines schedule G he will see that it specifies the margin of preference on bananas as stated, also that not more than 40,000 centals shall be admitted per annum.

Senator GRANT:

– I have already pointed out that, according to my inter pretation of article 15, I do not think that the words to which I have referred are governed by the words “ at the rate shown in schedule G “.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– In order to test the feeling of the Senate, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (a), per cental, British, 8s. 4d.

When we were debating the bill I moved the deletion of clause 9, and received an assurance that it and clause 10 would be postponed. The definition clause of the bill states : “ non-self-governing colony to include British protectorates, the mandated territory of Tanganyika, and so much of the Cameroons and Togoland as is governed under British mandate “, and schedule G of the Ottawa agreement specifies the. quantity of bananas that shall be admitted to Australia and the rate of duty thereon. Senator Poll and Senator Grant expressed apprehension as to the powers that are given to the Governor-General to extend the application of the British preferential tariff to non-self-governing colonies. With Senator Grant, I believe that there is nothing in the bill to prevent those colonies from entering into an agreement with Great Britain to send quantities of bananas to Australia. As that fruit is grown extensively in Queensland and in the northern parts of New South Wales, I refuse to countenance anything but a clear understanding on the matter, andI shall not be a party to permitting the entry to Australia of additional quantities of black-grown bananas at the rate of 2s. 6d. per cental.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– I think that it would be preferable to postpone the sub-item until we have dealt with clause 9, as there appears to be a good deal of doubt as to the correct interpretation of that clause, when taken with article 15 of the agreement, which refers to schedule G, which limits the quantity of Fijian bananas to be admitted to Australia to 40,000 centals per annum. It is quite possible that some other government might give a wider interpretation to that clause and article, and permit the entry of additional quantities of black-grown bananas at 2s. 6d. per cental.

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Before that could be done, it would be necessary to pass an act of Parliament for the purpose.

Senator BROWN:

– I want to be sure that the interests of the banana-growers of Queensland and northern New South Wales arc safeguarded. When the Federal Government was attacked for having consented to the admission of 40,000 centals of Fijian bananas per annum, it endeavoured to pacify those concerned by promising that a grant of £5,000 would be made for the betterment of the local industry. Of the two, the Queensland growers would certainly have preferred the prohibition of Fijian bananas. I certainly favour a return to the old duty of 8s. 4d. per cental on bananas, and I am confident that such a request will have the support of members of the Country party. In the meantime, I should like to see the sub-item postponed until we deal with clause 9.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I intend to support the request that has been made by Senator Dunn. To claim that no bananas are grown in Great Britain is merely to attempt to draw a red herring across the track. Clause 9, in conjunction with article 15 of the Ottawa agreement, clearly gives the’ British Government the right to request that this preference on bananas shall be extended to any other non-self-governing colony that it specifies.

Senator McLachlan:

– I should like to know what the honorable senator has to say concerning article 15?

SenatorRAE. - I have given my interpretation of the article, and it cannot be disputed. I support the proposal for the re-introduction of the old duty of 8s. 4d. per cental.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

.- It is quite true that, on the face of this schedule as it stands, it would appear that the rate of 2s. 6d. was general, but that is not so. Senator Rae has pursued the matter quite logically up to a point. Most of the items covered here are produced in Great Britain, but, in the absence of some other arrangement, there is no means provided in this section for bringing any bananas into Australia at all. In order to see how bananas may be admitted we must turn to what is now a statutory contract between the United Kingdom and Australia, known as the Ottawa agreement. Article 15 of that agreement is as follows : -

His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth undertake to accord to the nonselfgoverning Colonies and Protectorates and the Mandated Territories of Tanganyika, the Cameroons under British mandate and Togoland under British mandate, preferences on the commodities, and at the rates shown in Schedule G.

It is laid down that we shall give a preference at a certain rate to a particular place in respect of a particular commodity. There is a well-known maxim, generalia specialibus non derogant, which, in effect, means that the general words cannot limit the special words. The Ottawa agreement lays down a limit as to the rate at which bananas may be admitted, and also the quantity which may be admitted. The agreement is fixed and definite in regard to place, quantity and rates, and also defines the place of origin. The article continues - and also any preferences for the time being accorded to the United Kingdom if His Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom so requests.

That refers to matters in addition to those specifically covered in the schedule itself.

Senator Collings:

– The preference in favour of Great Britain is definitely fixed at 2s. 6d. That is the rate fixed in this bill, not in the Ottawa agreement, and if Great Britain requests us to extend the preference to non-self-governing colonies we must do so.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– That is not so. The Ottawa contract cannot be extended or varied as regards bananas. There can be no alteration in respect to bananas, but there may be other things in respect of which it will be desirable to take action later. As a matter of fact, a proclamation may be issued in respect of only three commodities for admission under schedule G, and they are of no great importance. Even if the Government desired to admit bananas freely to the detriment of the local industry it could not do so. It could not admit more than 40,000 centals from Fiji in any one year, because that is all Parliament has assented to, and that is all the Government can allow to enter. The law does not allow the Government to issue a proclamation increasing the ambit of the Ottawa agreement in respect to bananas. That may be done only in respect to the items specified. In regard to bananas, nothing can possibly happen to injure the interests of the local growers, and that assurance was given by the Government in another place.

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

– The Minister has gone to a great deal of trouble to explain the position in regard to bananas,but it seems to me that our action in pressing for the postponement of clause 9 has been fully justified. Clause 9 states -

The Governor-General may, from time to time, by proclamation declare that the rates of duty set out in the column headed “ British Preferential Tariff “ in the schedule shall apply to such goods as are specified in the proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of a British non-self-governing colony specified in that proclamation in relation to those goods.

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:
Assistant Minister · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

[3.59]. - One has’ some hesitation in expressing an opinion as a. layman in opposition to the view submitted by Senator Brennan, but my interpretation of the matter is nor. quite the same as his. The first portion of article 35 of the agreement, which has been referred to over and over again, reads -

His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia undertakes to accord to the non-self-governing colonies and protectorates and the mandated territories of Tanganyika, the Cameroons . under British mandate, and Togoland under British mandate, preferences on the commodities and at the rates shown in schedule G.

That is clear. The commodities set out in schedule G include bananas. Article 15 goes on to say - “ and also any preferences for the time being afforded to the United Kingdom, if His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom so request “. In my opinion, the word “ and “ applies to something in addition to the articles mentioned in schedule G.

Senator Millen:

– But including them.

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– It could not mean the articles mentioned in schedule G and something else in schedule G- That is to say, schedule G cannot bc included a second time. Let us suppose that schedule G is limited to bananas, as it might have been. Article 15 could not mean “bananas and bananas.” The fact that, bananas are included in schedule G precludes the possibility of the British Government under the second part of article 15, following the word “ and,” making a request with respect to bananas.

Senator Brennan:

– I agree that we cannot have “ bananas and bananas “ ; but could we not have Fijian bananas and other bananas?

Senator Sir WALTER GREENE.I, do not think so. Schedule G is headed, “ Commonwealth of Australia “, and underneath are two columns, the first headed “ Commodities “ and the second “Margin of preference”.’ Referring again to article 15, we find the words, “ preferences on the commodities and at the rates shown in schedule G “. The margin of preference in the case of bananas is clearly set out in schedule G, and there can be no other margin. That margin is -

Forty thousand centals per annum from Fiji will he admitted in reasonable equal monthly quantities at 2s. (id. per cental, provided the goods are entered at the ports of Sydney and Melbourne.

That is the margin of preference to which article 15 refers, and there can be no other margin of preference in the case of bananas. Unless the British and Australian Governments were to agree to violate one of the articles of the Ottawa agreement - and I think honorable senators will not regard that as a likely happening - the banana industry will be fully protected. I am as interested in the banana industry as is any other honorable senator, for I claim some credit for having fixed this duty in the first place. Despite what Senator Brennan has said, I am convinced that, for all practical purposes, the Australian banana-growing industry is adequately protected.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

. - I agree with all that Senator Greene has said; but one difficulty remains. If the Ottawa agreement and what is stated in the schedule G regarding bananas were all that had to be taken into account, our position would’ be safeguarded. But we are now asked to pass - not the Ottawa agreement, and not clause 9- but a schedule which says that, in regard to sub-item 52a, which covers bananas, the British preferential duty shall be 2s. 6d. per cental. In my opinion, the whole difficulty would be overcome if the 8s. 4d. per cental remained instead of the new rate of 2s. 6d. per cental. It seems to me that, with the new preferential rate to Great Britain in operation, any request made by the British Government, in accordance with the Ottawa agreement, for the British preferential rate to apply also to any of the non-self-governing colonies, would have to be granted.

Senator Foll:

– If the rate of8s. 4d. remained, would the 40,000 centals come in at 2s. 6d. per cental?

Senator COLLINGS:

– Let us set out in this schedule that the rate of 8s. 4d. per cental shall apply to all bananas except those from Fiji, and that the rate of 2s. 6d. per cental shall apply only to the 40,000 centals to be accepted from Fiji under the Ottawa agreement. We must ensure that the British preferential rate shall apply only to Fiji, and not to Tanganyika, the Cameroons, Togoland, or any non-self-governing colony. If the Minister can convince me that my fears are groundless, I shall offer no further criticism in this connexion.

Senator DUNN (New South Wales)

Minister’s assurance, I cannot forget that, when Senator MacDonald asked for a further assurance, it was refused. Every honorable senator regrets that the Minister in charge of the bill is not well; but the state of his health does not make this committee other than a political battlefield, in which hard knocks are both given and taken. I am concerned with the provisions of article 15 of the Ottawa agreement -

His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australiaundertake to accord to the non-self-governing colonies and protectorates, and the mandated territories of Tanganyika, the Cameroons under British mandate, and Togoland under British mandate, preferences on the commodities and at the rates shown in schedule G, and also any preferences for the time being accorded to the United Kingdom, if His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom sorequest.

Let us visualize the position which might arise in the event of an act of God, such as a drought or a severe storm, destroying the banana plantations of Fiji, making it impossible for them to supply the 40,000 centals of bananas set out. in schedule G. What would happen should the British Government, in that event, request that 40,000 centals of bananas grown in Tanganyika, Togoland, or the Cameroons, or any non-self-governing colony, be allowed to enter Australia? Clause 9, sub-clause 1, of the Customs Tariff 1933 provides-

The Governor-General may from time to time by proclamation declare that the rates of duty set out in the column headed “ British preferential tariff” in the schedule shall apply to such goods as are specified in the proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of a British non-self-governing colony, specified in that proclamation in relation to those goods, and’ thereupon the British (preferential tariff shall apply to the goods so specified as are the produce or manufacture of the colonyso specified.

Under clause 3 the term “ nonselfgoverning colonies “ includes British protectorates, the mandated territory, of Tanganyika, and so much of the Cameroons and Togoland as is governed under British mandate. It is definitely laid down in schedule G that only 40,000 centals of black-grown bananas from Fiji may enter Australia; but I am afraid that the Governor-General, by proclamation, may permit bananas grown in other colonies by black labour to come in. I emphasize the fact that the GovernorGeneral may act by means of a proclamation. That means that Parliament can be ignored. I intend to make my position clear to the banana-growers of Australia; I shall let them know where I stand on the question of bananas grown by white labour or by black labour.

Senator Brennan:

– The black races have the right to live.

Senator DUNN:

– Of course they have; but so have the white races. I cannot help it if the honorable senator has a “ black “ outlook in regard to bananas. The members of the Australian Natives Association would be interested in knowing the honorable senator’s views on this matter. With my colleague, Senator Rae, I shall force a vote on this sub-item.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– At the risk of being regarded as obtuse, I rise to make my position clear. In dealing with the British preference on bananas, we have to take three things into account - first, the rate of duty, secondly, the quantity of bananas to be admitted; and, thirdly, the country whence they come. When the Ottawa agreement was made, the tariff on all bananas was 8s. 4d. per cental. The Ottawa agreement lowered the tariff barrier, and allowed 40,000 centals of bananas to enter Australia from Fiji at 2s. 6d. per cental. We are now asked to agree to the British preferential tariff being made applicable to that importation.

Senator Sir Walter Kingsmill:

– We have already agreed to that.

Senator BROWN:

– We are now told that another act of Parliament would be needed to allow bananas from other countries to enter Australia at, that rate. But if a duty of 2s. 6d. per cental for the nonselfgoverning colonies is still in operation when a government whose members hold views on this subject, differing from those of Senator Greene comes into power, would it not be possible, without the passage of new legislation, to permit the importation of a larger quantity than 40,000 centals? This schedule does not specify importations from Fiji, and under clause 9 the importations from that source are not limited. Although 2s. 6d. per cental is the British preferential rate provided in the schedule, the scope of clause 9 is so wide as to make it possible to allow importations from non-self-governing colonies other than Fiji at that rate. I do not know whether bananas are produced in these colonies, but there is a possibility of that being done.

Senator McLachlan:

– The rate in the schedule can have no practical application to other than Fijian bananas.

Senator BROWN:

– We do not know whether bananas are actually growing in other non-self-governing colonies, but there is a possibility of their cultivation being undertaken in those countries. It has been said that the distance between them and Australia is so great that satisfactory transport is impracticable; but it may become possible to devise some means of satisfactorily transporting bananas over huge distances. Senator Payne has the somewhat fallacious idea that we must increase our trade with other countries even to the detriment of our internal trade. My view is that, by developing local industries, such as the profitable production of bananas, we increase the purchasing power of our own people, which is of more value to us than the purchasing power of the natives of Fiji or of any other country. It was suggested some time ago that Fiji would provide a good outlet for Australian brandy; but we believe that it is better to have returned soldiers and others growing bananas in Australia than it is for us to increase our exportation of brandy to Fiji. If Senator Dunn presses his request to increase the British preferential tariff to 8s. 4d. per cental, I shall have to support the proposal, although the existence of the Ottawa agreement makes the acceptance of such a proposal practically impossible. I suggest that the item should be postponed until clause 9 of the bill has been disposed of. Honorable senators On this side of the chamber are strongly opposed to any action that may facilitate the importation of bananas grown under black-labour conditions, and if we had our way we would prevent the importation of the 40,000 centals annually now permitted to enter Australia. It may be said that the principle of the White Australia policy applies only to the prohibition of the employment of black labour in Australia. But we look at it from the economic viewpoint, and apply it beyond Australia in an endeavour to maintain our industries, all of which are carried on by white labour, by safeguarding our people against the competition of those who produce goods at the rates’ of wages paid to the natives of Fiji and in the other black-labour, countries of the world.

Senator Sir WALTER KINGSMILL (Western Australia) [4.20]. - I cannot understand why there should be so much debate on a subject which, to me, seems fairly simple, though I hope to be pardoned for contributing to it in the desire to bring it to a conclusion. For obvious reasons, I cannot support the request of Senator Dunn. Honorable senators know that, on the 2nd December last, His Excellency -the Governor-General assented to “ An act to approve the provisions of an agreement made between His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia. . ‘ . .” Under the agreement so ratified the British preferential duty on bananas was definitely fixed at 2s. 6d. per cental. Senator Dunn has now moved that the House of Representatives be requested to make the rate 8s. 4d. per cental. The adoption of that request would mean the destruction of the Ottawa agreement within six months of its acceptance by the Parliament. Is that not a sufficient justification for opposing the request? Another aspect of this matter is that there are no non-self-governing colonies which can supply Australia with bananas. I do not think that bananas are grown in Togoland ; a supply from the ‘Cameroons is barred by distance, and the transport difficulties, both by land and by sea in exporting from Tanganyika are so great that when that country increased its sugar production beyond its local requirements, it was in a worse position than Queensland for the disposal of its surplus. The fact that there are no non-self-governing colonies which can export bananas to Australia was largely responsible for the decision reached at Ottawa.-

Senator MacDonald:

– What of the products of New Guinea and Papua?

Senator Sir WALTER KINGSMILL:

– Those countries are territories under the control of the Commonwealth and are affected by the Ottawa agreement.

Senator MacDonald:

– What would be the position with respect to bananas produced in Samoa, and other such islands?

Senator Sir WALTER KINGSMILL:

– They would be admitted only on payment of duty at the rate of 8s. 4d. per cental. Under the Ottawa agreement, only 40,000 centals of Fijian bananas can be admitted annually at 2s. 6d. per cental. If a demand were made for the admission of bananas from other British countries or possessions, we should not be compelled to comply with it. We have full power to exclude all bananas except 40,000 centals annually from Fiji, which are to be admitted on payment of a duty of 2s. 6d. per cental, and honorable senators opposite are at liberty to propose any amendment of the law which will make the prohibition more effective.

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

– Like Senator Kingsmill I am somewhat surprised at the flow of oratory on what, after all, is not a matter of very great importance; but even the fears of our friends opposite could, I think, be allayed by slightly amending clause 9 when it is again, being considered. Without attempting to dictate in any way to the Minister in charge of the bill (Senator McLachlan) I suggest that he could so amend that clause as to make it clear that the fears of honorable senators opposite are groundless. On an assurance that such an amendment will be proposed, the committee might proceed to discuss some of the more important items in the schedule. Then, if the matter ever came into court - I have no hope that it will - it might be argued that this is the latest expression of Parliament on the subject.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– Senator Brennan appealed to the Minister (Senator McLachlan) to endeavour to prevent this flow of oratory on what he considers a comparatively unimportant item. A reference to Hansard will disclose that the honorable senator has spoken on quite a number of occasions on this subject,, which shows that he, like myself, is suffering from a touch of the political belly-ache. In this and in some other instances I have developed a somewhat suspicious mind, but I accept the Minister’s personal assurance that the Australian banana-growers are fully protected under this item. One honorable senator suggested that we should meet the danger when it arises, but, in my opinion, the danger is now confronting us. Senator Kingsmill, who one might have thought to be making his maiden speech on this item, said that although he had not been to Togoland, Tanganyika and the Cameroons, he knew that bananas were not grown there. There is a deep-seated doubt in my mind concerning the interpretation of clause 9 of the bill. By providing for declarations by the Governor-General by proclamation it, in my opinion, makes the GovernorGeneral paramount to Parliament. Senator Rae and I have never supported, and never will, the general principles of. the Ottawa* agreement, because we regard it as a sordid bargain upon tariffs and other matters. I consider it my bounden duty to protect an industry that has been developed at a cost of millions of pounds.

Senator DOOLEY:
New South Wales

– I regret that I cannot support Senator Dunn’s request, because no useful purpose may be served by the postponement of the matter. I am quite satisfied that Australia can produce the quality of bananas desired ; but that is not the point at issue. The position is that the Ottawa agreement, which this Parliament has adopted, stipulates that a certain quantity of bananas may be imported. I have the deepest sympathy with the Australian banana-growers, and consider that it is not in their best interests to allow the produce of other countries to be imported; but as I have not sufficient influence to secure the alteration of the agreement, I am logically compelled to support the duty of 2s. 6d. per cental. Only a certain quantity may be imported, and in twelve months there will be an opportunity to review the question.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– I have had an opportunity to confer with an officer who accompanied the Australian delegation to

Ottawa. If this were a bargain between two individuals, there might be ground for action in the direction suggested. But it is an agreement between the Mother Country and the Commonwealth. The very point that has here been raised, arose during the framing of schedule G, and the assurance was given by Mr. Baldwin that nothing in excess of 40,000 centals would be asked for. That assurance was conveyed to another place, and I have repeated it to-day. In the event of Great Britain attempting to compel our acceptance of another 10,000 centals, what would happen ? In the light of what has transpired, would any government agree to the proposition? I give the assurance that nothing injurious to the banana-growers of Australia can happen.

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

. -Action additional to that which has so far been taken, is necessary. The suggestion that I made, that it would be a good thing to insert in thebill a safeguarding clause which would make the position certain, has received the endorsement of Senator Brennan. Thebill makes no mention of the Ottawa agreement. On a point of law, it might fairly be argued that this measure stands on its own. In another case, Senator McLachlan accepted a safeguarding clause at the instance of Senator Brennan, although he held that the measure as it stood was watertight. Senator Brennan has advanced the entirely new point that this hill, being later legislation than the United Kingdom and Australia Trade Agreement Act, would supersede and override anything in the Ottawa agreement that might conflict with it. The Minister might well instruct his officers to draft a clause that would make it clear that bananas may not be imported from Great Britain’s East African possessions. Senator Kingsmill referred, in rather derogatory terms, to those possessions.

Senator Sir Walter Kingsmill:

– I did nothing of the sort ; I merely said, in the words of the song, “ Yes, we have no bananas.”

Senator MacDONALD:

– Apart from Fiji, there are a number of British possessions which grow bananas. I know that 20 or 30 years ago banana merchants in

Auckland, New Zealand, imported this fruit from Samoa; but I believe that the production there has since declined. Bananas could be obtained from the Solomons and other places, but these are’ not mentioned, as the East African possessions are, in the agreement. Sugar is grown in East Africa, and where sugar cane grows, bananas also can be grown. With the modern rapid improvement of means of transport, what we only fear to-day may, to-morrow, have become a real danger.

Question - That the request (Senator Dunn’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 4

NOES: 27

Majority . . . . 23

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator MILLEN:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (a) bananas, per cental, general, 4s. 2d.

During the last election campaign, the people generally declared their opposition to prohibitory duties, and I think we may regard the general tariff on this sub-item, 8s. 4d. per cental, as prohibitive. In 1926, when this subject was being discussed in the House ofRepresentatives, the consensus among government supporters and growers was that a general tariff of 4s. 2d. per cental was adequate.

It may be urged against my requested amendment that all the items in this group comply with the Ottawa Conference preference formula; but the margin between the British preferential duty and the general tariff is very much greater than is required under the Ottawa Conference resolutions. I therefore hope that the committee will accept my request.

SenatorFOLL (Queensland) [4.51].- I hope that the requested amendment will not be agreed to. If it is, and if the. request is returned to another place, it is not at all likely to be accepted, because that would result in the destruction of our banana-growing industry. I disagree with Senator Millen that a tariff of 4s. 2d. per cental is adequate. This was recognized by our delegates at Ottawa, because they agreed to the insertion in the agreement of provisions strictly limiting importations fromFiji to 40,000 centals annually. The Australian industry has been developed under the protection now provided in the general tariff, namely, 8s. 4d. per cental, and, as a representativeof Queensland, I say definitely that if the duty is reduced to 4s. 2d., the business of growing bananas in this country, which has been developed under white-labour conditions, will be destroyed.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– I am astounded that after the vote which has just been taken on Senator Dunn’s amendment, Senator Millen should move for a request to reduce so heavily the general tariff. Probably he hasin mind the suggestion made by another honorable gentleman a day or two ago that requests from the Senate will be regarded by another place merely as gestures, indicating the majority opinion of this chamber with regard to the items in respect of which such requests have been carried. We should not, by tariff reductions, do anything to injure the banana-growing industry, which is of great importance to two States. As was pointed out by Senator Poll, the carrying of this request would mean the destruction of one of the most important primary industries of Queensland, and one which is also of great value to New South Wales. In the general debate, I opposed Senator Dunn’s proposal to return the schedule to another place, because I regarded that proposal as a most unbusinesslike way of expressing Senate opinion on the tariff, believing that any request made to another place should be of a constructive character. I hope that we shall not have a protracted debate upon this request, but that honorable senators will indicate their views as concisely as possible in order that we may take a division which, I am sure, will show Senator Millen that “we do not regard his proposal as fair to an important Australian primary industry.

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Yes. Even if the request were agreed, to, it would probably be practically impossible for the Fijian banana-grower to compete with the Australian grower; but, at the same time, we should be holding out a hand to that country, indicating that we are not prepared to sell our goods to it without taking something in return.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– This is one of the items - and there are many of them - which show how wise were the members of the royal commission which inquired into the disabilities of Western Australia under federation, when they recommended that the State should enjoy the right to impose its own tariff for a period of 25 years, because it is perfectly clear, on this item at least, that a policy that may appeal to the eastern States is of no use at all to “Western Australia. During the last two years only two States, “Western Australia and New South Wales, have imported bananas. New South Wales imported bananas from Fiji on which a duty of 7s. was paid, and also from Norfolk Island, on which there was no duty at all, so that Western Australia will have to bear the whole burden of the duty under this item. The duty imposed on bananas is a federal disability, so far as Western Australia is concerned. We obtain few bananas from Queensland and New South Wales ‘because, owing to the long carriage, they do not arrive in anything like the condition of bananas from Java.

According to the Trade Bulletin, New South Wales imported 17,309 centals of bananas in 1930-31, of which 17,23S centals came from Norfolk Island, and 71 centals from Fiji. The bananas from Fiji were valued at £121, and those from Norfolk Island at £11,902. I realize that the Norfolk Island bananas were grown by white labour. The Norfolk Islanders are very fine people. In 1931-32 New South Wales imported 12,516 centals of Norfolk Island bananas valued at £6,979. The people of Western Australia have paid all the duty that Australia has received on bananas in the last two years; excepting only 7s. - for the bananas from Norfolk Island are free of duty. In 1930-31 Western Australia imported from the Netherlands East Indies and Java, 20,725 centals of bananas, valued at £9,S94. The amount of duty paid on those importations is not shown in the Gazette, but it must have been in the neighbourhood of £12,000.

Senator Dunn:

– Does the honorable senator believe in the importation, of black-grown bananas from Java?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– In the existing circumstances, I do; but I hope that we will soon grow our own bananas at Carnarvon, in Western Australia. Java is comparatively close to our north-west coast. The people who live in that area are remote from railway communication, and could not possibly get bananas from Queensland. Even the people of Perth and Fremantle cannot get regular supplies of Queensland bananas. The fruit has very often deteriorated by the time it is unpacked there. In 1931-32 Western Australia imported 16,205 centals of bananas, valued at £6,079, and paid duty, amounting to £6,725, on them, which was the whole of the duty that Australia received in that year from bananas. Bananas are a nutritious and wholesome fruit. One thing that Western Australian visitors notice immediately on their arrival in Sydney is that very good bananas are purchasable there at from 6d. to 9d. a dozen. The bananas we get in Perth .from Java are good, but they cost from 2s. to 2s. 6d. a dozen. The children of the working people like bananas, but their parents cannot afford to buy them. It is significant that the population of white women in the far north of Western Australia is smaller to-day than it was twenty years ago. Ships from Java reach Derby and Broome in a couple of days, and when I was in that locality many years ago, we could buy a. stalk with about 100 bananas on it for ls., duty free.

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Some bananas are now being grown in Western Australia.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– That is so; but only in one part of the State, at Carnarvon. Efforts have been made to grow .bananas in other parts of Western Australia, but without success as a commercial proposition. I believe that the area adjacent to Carnarvon, in which bananas are at present being grown, will prove suitable for the purpose. To-day we have ships calling every week or two at our north-western ports, but as the vessels are travelling in different directions, supplies of fruit and other commodities are available from Perth once a fortnight, if so often as that. In these circumstances, I object to this duty.

For the last two years the whole of the duty paid on bananas imported into Australia, except 7s., has been paid by the people of Western Australia. The only objection I had to the importation of bananas under the provisions of the

Ottawa agreement was that supplies had to be landed from Fiji at either Melbourne or Sydney. I admit that it would be difficult for us to get Fijian bananas in Western Australia, but this preference for the eastern States need not have been stated so definitely.

Senator Brown:

– Western Australia is welcome to all the Fijian bananas that come into Australia.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I was interested to hear the Minister say that the £5,000 which it is anticipated will be received in duty on importations of Fijian bananas would be used to assist the banana industry; but the expenditure should not be limited to the eastern States where it is already established, and only £100 offered to Western Australia. We are trying in a small way to establish the banana industry in Western Australia, and I submit that if thewhole of the duty paid on importations of bananas into the eastern States is to be made available to assist the banana-growing industry in that part of Australia, we are amply justified in asking that the whole of the duty paid on importations of bananas into Western Australia - amounting in 1931-32 to £6,752, and in the previous year to about £12,000 - should be used to assist the industry in that State. A principle, which is suitable for application in the eastern States, should also be suitable for application in Western Australia. I ask the Government to accord this measure of assistance to our newly established industry. In the meantime, I shall support Senator Millen’s request.

Motion (by Senator Rae) put -

That the committee do now divide.

The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 2

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 27

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

, - I did not get the full drift of Senator Duncan-Hughes’s argument, by which he tried to convince the Senate that this request is a sound one. For the most part, the honorable senator referred to our trade with Fiji. If Ave reduced the duty on bananas by one-half, such a step would certainly be to the detriment of our banana industry. Consequently, my colleagues and I oppose the proposal. It amazes me that Senator Millen, Senator Duncan-Hughes and honorable senatorswho have pledged their allegiance to the Country party, should give their support to such a request. The 8,000 banana-growers in New South Wales and Queensland are being attacked by their so-called “ friends “. I should like to know how Senator Duncan-Hughes squares his present attitude with that adopted by him on other items.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– My attitude is simply explained. I am opposed to high tariffs, whether they are in favour of primary or of secondary industries.

Senator BROWN:

– My party is in favour of any tariff that will defend our primary and secondary industries. If

We thought it possible to achieve our object, we should advocate prohibitory tariffs that would permit our producers to gain control of the Australian market. Senator Duncan-Hughes declared that we are sending to Fiji eleven times more than we are receiving from that country. At one time our trade with the United States of America was overwhelmingly in favour of the States, but, in the aggregate, these matters find their proper level. Major Joske has put up specious arguments in favour of an augmentation of our imports with Fiji, but, actually, that country is being compensated through its trade with New Zeland and other countries.

Our 8,000 banana-growers are producing consumeable wealth, and they represent a considerable purchasing power. If Senator Millen’s request were approved by the Senate and another place, and we opened the tariff wall to cheap-grown bananas, the immediate effect would be to destroy the purchasing power of thousands of banana-growers in Queensland and New South “Wales, a policy which would have its repercussions on other sections of the community. Thousands of cases are’ used annually as containers for bananas, the making of which gives a good deal of employment in the timber industry, and the annual amount of freight paid on bananas is £134,000 in Queensland and £70,000 in New South “Wales. I mention, too, that there are 26,000 acres under banana cultivation. Does that not appeal to the representatives of the Country party?

It may be that I am wrong in my opinions, and am obsessed by ideas of economic nationalism which are deplored by many. At the same time, I believe that, when viewed from all angles, those opinions are sound and good for Australia. Honorable senators’ must consider what would be the result upon banana-, growers if the request were acceded to. It may be said that they could easily find employment in other industries. But in the present state of world productivity, it is practically impossible to re-employ those who are displaced from employment. I hold it to be a splendid principle that, whenever an industry has been established in Australia, no action should be taken to destroy it. This Government made a false step when it countenanced the entry into Australia of 40,000 centals of Fijian bananas annually. “We shall not improve the position in Australia by destroying our industries in order to encourage the product of black labour, of persons who are paid what are practically “ rice “ wages. Such an action would lower the standard of living in Australia, and have its repercussions upon all sections. I am confident that with the advance of science, and as a result of the investigations of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, we shall be able, within a year, to transport Queensland bananas to Western Australia, and market them there to the satisfaction of consumers. That is a matter which should have the consideration of Senator Johnston. Again I warn honorable senators not to compel this industry to - as Mr. Forgan Smith, the Premier of Queensland describes it - enter into poverty competition with niggergrown bananas, for that would merely destroy our standard of living.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– Honorable senators . have discouraged my efforts to close the discussion. Evidently they desire that it should continue, and are open to further enlightenment on this interesting subject. When my colleagues and I endeavoured to bring back the British duty to 8s. 4d. per cental, we were charged with acting in anything but a constructive manner. I submit that our action was eminently constructive, for we were endeavouring to make impossible the admission of the products of black labour. Senator DuncanHughes has advanced the argument that in attempting to secure the position of the banana industry in Australia we are jeopardizing our export trade with Fiji, and that that country will, as a retaliatory measure, discontinue to trade with us. I take it that Fiji does not trade with Australia because of its fraternal affection for us, but because it finds it convenient to obtain goods from this country which it cannot procure as favorably elsewhere. I do not believe in attempting to kill trade with other countries. There is, no doubt, much reason why the peoples of the world should trade one with another; for one thing it spreads, enlightenment. But in the war of tariffs we must, if necessary, adopt retaliatory measures, see that we are not swamped by foolishly perpetuating a benevolent non-committal attitude to other nations, while submitting to all the penalities which they impose on us through the medium of their tariffs. To say that there was nothing constructive in our proposal was to get wide of the mark. Even if the request which we supported could not have been given effect, the carrying’ of it would.” at least, have shown the people of this country where we stand on this matter, and why we believe that, in the interests of the primary. producers, it is essential that we either maintain an effective protection or have no protective policy at all. It is both illogical and dangerous to attempt to reduce the duty on bananas supposedly in the interests of Fiji.

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

. -A celebrated Scottish writer once expressed the view that the individual citizen ought to regard as a personal matter, and be personally ashamed, of any shameful act on the part of this country. I often wonder whether we, as a nation, ought not to be ashamed of our treatment of Fiji. The discussion on Senator Millen’s motion seems to have centred upon Fiji, although that country is not the only one concerned. Adjacent to Australia are groups of islands which belong to the British Empire, although their inhabitants are not ail Britons. We treat these people as though they were enemies ; we have no regard whatever for their corporate existence; we sneer at their “ black labour “ ; and describe them as “ niggers.” Such talk in the senior House of the Australian Parliament is, to say the least, not creditable to Australia. Whenever an attempt is made to alter the duties on bananas, the cry arises from the Opposition benches - and on this occasion, it has been supplemented by voices on this side of the chamber - that an attempt is being made to destroy the banana-growing industry of Australia. But, as Senator Payne pointed out, the banana-growing industry in Queensland got along very well with a lower duty than that now in operation. Senator Brown asked honorable senators on this side to justify an action which, lie said, would throw a number of Australians out of work. We do not think that that would be the result of our action, for we believe that, if the motion were agreed to, there would still be adequate protection for this Australian industry. I suggest that Senator Brown, who is a younger man than I am, should read Things Seen and Unseen, by Bastiat, a French economist, in order that he may understand something of the indirect ‘consequences of the legislation passed by any parliament. Senator Duncan-Hughes, in an informative speech, anticipated the question which Senator Brown asked a little later. He pointed out that, in consequence of the embargo placed by Australia against the importation of bananas from Fiji, our trade with that country fell in a few years from £570,000 to £268,000 per annum - a drop of over £300,000.

Senator Collings:

– Was that decline of trade’ solely due to the duty on bananas ?

Senator BRENNAN:

– That it was so, was demonstrated as clearly as anything could be, because as Australia’s trade with Fiji declined, so New Zealand’s trade with that country increased. Our action has deprived Australia of a market for products valued at “£300,000 per annum, including manufactured articles, in the making of which numbers of Australians would be employed. It is not easy to realize the full effect of an extreme’ fiscal policy; but it has at least been evident that every increase of duties has been followed by an increase of unemployment.

I hope that Senator Johnston .will resist the temptation to drag in King Charles’ head on every possible occasion, though on this subject I agree with him. Western Australia is cut off from the sources from which bananas are obtained by the other States. That is particularly unfortunate, because the people of Western Australia are sadly in need of a fruit diet. Just as there has been a decline of our trade, with Fiji, so there has been a falling off of our trade with the islands to the north-west of Western Australia. There are many things which Western Australia could supply to Java and adjacent islands in exchange for the things they produce.

Senator MacDonald:

– Has the honorable senator thought of an increase of the trade between Western Australia and Queensland and northern New South Wales?

Senator Foll:

– Australia buys tea and other products from Java.

Senator BRENNAN:

– I protest against the view constantly put forward, that not only will a reduction of duties throw people out of work, but that that is the intention of those who propose such reductions.

Senator Collings:

– That is the natural consequence of reduced duties.

Senator BRENNAN:

– I have no fear that a little freeing of trade will result in a loss to the people of Australia as a whole. On the contrary, it is because I believe it will have the opposite effect that I wish to remove some of the shackles which now hinder development.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– Since Senator Brennan has seen fit to attack Senator Brown in the absence of the latter, I desire to point out that the Australian Labour party has, as one of its objectives, the cultivation of Australian democratic sentiment, the development of an enlightened and self-reliant community, and the maintenance of a White Australia.

Question - That the request (Senator Millen’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 10

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Sitting suspended from 6.15. to 8 p.m.

Sub-item agreed to.

Item 56 (e) agreed to.

Item 78, sub-item (b) (Coco-nuts).

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

– Under this sub-item, a general rate of only1s. per cwt. is imposed on coco-nuts, but we can grow them in Queensland from Mackay northwards.

It is true that they are not produced in large quantities. Will the Minister state what quantity is grown in this country, and what is the extent of the import trade ?

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– The quantity of coconuts imported in 1931-32 was 10,772 cwt., valued at £2,930. The production in Australia is so small that it is not recorded by the department. The only alteration made in these duties is the elimination of the British preferential rate of1s. per cwt., as a result of the application of the provisions of the Ottawa agreement. I understand that a coco-nut tree has to be seven or eight years old before it begins to bear; therefore, planting would have to proceed apace, if the demand were to be met by. coco-nuts grown in Australia.

Sub-item agreed to.

Remainder of division, viz., items 87 (b) and 96 (a1, 2) agreed to.

Division 5. - Textiles, Pelts and Furs, and Manufactures Thereof, and Attire.

Item 105, sub-items (e1) (f3, 5) -

Piece goods, viz. : -

(l) Velvets, velveteens, plushes, sealette and cloths imitating furs, Astrachans; Italians, containing wool, ad val., British, 15 per cent.; general, 30 per cent.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– Will the Minister be good enough to explain the meaning of the words “ Italians containing wool “ ?

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– These are revenue duties. This item was reported on by the Tariff Board in 1925, and again in 1927. The only amendment is a formal adjustment of the rates in accordance with the Ottawa agreement, and a preference of 15 per cent. is now accorded to British goods. The value of the importations last year of the goods covered by this sub-item was as follows: -From France, £79,000; Great Britain, £75,000; Belgium, £57,000; Germany, £26,000;. and other foreign countries, £14,000. The importations were of the total value of £252,000, and the revenue collected amounted to £55,578.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- This is another item in which I think that the duties are inconsistent with what I consider to be the best policy for Australia. “ Italians containing wool “ refers to the textile fabric known as Italian cloth, in the manufacture of which a certain quantity of wool is incorporated. It is generally in use for only one purpose, namely, as the raw material for the tailoring trade for the lining of coats and vests, and is only manufactured in shades of black, grey and brown. There is a material known as Italian cloth which is made entirely of cotton, and this is admitted at the rate of 5 per cent. British. It is inferior as a lining to Italian cloth containing wool, because it does not give the same finish. There is not a large proportion of wool used in any Italian cloth,but medium and better class garments are lined with the cloth that contains wool, because this lining wears and keeps its shape more satisfactorily than does the cheaper lining. We ought to encourage, rather than discourage, the use of the lining which contains wool. This material is not made, I may point out to honorable senators, in Australia. It is wrong in principle to impose a heavier rate on Italian cloth containing wool than on the imitation cloth which comes in at the rates of 5 per cent. British, and 15 per cent. general. Until quite recently, the British cloth was admitted free. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend sub-item (e1) by leaving out the words, “ Italians containing wool “.

– Then we are simply backing up a revenue tariff.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I was glad to have that admission from Senator Hoare. The Labour party, I have no doubt, believes in getting as much revenue as possible from the tariff.

Senator Collings:

– We believe in prohibitive duties, so that Australian manufacturers may supply all our needs.

Senator PAYNE:

– That may be so, but. when it is necessary to import goods that are not manufactured in Australia, the Labour party is anxious that the Government should get as much revenue from them as possible. This lining is not manufactured in Australia, and no attempt has ever been made to manufacture it here. The f.o.b. price in England of ordinary Italian lining containing wool is from1s. 6d. to 2s. 3d., and 2s. 6d. a yard, while the substitute lining, which has been manufactured in order to take advantage of the lower duty, costs only 8d., 10d., or1s. a yard. It must he clear to honorable senators that if, by reducing the duty on Italian linings containing wool, we make it worth while for the manufacturers in Great Britain to send that material out here, we shall reap a great deal more customs revenue because of the higher value of the better quality material. I do not wish to injure any Australian industry ; I wish to help local manufacture. If my proposal is agreed to, it will help the tailoring trade and ensure that the public get better value for their money.

Request agreed to.

Sub-items agreed to, subject to a request.

Items 108 (b), 111 (c) and 112 (bl) agreed to.

Item 114, sub-item (h) (Bathing hats and caps of rubber).

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

– This item is, I understand, one of those which have been amended in accordance with the terms of the Ottawa agreement, hut not otherwise amended.

Senator McLachlan:

– That is so.

Senator BRENNAN:

– The ad valorem duties on this item were 35 per cent. British preferential, and 45 per cent. general. The duties in the present schedule stand at 35 per cent. British preferential, and 55 per cent. general, the general rate having been increased in order to preserve the stipulated margin in favour of British goods. I assume that the fixed duties bear some relation to the ad valorem duties. The Government, in order . to conform with the Ottawa agreement, adopted the simple expedient of raising the general rate from 45 per cent. to 55 per cent. Was that conforming to the Ottawa agreement in spirit, especially when we realize that already there was a duty of 35 per cent. against British goods? We are to assume that the purpose of altering the rates was to make a concession to Great Britain, but it cannot be argued that any country is receiving a concession from us when we impose a duty of 35 per cent. against its products. Did the Government’s action in this respect conform to article 10 of the Ottawa agreement, which provides-

His Majesty’s Government in the Commonwealth of Australia undertake that during the currency of this agreement 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 . . .

– Yes.

Senator HARDY:

– I am glad to learn that, because it considerably clarifies the position. I say frankly, however, that if Senator Brennan moves for a reduction

I shall support him, because I am satisfied that the Government is not implementing the Ottawa agreement in the spirit in which it was entered into. Upon the Government rests the responsibility, and it will have the task of inducing the people to believe that it is doing so.

Sub-item agreed to.

Remainder of division, namely, items 116, 118 (c), 120 (d), 123 (b) (c), and 126 (a) agreed to.

Division 6. - Metals and Machinery.

Item 136 (f2) (Hoop iron n.e.i.).

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I should like an explanation from the Minister (Senator McLachlan) concerning these duties. Hoop iron n.e.i. is free British, but there is an ad valorem duty of 15 per cent. in the general tariff, in addition to which a deferred duty of 70s. British, and 120s. general will operate as from the 1st October next. As this is one of the sub-items which has been brought into line with the Ottawa Conference formula, to impose deferred duties in this sub-item seems to me to be quite inconsistent with the explanation just given by the Minister on sub-item h of item 114, dealing with certain classes of rubber goods.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– The position was thoroughly examined by the Tariff Board in 1926. In its comments on this industry the board stated -

The present tariff provides the following rates of duty: - Free British preferential, 5 per cent. intermediate, 10 per cent. general, with a deferred duty of - per ton, 70s. British preferential, 90s. intermediate, and 95s. general.

Request is now made that the rates of the deferred duty be increased to, per ton, 80s. British preferential, 100s. intermediate, 115s. general.

The local industry is equipped to roll hoop iron1/8-in. in thickness, and of the following width, viz.: - 1 inch, 11/8 inch, 1 3- 16th inch, 11/4 inch, 1 5-16th. inch,13/8 inch, 1 7-16th inch, 14 inch,15/8 inch, 13/4 inch, 1 7-8th inch, and 2 inches, and for that reason the deferred duty at the rates provided in the existing tariff has been brought into operation.

The position ofthe local industry in the matter of disadvantages in wages, as already shown herein in regard to other items, will apply to hoop iron and, in the opinion of the Tariff Board, the increased rates asked for are not in excess of those necessary to enable the local industry to successfully compete with imported hoop iron.

As the deferred duties will, of course, operate only in respect to such sizes as are rolled in Australia, the increased rates asked for, if granted, will not impose any burden on users of sizes not obtainable locally. On the other hand the additional protection will, by conserving to local producers more of the trade in the sizes at present rolled, enable such producers to extend their rollings.

Apparently this is one of the industries that has been gradually extending its operations, and the deferred duties were imposed, in the hope, I assume, that our manufacturers would, some day,be manufacturing the wider widths of hoop iron. The deferred duties have been, extended from time to time, the last extension being from April of this year, and they will not become operative until the manufacturers actually begin making the wider widths of hoop iron. If the honorable senator will look at the sub-items of item 136 in group 1, he will find that rates of duty, similar to those provided for in these deferred duties, are already operating in respect of hoop iron1/8 inch in thickness in widths of3/4inch,7/8 inch, and from 1 inch to 2 inches, both widths inclusive.

Senator Sir WAITER KINGSMILL (Western Australia) [8.52].- I should like the Minister (Senator McLachlan) to explain, if he can, what is the use of debating this sub-item, as we have debated a number of other items at considerable length, and, in some instances, with a great deal of acerbity, when it is certain that we shall have to go over the same ground again when we have before us the report of the Tariff Board dealing with all those items that are affected by the Ottawa Conference resolutions. I hope that I am not disrespectful when I say that the proceedings seem to me to he absolutely absurd.

Senator McLachlan:

– I welcome the honorable senator’s suggestion very heartily.

Senator Sir WALTER KINGSMILL:

– I do not know why we are being asked to consider this tariff before the Government is quite ready for the debate.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

.- While I repeat that I welcome the honorable senator’s suggestion, I take exception to his concluding words. From the point of view of the tariff, this country has been in a shocking condition for some years. Doubtless the honorable senator will recall that, in my second-reading speech, I stressed the urgent need for the ratification by the Parliament of a complete tariff schedule in the interests of our manufacturers and the commercial community.

Senator Sir Walter Kingsmill:

– It will not be a complete schedule when we have finished this debate.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– It will, to the extent that those most directly concerned will know where they stand. When replying to Senator Foll, who has been a strong critic of the Government in this matter, I emphasized that we should have to bring down a number of tariff schedules from time to time as reports come from the Tariff Board. I venture the opinion that this Parliament will be known as the Tariff Parliament because, for the next eighteen months or two years we shall be required to deal with a number of amending tariff proposals, all of which will be based upon the schedule now under consideration. I agree entirely with Senator Kingsmill that there is little to be gained by debating items appearing in groups 1 and 2, in which the rates are the same as those operating in the 1930-31 tariff, except in those items which have been altered in accordance with the Ottawa agreement. We have had no recent Tariff Board reports upon these items, so that, as far as we have gone, we have been merely re-enacting the existing tariff. But, as I have explained, it is important to have a complete schedule ratifiedby Parliament upon which we can build a new tariff in the terms of the Ottawa agreement. That is the objective of the Government.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– The Minister (Senator McLachlan) appeared to have some difficulty in explaining why the Tariff Board had recommended the imposition of these deferred duties on hoop iron, The honorable gentleman quoted from a report of the Tariff Board in 1926. I direct his attention to a much later document - the annual report of the Tariff Board, issued last year - in which that body makes the following comments with reference to the imposition of deferred duties : -

The schedule contains a number of rates which in accordance with the provisions of the customs tariff are deferred from time to time until manufacturers are in a position to meet a reasonable proportion of the requirements with goods of satisfactory quality. In some cases these deferred rates were inserted in the tariff schedule as a result of inquiry by the board at some previous date; others have been there for many years. The retention of these deferred duties in the schedule for so long periods is liable to induce persons to launch into what might then be an uneconomic industry, for, even assuming that the rates were justified when they were placed in the schedule, it does not follow that the position is the same to-day. Furthermore, the uncertainty of the position as to the operation of the duties causes a serious and costly dislocation of business.

In the opinion of the board, deferred rates which are not brought into operation within two years of their insertion in the tariff schedule should be automatically cancelled.

It appears to me to be inconsistent, and quite contrary to the opinion of the board, for the Government to ask us to agree to the continuance of these deferred duties. I strongly urge the Minister to follow the advice of the board in this matter.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– The circumstances mentioned by Senator Carroll do not apply to this industry. Reference to item 136, sub-item f1, shows that the hoop-iron industry has extended its operations. Clause 12 of this bill provides - (1.) Where a deferred duty on any goods is provided in the schedule, the Minister shall refer to the Tariff Board for inquiry and report the question whether the deferred duty should or should not operate on and after the date to which it has been deferred.

Senator Carroll:

– In the meantime, the board says that the continuation of a deferred duty is dangerous.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– The board is the best authority to judge whether the continuation of a deferred duty is dangerous, and under clause 12 it will have power to do so. The clause continues - (2.) In making its inquiry and report, the board shall consider whether the goods in respect of which the deferred duty is provided are being made or produced in Australia or will be so made or produced on, or immediately after, the date to which the duty has been deferred -

in reasonable quantities;
of satisfactory quality; and
at a reasonable price having regard, among other things, to the probable economic effect of the imposition of the deferred duty upon other industries concerned, and upon the community in general.

Sub-clauses 3 and 4 provide that, upon receipt of the board’s report, the Minister may, by Gazette notice, defer the duty to a specified date, before which he shall again ask the board to report whether the duty should or should not operate from the specified date. Upon receipt of this further report, he may again gazette the further deferment of the duty. The committee will see that the continuance or cancellation of a deferred duty will rest largely with the board.

Senator Collings:

– What is the Australian production of hoop iron?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– None is being produced at present except in the sizes mentioned in item 136, subitemf1.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– I agree with Senator Carroll that any general recommendation by the Tariff Board in its annual report as to the course to be adopted in regard to deferred duties should be given quite as much consideration as a recommendation made in a special report. These deferred duties are duties in posse or in futuro ; they may or may not come into force,but they were not in fact operative at the date of the Ottawa agreement. Although I have deprecated the practice of referring to the Ottawa agreement on every detail for guidance as to whether we are doing the right thing, I ask the committee to consider deferred duties in relation to article 12 -

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

Until such a recommendation has been made, is not the imposition of a deferred duty liable to be regarded by the British Government as either a new protective duty or an increase of an existing duty? Of course, if the procedure now being adopted is in accordance with an arrangement with the British Government, I have nothing more to say.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– The Ottawa Conference considered the tariff schedule as it was at that date, including the deferred duties. The British Government argued that where no capital expenditure had been incurred by an industry, the deferred duties relating to it were to be deleted, but where capital expenditure had been incurred, the deferred duties would have to run the gauntlet of article 12. As far as has been practicable, the Australian Government hasgiven effect to the agreement. In respect of several items upon which no capital expenditure has been incurred, the Minister has already, following departmental inquiries, cancelled the deferred duties. I understand that in respect of the item now under consideration, capital expenditure has been incurred.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

. - Hoop iron is being manufactured in Australia in considerable quantities, and I know from personal experience that it is of excellent quality. Any reduction of the protection afforded to this industry would result in many men now employed in it being thrown out of work.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I feel impelled to support Senator Carroll, because I find that this deferred duty was inserted in the schedule as far back as 1921.

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– No hoop iron was manufactured in 1921; but, following the provision of a deferred duty, manufacture up to certain sizes commenced. Those sizes are protected under tariff item 136 f1. The other sizes are covered by sub-item f2, “hoop, n.e.i.”.

Senator PAYNE:

– Is the manufacture of the other sizes contemplated?

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Yes.

Senator PAYNE:

– I assume that the Government’s view is that, because of the capital expenditure incurred by the company in manufacturing certain sizes that are already protected, it will, under this deferred duty, extend its operations to other sizes.

Senator McLachlan:

– That is the position.

Sub-item agreed to.

Items 137 (b), 139 (b) (c) (d), 140 (c), 144 (b), 146, 151, 152 (a1), and 156 (b) agreed to.

Item 160, sub-item (b1, 2) (Cream separators, sheep-shearing machines).

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– Cream separators from the United Kingdom are now admitted free and from foreign countries at a duty of 15 per cent. The following list shows the percentages by which the selling prices exceed the landed costs in respect of fifteen different makes of imported separators : -

These figures are official, and were obtained by the royal commission which inquired into the swindling of butter producers by the agents of cream separators.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon.

Herbert Hays). - The honorable senator will not be in order in continuing his remarks unless he connects them in some way with the item before the Chair.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I want honorable senators who are so keenly interested in stating the case for the primary producer to know what is happening in respect of the dairying industry.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator will have to take some other opportunity to discuss that subject.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– I should like to know whether cream separators are made in Australia.

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– No.

Senator BROWN:

– If a duty were imposed upon cream separators, it might be the means of having the industry established in Australia, particularly as the foreign manufacturers of these machines charge such exorbitant prices, the average percentage increase over landed cost being 81 per cent. Honorable senators supporting the Government have told us time and again that the primary producers are being robbed by the manufacturers of Australia. In this instance the primary producers are being robbed, and the machines are not made here. I suggest that, if a duty were placed upon cream separators, some enterprising Australian firm might commence the manufacture of cream separators, and help to reduce costs.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– Prior to the introduction of this tariff all classes of separators were admitted free of duty, but. now the duty on foreign separators is to be 15 per cent. This is. another example of the doubtful benefits that are being conferred upon the primary producers under the Ottawa agreement. Cream separators are essential for dairy farming, and, as honorable senators well know, that industry has always been a struggling one. It is maintained by the dairyman, his family, and employees, working long hours at certainly not arduous but tedious work for a comparatively small return. The bulk of the separators used in Australia are of foreign manufacture. According to the Oversea Trade. Bulletin of 1931-32, we imported cream separators as follows : -

We also imported separators from Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and other foreign countries.

If we are compelled to grant this preference in order to conform to the Ottawa agreement, I shall not try to alter it, but, if not, I intend to move that the House of Representatives be requested to eliminate the foreign duty of 15 per cent., because it undoubtedly tends to increase the cost to the dairyman. Recently, we were forwarded by the Swedish Chamber of Commerce in Australia a number of illuminating extracts from the Swedish Trade J Journal, dealing with Australian trade with Sweden, and in those extracts it was pointed out that that country was a good customer for various classes of Australian products, but that Australia in return did not purchase anything like a similar value of Swedish exports. When the supporters of the Government seek the reduction of a duty which they claim is against the interest of an Australian primary industry, they talk a good deal about the necessity for allowing the goods of foreign countries, who are prepared to buy Australian products, the right of free, or comparatively unimpeded, entry into Australia; but we do not hear those honorable senators protesting against this duty which is not only offensive but also inimical to a good foreign customer for certain classes of Australian products.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

, - It is true, as Senator O’Halloran has said, that the duty was formerly free, and that it has now been increased to 15 per cent, foreign. That has been done in strict conformity with the Ottawa agreement.

Senator O’Halloran:

– In that case, I shall not move for an alteration of the duty.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Cream separators may be imported free of duty from both the United Kingdom and Canada. During recent years, there has been rapid development in the United Kingdom in the manufacture of these goods, and although the range produced is not so wide as in -other countries in which “the industry has been established for many years, it is certainly extensive. At Ottawa, the United Kingdom delegation strongly pressed that the formula margin of preference should be granted to these goods. The Australian delegation acceded to this request, and was indeed glad to do so in view of the fact that the United Kingdom delegation had agreed to a grant of preference on Australian butter to the extent of lid. per lb. I may state that the representatives of the Australian dairying industry, who discussed this matter with the Australian delegation before it left for Ottawa, said that they would be quite agreeable to granting a preference on cream separators provided that the delegation obtained a preference on butter. That preference was obtained. Senator O’Halloran has complained that certain classes of cream separators are not manufactured in the United Kingdom. Let me inform him that there are certain of the larger sizes not being manufactured in the United Kingdom, and in respect of these, admission free of duty will continue from foreign countries under by-law. With respect to the importation of spare parts of foreign separators intended to be used for the repair of separators at present in use, a decision has already been given for the continuance of free admission from foreign countries.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– I recognize, as Senator O’Halloran has interjected, that since this duty has relation to the Ottawa agreement it is impossible for us to suggest any alteration to it. I wish to emphasize that the figures which I gave in respect of foreign makes of cream separators are quite authentic, and were obtained by a royal commission which last year sat in Queensland and inquired into the scandal of secret commissions paid by the agents of butter factory machinery of all kinds to butter factory managers and others who had no right to accept such commissions. An examination of the books of the agents for these thirteen brands of separators disclosed that the difference between the landed cost of the separators in their warehouses, and the price charged for them to the dairy farmer, was as I have indicated. I was hopeful that under this item we might he able to do something to alter that practice, but after hearing the explanation from the Minister, I realize that we cannot do anything in that direction.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– I do not think that the point which Senator O’Halloran endeavoured to make regarding our trade with Sweden was sound. I understood him to say that the duty in the general column should be reduced from 15 per. cent. to nil on account of the fact that we did considerable business with Sweden. If the honorable gentleman will look at the particulars on page 559 of the Oversea Trade Bulletin, No. 29, he will find that Sweden sends enormously more of her products to us than we send of ours to her. The figures for 1931-32 show that our imports of Swedish origin were valued at nearly £700,000, while our exports to Sweden were valued at only £252,000. We were actually taking about three times as much from Sweden as she was taking from us. The honorable gentleman’s argument seems to break down at that point just as badly as it broke down at the other point.

Sub-item agreed to.

Item 168 (a1, 2) agreed to.

Item 169, sub-items (a2) (c1) -

(2) Linotype, monotype, and other type-composing machines, n.e.i.; typewriters ( including covers ) ; machinery used exclusively for and in the actual process of electrotypmg and stereotyping; aluminium rotary graining machines; adding and computing machines and all attachments, ad valorem, British, free; general, 20 per cent.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– I move-

That the House of Representatives he requested to amend paragraph (2) of sub-item

to read as follows: -
1. Linotype, monotype, and other typecomposing machines, n.e.i.; typewriters ( including covers ) ; machinery used exclusively for and in the actual process of electrotypmg and stereotyping; aluminium rotary graining machines, ad valorem, British, free; general, 20 per cent. and by adding a new paragraph thereto, viz. : -
2. Adding and computing machines and all attachments, ad valorem, British, free; general, 10 per cent.

Prior to the signing of the Ottawa agreement adding and computing machines and all attachments were British, free, and general, 10 per cent. At the request of the British delegation the rates were altered to British, free; and general, 20 per cent. Since the imposition of the duty of 20 per cent. under the general tariff, representations have been made to the department that no adding and computing machines are manufactured in the United Kingdom. His Majesty’s Senior Trade Commissioner has advised us that the only machine of this nature manufactured in the United Kingdom is a tabulating machine. The tabulating machines referred to, however, do not come under this item, but are specifically mentioned in item 174 (x) (73), and are dutiable, British, free; and general, 15 per cent. Adding and computing machines are expensive office appliances, and have a material hearing on efficiency. There is no reason why the duty of 20 per cent. under the general tariff should be retained, seeing that the United Kingdom is not in a position to supply our requirements. The increased duty on adding and computing machines was made solely in connexion with the Ottawa agreement, but as these machines are not being manufactured in the United Kingdom, the Government desires the duties to revert to those operating under the 1921-30 tariff.

Senator Dooley:

– I take it that these machines are not made in Australia?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– No.

Request agreed to.

Sub-items agreed to subject to a request.

Item 170 - sub-items (a1) (b) to (f) -

(1) Earth and rock cutting, dredging and excavating machinery, n.e.i., ad val., British, 271/2 per cent.; general, 471/2 per cent.
Ore dressing machinery and appliances, n.e.i., and accessories, ad val., British, 271/2 per cent.; general, 45 per cent.
Smelting, leaching, and metal-refining appliances, ad val., British, 271/2 per cent.; general, 45 per cent.
Rock boring machines, n.e.i., ad val.,

British, 271/2 per cent.; general, 45 per cent.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the House of representatives be requested to make the duty on sub-items (a)

(c) and (d), ad val., British, 10 per cent.

Britain. The major proportion of the importations comes under those sub-items; for the year 1931-32 they represented a value of over £37,500. The department at all times gives very careful consideration to applications for the admission of mining machinery under by-law. In 1925, the Tariff Board reported that the local manufacturers of the machines covered by this item were able to supply Australia’s requirements at reasonable prices, and it recommended that the then existing rates of British, 271/2 per cent., and foreign, 40 per cent., be not disturbed. Sub-items b, c, d were referred to the Tariff Board on the 2nd March last.

Senator MILLEN:
Tasmania

– I support the request. Most of the mines at present operating in Australia, particularly the bigger ones, are now working on low-grade ore. In order to produce profits, or, indeed, to keep going at all with such ore, it is necessary to alter and improve the plant from time to time. Most of the bigger mining companies employ highly-qualified engineers whose business it is to make such alterations as are necessary to deal with the varying geological formations. I said last night that Australia had some of the finest metallurgical engineers in the world. These men are doing much for the development of mining in Australia, and are extracting from the ore all the metal that can profitably be obtained from it. I do not think that by lowering the duties on this item we shall in any way affect the establishments now making mining machinery in Australia.

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

AYES: 14

NOES: 15

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Sub-items agreed to.

Items 172 (a), 173 (a) (b), 176 (a) (b), 177 (a1), 178 (a), 179 (d 3c), 180 (f), 181 (aa) (c), 185 (c), and 186 agreed to.

Item 187, sub-item (c) -

Nails, viz.: -

Brads (including moulders’ and glaziers’ ) ; picture nails ; staples ; tacks, n.e.i.; wire and other nails, n.e.i.; gimp pins; spouting screws, per cwt., British, 5s. 6d. ; general, 8s.; or ad valorem, British, 25 per cent.; general, 45 per cent.; whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duties, sub-item (c), per cwt., British, 2s. 9d., or ad valorem, 121/2 per cent.

This sub-item includes nails used by orchardists, and other nails in daily use, staples, tacks, and other nails the duties on which are, British 5s. 6d., and foreign 8s. per cwt. At those rates, the importation of nails is practically prohibited. I am? informed by men in the trade that, as the result of these duties, high-grade nails are not now procurable in Australia, and that the prices of the lower grade nails are so prohibitive that, in many instances, fruit-growers find it cheaper to collect and use second-hand nails than to buy new ones. The making of nails is practically an automatic process involving a limited amount of manual labour.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– We have no report by the Tariff Board on this matter; for the last official information regarding it we must turn to the reports of the Interstate Commission. The only alteration that has been made in these duties is an increase of the general rate as compared with the British preferential rate, and I ask the committee to reject the requested amendment on the ground that nails are efficiently made in Australia. The importation of nails was prohibited from the 4th April, 1930, to August, 1932. I understand that all nails required in this country are made here, and I see no good reason to alter the rates.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– I must again protest against the attempts being continually made to destroy efficient Australian industries. For many years, it has been generally acknowledged that the best of nails are made in this country, and there is no difficulty in obtaining adequate supplies. I cannot accept Senator Johnston’s statement that it is impossible to purchase nails of good quality, and that it pays to straighten out old nails and use them a second time.

Senator HARDY:
New SouthWales

– Senator Collings omitted to tell us the price we have to pay for nails made in Australia. We cannot buy them in any quantity direct from the manufacturers.

Senator Collings:

– I have done so.

Senator HARDY:

– It must have been a long time ago. The manufacturers sell their nails to a ring, and business men are compelled to buy from the wholesalers, who, by private arrangement with the manufacturers, make a certain gross profit. While Labour senators are advocating high tariffs, they are also propping up a monopoly of the worst kind. I do not suggest that Australian nails are not of good quality ; but, under this tariff, the nail-making and kindred industries are not giving the public a fair deal.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- Nails can be purchased without any difficulty from ironmongers large and small in any part of Australia. They are sold at low prices, because they are made by machinery. Senator Johnston must know that it is foolish for him to say that it pays betterto straighten out old nails and use themagain, instead of buying new ones. This sub-item covers moulders’ and glaziers’ brads, picture nails, tacks, gimp pins and spouting screws. These are all very small nails, and can be purchased cheaply from any storekeeper.

Request negatived.

Sub-item agreed to.

Items 189 (a) (b) (c) (d1, 2) (g), 190 (a), 195, 201, and 203 (b) agreed to.

Item 206, sub-items (a) (d) (Lamps and lanterns, n.e.i.).

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to insert a new sub-item as follows : - (aa) Hurricane lamps, ad valorem, British, free; general, 15 per cent.

The present sub-item includes hurricane lanterns, which are used largely in country districts. They are not made in Australia, and are not likely to be, because a very expensive plant would be required for their economical manufacture. The British duty is now 25 per cent.

Request negatived.

Sub-items agreed to.

Item 210, sub-items (a) (b) (Metal pins).

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

.- I should like the Minister to inform me why the British preferential duty on pins is 25 percent. if they happen to be put up in fancy boxes, though they are admitted free if they are not in fancy boxes.

Senator McLachlan:

– Because boxes are made here.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Then the duty should be on the boxes, not on the pins.

Sub-items agreed to.

Remainder of division, viz., items 212, 216 (a), and 217 agreed to.

Division 7 - Oils, Paints, and Varnishes.

Items 224, 225 (b) and 231 (a1) (e) (f) agreed to.

Division 8. - Earthenware, Cement, China, Glass and Stone.

Items 240 (b2), 242 (f), 243 (a), 250 (a) (d), 252 (b), 253 (e), 254 (b) (c), 256, 261, and 263, agreed to.

Division 9. - Drugs and Chemicals.

Items 264 (d1, 2), 265, 266 (c2) (d), 267 (a) (b), 268 (b), 269 (a) (b) (c), 270, 271, 274 (b), 279 (a), 280 (b), 281 (A1) (b2) (d) (g), 287, 288, 289 (b2), 290 (d) (e1, 2) agreed to.

Division 11. - Jewellery andfancy Goods.

Items 310 (a), 312 (a) (b), 319 (c), 321 (b) (c) agreed to.

Division 12. - Hides, Leather and Rubber.

Items 324 (c2, 3, 4) and 325 (b) agreed to.

Item 326-

Leather, rubber, canvas and composition belting, and greenhide for belting and other purposes, ad val., British, 30 per cent.; general, 50 per cent.

Senator HARDY:
New South Wales

. - It is not necessary to emphasize the importance of belting to manufacturers. The average belting obtainable in this country wears out very rapidly under the stress of manufacturing processes, and the cost of renewal is a heavy one. Anything which is used in the production of manufactured goods should be as cheap as possible. I therefore move -

That the House of Representatives be requested tomake the duty ad val., British, 15 per cent.

Progress reported.

page 2568

ADJOURNMENT

Party Voting on Tariff Schedule.

Motion (by Senator Sir George Pearce) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– I take this opportunity to refer to what I regard as the somewhat ungenerous attackon the Country party made last night by the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce). He laid the whole blame for the Government’s position in regard to the tariff on the Country party. I remind him that there were only four members of the Country party participating in divisions in which the voting was fourteen to fifteen against the Government. Further than that he charged us with having opposed our own tariff. This is the first occasion since any Country party member has been in the Senate that a general tariff schedule has been considered. A small schedule was submitted in June, 1926. I, who was the first of our party to enter the Senate, came here on the 1st of July, 1926. A few items were considered in 1928, and I think the records will show that on these items we voted in exactly the same way then as now. The Leader of the Senate also said, quite truly, that the Government of 1928 could not have carried on for a day without the support of the Country party. I freely admit that, but I beg to point out that when the Country party, or any other party, is faced with two alternatives, it does what most sensible people would do - it chooses the lesser of two evils. If a man is between the devil and the deep sea, he will, if he can swim, take to the sea, and that is the course we pursued. Had we not supported the Government of that day, the alternative would have been a government that would have introduced still higher duties. That is what eventually happened, but I am proud to think that when the axe fell that ended the life of the Government, there was no Country party hand on the handle. The Country party stood 100 per cent. solid behind the Government, which was defeated because of defections within its own ranks. In view of what was said last night, it is only right that I should speak on behalf of the small party in this chamber of which I am a member. The right honorable gentleman may now realize that he was a little unjust to us. I can only suggest as the reason the fact that he is under a rather severe strain at the present time, and consequently spoke somewhat more warmly than the occasion warranted.

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

[10.21]. - I would remind honorable senators that I am not quite a worm. I admit that I was labouring under a strain last night. Senator Carroll would seem to suggest that my remarks were made without reference to anything that had gone before. Let him carry his mind back, and he will recall that I was the object of sneers by Senators Hardy and Badman, as to the indignity suffered by the Government on account of its reliance upon the support of the Labour party to secure the passage of the tariff. Apparently, I was expected to sit quietly under that attack, and not to justify the position of the Government; but I am so built that, when I am subjected to such attacks, I hit back. I very much regret if, in hitting back last night, I hit

Senator Carroll. My remarks were aimed, not at him, but at those who had sneered at the Government. But I was also under another strain that Senator Carroll appears to have overlooked, namely, that caused by the revelation of Senators Rae and MacDonald, that two members of the Country party had sought the assistance and the votes of those with whom they had accused us of associating. Because of that revelation, I felt a certain degree of anger. It was made to appear that, although we should be ashamed of having voted side byside with the Labour party, it was not a crime for members of the Country party to seek the votes of that party.

Senator Carroll:

– What the right honorable gentleman has stated is news to me. That action was not taken by the Country party.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931

– Senators Elliott and Hardy, two members of the Country party, sought the votes of both the Lang and the Scullin sections of the Labour party. I made no apology last night, and Imake none now, for having voted side by side with the Labour party; but I do say that the taunt thrown at us by members of the Country party came with very bad grace in thelight of the fact that two members of that party sought the votes of the Labour party. I assure Senator Carroll that nothing which I said last night, or that I have said to-night, has been aimed at him; but I do not retract one word of what I have said concerning the two members of the Country party to whom I have referred.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 June 1933, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1933/19330622_senate_13_140/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate22 June 1933

QUESTION

NORFOLK ISLAND

Senator PAYNE:TASMANIA

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

TARIFF BOARDREPORTS

Acetyl Salicylic Acid

PAPERS

QUESTION

ARTICLES ON FINANCE BY MR. F. W. EGGLESTON

QUESTION

RESTRICTION OF WHEAT PRODUCTION

Senator GUTHRIE:through Senator Foll

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

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

QUESTION

POST OFFICES IN DEPARTMENT STORES

Senator McLACHLAN:UAP

QUESTION

IMPORTATIONS OF LOCKS

Senator RAE:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

DUTIES ON OREGON

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

IMPORTATIONS FROM JAPAN

Senator COLLINGS:QUEENSLAND

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

CUSTOMS TARIFF 1933

Senator McLACHLAN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator E B JOHNSTON:Western Australia

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:South Australia

Senator Dooley:

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

Senator Dooley:

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

Senator Collett:

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

Senator Collings:

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

Senator BROWN:Queensland

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

Senator Brennan:

Senator BROWN:

Senator McLACHLAN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator DUNN:New South Wales

Senator COLLINGS:Queensland

Senator Badman:

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:South Australia

Senator HOARE:South Australia

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

Senator HOARE:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator HOARE:

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

Senator HOARE:

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

Senator HOARE:

Senator McLACHLAN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator DUNN:New South Wales

Senator McLachlan:

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator McLACHLAN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator COLLINGS:Queensland

Senator McLACHLAN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator E B JOHNSTON:Western Australia

Senator McLACHLAN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator Brennan:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senate
22 June 1933

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA

Senator GUTHRIE:
through Senator Foll

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

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator HARDY:
New South Wales

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

Senator BADMAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator MILLEN:
Tasmania

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator GRANT:
Tasmania

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

Senator Sir WALTER MASSY GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

Senator RAE:
New South Wales