Senate
16 November 1933

13th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 13th Parliament
  3. 1933

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

page 4573

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Norfolk Island Act - Ordinances of 1933 -

No. 4- Health.

No.5 - Amendments Incorporation.

Science and Industry Research Act - Seventh Animal Report of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, for the year ended 30th June, 1933.

Monetary and Economic Conference, London, 1933 - Report of the Australian Minister in London, covering period12th June, 1933, to 26th July, 1933.

Report of the Tobacco Inquiry Committee, 1933.

page 4573

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

How many officials, with their wives and families, of the Papuan and New Guinea Administrations booked passages during the year 1932-33 from the above-mentioned territories to Australia on business and on Service leave ?

Will the Minister supply a list showing how many foreign vessels, with their names iind tonnage, and Australian vessels manned with Asiatic crews, and their names and tonnage also, have passed through the customs of Papua and Mandated Territory of New Guinea during the year 1932-33?

Are there any German vessels engaged in the coastal trade of Papua and the Mandated Territory of New Guinea which are manned by German nationals; if so, what are their names and tonnage?

Was the seaplane involved in the recent fatal accident in the coastal waters ofRabaul, Mandated Territory, in a fit and proper condition when she recently left Australia for Rabaul?

What provision, if any, is made at Rabaul to grant certificates as to aerial lituess of seaplanes and aeroplanes?

The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers : -

Papua. - 51 officers,69 dependants; New Guinea - 115 officers and temporary. employees; 1 1 dependants.

Papua - SS VanRees (1,846 tons), six visits from Java, three visits from _ Sydney ; SS. Pinna (3,944 tons), carrying oils, two visits (both foreign) : New Guinea - Precise information is being obtained from the Administrator of New Guinea.

Papua - No; New Guinea -Precise information is being obtained from the Administrator of New Guinea.

There is no reason to doubt that the seaplane, before it left Australia for Rabaul. was in a fit and proper condition, as all normal precautions had been taken to ensure this. The aircraft was rebuilt under the supervision of licensed personnel, who certified in the normal manner that all requirements had been met. The usual test flight was conducted prior to its leaving . Australia.

Aircraft stationed at Rabaul are subject to the usual statutory requirements for ensuring airworthiness, namely, they are required, if plying for hire, to have a certificate of airworthiness and to be inspected and certified by licensed personnel at intervals not exceeding seven days.

page 4573

QUESTION

CENSORSHIP OF QUESTIONS

Senator BRENNAN:
VICTORIA

– A few moments ago, Senator Dunn submitted to the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) a question of which, subsequently, he gave notice, concerning an incident in the career of Mr. T. E. Rofe, a well-known solicitor of Sydney. In his question, the honorable senator made a number of statements derogatory to the character of that gentleman. Is an honorable senator allowed to publish to the world statements containing half truths which are worse than a lie? I do not know whether you, Mr. President, have any knowledge of the facts of the case, or if you followed Senator Dunn very closely; but I assume that when his question comes before you prior to being placed on the notice-paper for to-morrow, you will peruse it carefully.

The PRESIDENT:

– We must rely to a large extent on the good sense and fairness of honorable senators asking questions. Obviously, it is not in order to make damaging ex parte statements relating to particular incidents in thecareer of any citizen of the Commonwealth, because of the harm that might” bo done. The only safeguard is for honorable senators to refrain from making statements about the career of any citizen, unless they are satisfied that such statements are true.

Senator Dunn:

– What I have said is true, and Senator Brennan knows it. He is telling lies.

Senator Brennan:

– I know that Mr. Rofe was exonerated of the charge brought against him.

The PRESIDENT:

– Senator Dunn’s statement concerning Mr. Rofe was challenged at once by the Government Whip. Honorable senators will realize that the Chair is in some difficulty because of the absence of any definite rule with regard to such matters.While an honorable senator may be entitled to mention incidents in the career of a citizen of the Commonwealth, common sense and fair play dictate that the line be drawn somewhere. I rule that it will not be in order for an honorable senator to make damaging statements about any citizen of the Commonwealth unless he is satisfied beyond all doubt as to their truth. In this instance I shall exercise my right, and direct that certain references to this gentleman be deleted.

Senator Rae:

– May I be allowed to say that having been a resident of Sydney at the time, I recall the trial of the gentleman referred to, and later an appeal, which was dismissed. Theaccuracy of the statement made by Senator Dunn is beyond doubt.

Senator Dunn:

– Although it may be true that this gentleman’s name was restored to the New South Wales roll of practising solicitors, is it not a fact that a sentence of two years was imposed upon him? Rules are provided for the guidance of honorable senators in asking questions on notice.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– I rise to a point of order. The honorable senator is not asking a question; he is debating your ruling, Mr. President, and that can be done only on- a motion to dissent. I submit that unless the honorable senator proposes to make a personal explanation, his remarks are out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– I was expecting the honorable senator to ask a question. He is distinctly out of order in debating the matter at this stage.

Senator Dunn:

– The rirst of the rules provided for the guidance of honorable senators in asking questions is that questions should not contain “ statements of fact or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible, and can be authenticated.” As the facts mentioned by me can be authenticated, I should like your ruling as to whether my question is in order.

The PRESIDENT:

– That portion of the honorable senator’s question which reflects upon the character of a certain gentleman will be excised.

page 4574

QUESTION

EGYPTIAN BUTTER

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. Has he seen a statement in the press to the effect that a merchant in Alexandria, Egypt, has been selling local butter and representing it to be Australian?
  2. Has the Government any representative in Egypt to protect Australia’s trade interests ?
  3. What action does the Government propose to take in the matter?
Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. Representations will be made to the British Government that they request their representative in Egypt to investigate the matter, and take any remedial action which may he possible.

page 4574

PROHIBITED LITERATURE

Works of Picasso

Senator ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA

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

  1. Is it a fact that the Trade and Customs Department, as reported in the Melbourne press, has refused the admission into Australia of the publication compiled under the official direction of the French National Gallery of the works of Picasso; if so, what influences governed such decision?
  2. Is the department aware that Picasso is regarded in Europe as belonging to the first rank of modern painters?
Senator McLACHLAN:
Minister in charge of Development and Scientific and Industrial Research · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to 1.

page 4574

QUESTION

CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF

British Imports - De Raeve Process

Senator ELLIOTT:

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

  1. Is it a fact that chilled beef imported into the United Kingdom during August was 40,000 cwt. greater than in August of last year, and that, although the Argentine reduced her exports for that month by 66,000 cwt., Brazil increased her shipments by 51,941 cwt., andUraguay by 37,123 cwt.?
  2. Is it a fact that importation of frozen beef into the United Kingdom increased by 33,000 cwt., compared with last August, and that over the eight months ending 31st August the importations of frozen beef increased by 303,288 cwt., compared with the previous year ?
  3. What steps is Australia taking to secure a greater share of this market?
Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
VICTORIA · NAT

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

  1. The figures, as stated by the honorable senator, are correct. It is also a fact that, for the eight months ended the 31st August, 1933, the total importations of chilled beef into the United Kingdom were 432,190 cwt. less than during the similar period of 1932.
  2. Yes. Included in the increase of 393,288 cwt. referred to, was an increased export by Australia to the quantity of 114,105 cwt.
  3. The preferences secured at Ottawa will afford Australian meat exporters opportunities for obtaining an expanding share of the market in Great Britain.
Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister administering the Commonwealth Council for Scientificand Industrial Research. upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the experiments in chilling beef carried out at the Wyntlham State Meatworks by a method known as the De Raeve process?
  2. Will he . procure from the Western Australian Government copies of reports on the results achieved at Wyndham by the De Raeve process of beef-chilling, and lay them on the table of the Senate?
  3. In view of the great importance to the Commonwealth of the solution of the effective carriage of meat, fruit, eggs, and other perishables to the European market, will he take stops to test theDe Raeve process after the reported success of . the Wyndham tests in very adverse climatic conditions?
  4. If the Minister should favour the holding of a test of the De Raeve process, will he have such a test carried out at the Brisbane abattoirs, providing facilities for the beneficiaries of the De Raeve estate to supervise the holding of the test, or, in the alternative, provide safeguards to ensure that the test will be properly carried out?
  5. Will the Minister take steps to prove the merits or otherwise of the De Raeve process as early as possible, in view of the fact that Argentine interests are said to be moving towards securing the patent rights held in that country?
Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

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

  1. Yes. 2 to 5. At my instigation the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research,has already reported upon the De Raeve process. The council consulted one of the highest authorities in the matter, in the person of Associate Professor W. J. Young, Department of BioChemistry, University of Melbourne, who ad vised that the process did not possess any features which would commend it for consideration. The council is of opinion, following upon the results of practical demonstration, that the process whichhas been developed at its Food Preservation Laboratory, at the Brisbane Abattoir, will enable chilled beef to he transported from Australia to the London market. In these circumstances, and bearing in mind the advice tendered by Professor Young, it is not thought that any useful purpose would be served by a further investigation of the De Raeve process, unless substantial improvements have been effected since the process was examined. If such improvements have been made, and full details are submitted to me, I will consider whether I will arrange for a further expert opinion to be obtained.

page 4575

QUESTION

BARLEY EXPORTS

Senator O’HALLORAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the meeting between the High Commissioner, Mr. S. M. Bruce, and the Belgian authorities, respecting Australia’s export of barley to Belgium, been held?
  2. If so, will the Minister make a statement on the position, indicating the prospects of the export market with Belgium for the coming season ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Theanswers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

  1. It is understood that the High Commissioner left for Brussels on Wednesday, the loth November.
  2. A statement on this subject will be made as early as possible.

page 4575

QUESTION

SUBSIDY ON ARTIFICIAL FERTILIZERS

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA

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

Will the Government, whilst considering assistance to the wheat-growers, favorably consider the continuance of the subsidy on superphosphates and other artificial fertilizers?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– There is no provision in the budget for the continuance of this assistance. .

page 4575

QUESTION

OVERSEAS WHEAT PRODUCTION

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA

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

  1. Is it a fact that the alleged large carryover of wheat in Canada, United States of America, and other countries from huge harvests of some years ago, is to a certain extent mythical owing to the attack upon wheat by weevils if the wheat is stored for any length of time?
  2. Is it not a fact that it is scrip for wheat rather than serviceable wheat which is available ?

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON.The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow: -

  1. Information submitted to the International Wheat Conference indicated that on the 1st August,1 933, the stocks of wheat in Canada ; and the United States of America were 40,000,000 bushels in excess of the normal carry-over.
  2. The Government has no information to suggest that this is other than marketable wheat.

page 4576

AUSTRALIAN CURRENCY

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON. Senator Collings has asked, upon notice, a series of questions regarding the control of currency and the rate of exchange. Inquiries are being made, and replies will be furnished as soon as possible.

page 4576

QUESTION

CUSTOMS DUTIES

Basis of Calculation

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. If 50 per cent, of ?100 sterling is definitely ?50 in sterling money (no more or no less), is the practice of the Department of Trade and Customs correct in calculating a duty of, say, 50 per cent. on imported goods valued at ?100 sterling as being 50 Australian pounds, equal to ?40 only in sterling currency?
  2. If it is the case that on ?100 sterling value of goods a 50 per cent. duty is now ?40 sterling, whereas early in 1929, when exchange rates between England and Australia were at par, a 50 per cent. duty was ?50 sterling, has not the departmental practice conferred on certain importers the benefit of an automatic reduction in duty?
  3. If so, is it lawful for the department without special sanction of legislation to make such reductions in duty?
  4. Under what section of the Customs Act does the department claim authority for assessing duties on imported goods on a basis of value in English sterling currency instead of in Austral ian currency ?
Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. As the collection of duty in Australian currency is in accordance with the law, there has been no automatic reduction in duty.

The importer certainly pays less duty on account of assessment in British sterling than would be the case if the value were assessed in Australian currency.

  1. There are no such, reductions in duty.
  2. Section 157 of the Customs Act 1901 - 1930.

page 4576

QUESTION

EXCHANGE AND CUSTOMS DUTIES

Senator COLLINGS:

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

  1. Is the Minister correct in stating, in reply to a question on Wednesday, 25th October, tha t if values for duties were assessed in Australian currency, rates of duty would have to be revised, with the result that the position would be the same as at present?
  2. If so, what revision would be necessary to secure the aforesaid same position as at. present in the case of imported goods valued at ?100 sterling equal to ?125 Australian, dutiable at 50 per cent. being ?62 10s. (Australian) equal to ?50 sterling at present rate of exchange, bearing in mind that 50 per cent. of ?100 sterling is ?50 sterling?
Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. A reduction of 20 per cent, in the rate of duty.

page 4576

QUESTION

SYDNEY POST OFFICE CLOCK

Senator DUNN:

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

Will he give consideration to the question, of lighting the clock face of the. General Post’ Office, Sydney, in view of the recent broadcast statement of the Prime Minister of Australia that the Government has a surplus of ?3,000,000?

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

– Three of the four dials of the tower clock at the General Post Office, Sydney, are illuminated until midnight, and it is considered that this meets all reasonable public requirements.

page 4576

QUESTION

NAZI REVOLUTION IN GERMANY

Senator DUNN:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has he seen the press reports to the following effect: - (a) That the Nazi revolution in Germany has carried terrorism and suppression beyond what seema to be necessary to maintain its authority; (b) That the . Jews have been persecuted; (c) That the property ofGerman trade, unionshas been confiscated;

    1. That Socialists have been tortured; (e) That the conduct of the Nazishas aroused indignation throughout the world, and alienated friendly feeling towards Germany and sympathy with her grievances?

  2. If so, will the Prime Minister enter an emphatic protest to the German Government on behalf of the Christian people of Australia; if not, why not?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

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

  1. I have read in recent months many press reports concerning affairs in Germany.
  2. It is not considered that, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, any such action by the Commonwealth Government would be desirable.

page 4577

QUESTION

IMPORTS PROM JAPAN

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

– Senator

Dunn has asked a series of questions, upon notice, regarding imports into Australia from Japan. The information is being obtained.

page 4577

QUESTION

DISARMAMENT

Senator DUNN:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that war contravenes the spirit of Christianity,and that armaments tend to breed suspicion and fear, that each increase in armaments tends towards increases elsewhere, and the ever watchful armament manufacturers seize every opportunity to press for orders, sometimes using very undesirable methods ?
  2. Is it a fact that war is probably the greatest potential enemy of mankind, and unchecked competition in arms leads to war, and if a relatively disarmed nation . seems to be in danger, a heavily armed nation may be in still greater danger, because its armaments instil fear into the people of other nations and lead to allances and (in time of crisis) to war?
  3. . Is it ita factthat the present moment, immediately prior to the re-convening of the conference for the reduction and limitation of armaments, seems especially inappropriate for an increase in armaments : and that according to the cables, the action of the Commonwealth Government is being referred to abroad us part of a new competition in armaments?
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow: - 1 and 2. These are matters of opinion.

  1. The Commonwealth of Australia, in common with other parts of the British Empire, by actual example, led the way in disarmament. So far from following this example some of the other great powers have actually increased their armaments.

page 4577

QUESTION

WIRELESS ADMINISTRATION

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

– Senator Dunn has asked a series of questions, upon notice, relating to wireless administration. Inquiries are being made, and a reply will be furnished to the honorable senator as soon as possible.

page 4577

QUESTION

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Senator DUNN:

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

Is the Commonwealth Government prepared to stabilize the Australian wheat industry on a guarantee basis of at least 3s. a bushel on the farm for all wheat for the current season, and to stabilize the price for subsequent years to permit a reasonable margin of profit irrespective of world parity price?

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:

– The Government’s proposals for granting assistance to the wheat-growers will be announced at an early date.

page 4577

QUESTION

PAPUAN GRANT

Senator DUNN:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Federal Government received a resolution from the Papuan Legislative Council requesting that the Papuan grant this year should be at the former rate of £ 40,000 ?
  2. Is the Government aware whether the public servants of the Papuan Government, due to the reduced grant, have had their salaries cut by 10 per cent. in real wages?
  3. Will the Federal Government give consideration to a restoration of the £40,000 so that the public servants of Papua will receive back any cut in salaries?
  4. In the opinion of the Federal Government, should Australian white nationals working in the tropics of Papua and New Guinea, be granted the full rewards of their labour without being subjected to any 10 per cent red uction ?

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON.The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow: -

  1. Yes.
  2. An ordinance of Papua entitled the Public Service (Deduction from Salaries) Ordinance 1930, made on 12th December, 1930, provides for the making of deductions from the salaries of all officers at a rate, not exceeding 10 per cent., to be fixed from time to time by the Lieutenant-Governor. The ordinance contains a provision that it shall commence on a date to be fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor by proclamation.

After receiving advice that the amount provided in the Commonwealth Estimates for 1933-1934 as a grant to Papua was £34,000, the Lieutenant-Governor advised by radiogram dated 14th October, that he had reduced salaries from 1st November. 3 and 4. The question of the amount of the grant to the Papuan Government for the year 1933-1934 has been reconsidered, and the Commonwealth Government has decided to increase the amount by £6,000, making a total grant of £40,000. The LieutenantGovernor of Papua has been informed of this decision.

page 4578

CUSTOMS TARIFF (EXCHANGE ADJUSTMENT) BILL 1933

Bill read a third time.

page 4578

CUSTOMS TARIFF (INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION)BILL 1933

Bill read a third time.

page 4578

CUSTOMS TARIFF 1933

In committee: Consideration of House of Representatives’ message resumed from the 9th November(vide page 4315).

Item 147-

Iron and steel, viz. : -

Plates and sheets, plain tinned, ad valorem - British, free; general, 10 per cent..

And a deferred duty as follows: - on and after 1st October, 1933 - 147. Iron and steel, viz.: -

Plates and sheets, plain tinned, per ton - British, 70s.; general. 115s.

Senate’s request. - Leave out - and a deferred duty as follows: - on and after1st October, 1933 - 147. Ironand steel, viz.: -

Plates and sheets, plain tinned, per ton, British, 76s. ; general, 1 15s.

House of Representatives’ message. - Not made, but date of deferred duty altered to 1st January, 1934.

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

.- I move-

That the request be not pressed, and the alteration of date be agreed to.

The date of the deferred duty has been altered to the 1st January, 1934. This matter has been fully debated, and has been referred to the Tariff Board for inquiry and report.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– The request of the committee refers to the duties on tinned plates and sheets which are now admitted free from Great Britain, and at 10 per cent. from foreign countries. Tinned plates are used largely for preserving the products of primary industries. They are required in large quantities at

Shepparton, Victoria, and in other localities where the fruit-canning industry is conducted, and they are also employed largely in the canning of meat. Even in the far north of Western Australia, a new industry has been established for the canning of turtle and fish products, but the Government is willing to saddle these primary industries, and particularly the fruit industry, with deferred duties amounting to 76s. a ton British, and 115s. a ton general, compared with the present rates of free and 10 per cent. These duties would impose a direct burden on -primary industries, and I, therefore, urge the committee to adhere to it’s previous decision.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- The Government, in pressing for this increase of duties, shows a total disregard for the serious condition of the fruit industry. Both at Shepparton and in Tasmania, the canners are unable to dispose profitably of last season’s output, and these heavy duties will have serious repercussions. The Government should realize that the United Kingdom offers a most promising market for Australian canned fruits. Canned fruits to the value of nearly £1,500,000 were imported into Great Britain during the last six months, but the proportion that was obtained from Australia was almost negligible. I hope that the committee will stand by its original vote.

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

.- The Tariff Board was requested on the 14th March last to inquire into these deferred duties, and furnish recommendations as to whether they should be retained, and, if so, what rates should be provided in the tariff. The board was further requested on the 15thSeptember to ascertain if any financial commitments had been entered into by companies contemplating the manufacture of tinned plate in Australia ; but its inquiries have not yet been held. The Broken Hill Proprietary Limited has supplied the following information since this request was made: -

  1. Since 1918 the manufacture of tinned plate in Australia has been seriously contemplated, and various sections of the company’s plant have been extended to a greater degree than would have been warranted were not provision being made for the produetion of steel bars for tinned plate manufacture.

    1. Several officers of the company have been sent abroad to study tinned plate manufacture. Two senior technical officers were sent abroad quite recently for this purpose.
  2. The company lias to date expended approximately £500,000 in the contemplated enterprise, mainly capital expenditure in plant for the production of the required raw material, viz.: - bar iron.
  3. Had it not been for fundamental changes in manufacturing processes, either actually adopted or pending, a tinned plate plant would have been established several years ago.

These deferred, duties were placed in the tariff in 1920, and since that time the Broken Hill Proprietary Limited has been developing its plant, having in mind the manufacture of tinned plate in Australia. The duties have served for the last thirteen years as an incentive to the local industry to undertake the manufacture of these goods. Parliament should recognize its obligations in the matter, and not delete the duties, for that would be tantamount to expressing the opinion that the commencement of this industry in Australia is undesirable. The two questions (1) whether the deferred duties are necessary and (2) if so, what duties should be placed in the schedule, are now being considered by the Tariff Board, and no action apart from further deferring the operation of the duties will be taken by the Government until such time as the Tariff Board has submitted its report. Honorable senators will realize that these duties will not be imposed before the Tariff Board has fully investigated the possibilities of economic manufacture in Australia. One of the provisions which the Tariff Board must consider is whether the goods can be produced 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. It will, therefore, bo seen that the interests of all concerned will be fully safeguarded. Since the deferred duties are not now operating, and are not likely to operate for a considerable time, it would appear that no harm would be done to the industry contemplating the local manufacture of tinned plates if the request were adopted; but if the deferred duties remain in the schedule for some time at least, while tha local industry is not ready to produce, no harm can possibly be done to other industries. The Government is averse to pressing this request as it considers that the deletion, of the deferred duties from the tariff would be an indication to the company that Parliament did not desire this industry to be commenced in Australia. In view of this I ask that the request be not pressed, and that the item, as amended by the House of Representatives, be agreed to. No action will be taken that could possibly harm the canning industry.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- The Minister (Senator McLachlan) put up a very good case from the point of view of the Broken Hill Proprietary Limited, but ignored the desperate plight of fruit-growers and the canning industry. His remarks have merely confirmed me in my intention to vote against the Government in connexion with this item. I hope that, in the interests, of the canning industry of Australia, the request will be pressed.

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

– This is one of the many items in the tariff concerning which the layman is entirely at sea. We do not know precisely what protection this deferred duty will give to the industry concerned. All we know is that originally this item was free British, and carried a duty of 10 per cent, in the general tariff. It is now proposed to impose, as from the. 1st January next, deferred duties of 76s. a ton British, and 115s. general. Can the Minister give any information as to the selling price of the material, and state what is the rate per cent, of the deferred duty? Honorable senators are entitled to know how much protection it is propos_ed to give to the Broken Hill Proprietary Limited.

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

– I am advised that the proposed deferred duty of 76s. a ton British is equivalent to an ad valorem rate of 23 per cent. It has been in the tariff since 1920. The recommendations of the Tariff Board will be considered before action is taken to make the deferred duty operative. I realize that those honorable senators who are pressing the Senate’s request desire to make a gesture in the interests of the fruit-canning industry; but I would remind them that the deferred duty will not affect this season’s pack.

Senator Elliott:

– We are looking ahead ?

Senator Sampson:

– The tin plate industry does not exist.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– That. I suggest, is all the more reason why we should not press the Senate’s request. We desire to see the industry established on an economic basis. If the Senate persists in its request, it will be an indication that it does not wish the Broken Hill Proprietary Limited to go any further with its plans, although already it has expended approximately £500,000 on plant for the production of tinned plates. This item is part of the iron and steel duties.

Senator Elliott:

– Should not the Government consider the plight of the fruit-canning industry?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– I know that it is in a very bad way, and I assure the honorable senator that, in reporting to the Government, the Tariff Board will take into consideration all the probable economic effects of the proposed protection.

Question - That the request be not pressed and the alteration of date be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman -Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 18

NOES: 15

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Item 157-

Barbed wire, per ton - British,68s. ; general, 180s.

Senate’s request. - Make the duty, per ton - British, 40s.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Not made.

Motion (by Senator McLachlan) put -

That the request benot pressed.

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

AYES: 17

NOES: 16

Majority . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Item 161-

  1. Spray pumps, hand operated, n.e.i., in cluding atomizers and vaporizers of the type used- for spraying insecticides; spray pumps, foot operated: garden syringes : lawn sprinklers, ad valorem, British, 45 per cent.; general,65 per cent.

Senate’s request- Make the duties, ad valorem, British, 20 per cent.; General, 374 per cent.

House of Representatives’ message - Not made.

Motion (by Senator McLachlan) proposed. -

That the request be not pressed.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– I trust that the committee will oppose the motion. Since this item, was before fhe committee on a previous occasion, I have received numerous communi cations from local manufacturers who say that, in view of the exchange adjustment recently decided upon, they will be unable ro carry on with duties of 20 per cent. British and 374 per cent, general. I have also been supplied with price lists showing that the Australian, orchardists are now obtaining their spray pumps at a cheaper rate than they otherwise could. The point which I cannot understand is that although fruit-growers can obtain their supplies at prices lower than those charged for the imported article, the manufacturers are pressing for an unusually high duty. I trust that the committee will agree to the duties of British 20 per cent, and general 37½ per cent.

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

– I trust that the committee will adhere to its request in order that spray pumps may bo procurable at the lowest possible rate. It should be our endeavour ro reduce the costs of production of fruitgrowers to the lowest possible level. It appears that Australian manufacturers are receiving all the consideration, and tlie fruit-growers who arc compelled to buy these pumps are not receiving the assistance they deserve.

Senator Brown:

– What do the pumps cost?

Senator J B HAYES:

– A hand pump costs only a few shillings, but a motor spray pump may cost as much as £130. This year, the fruitgrowers, particularly those in Tasmania, sent hundreds of thousands of cases of apples and pears to Great Britain for which they did not receive anypayment at all. In many instances, they were asked to forward remittances to defray handling and other charges. Although the wheat-growers receive some return for their commodity many of the fruit-growers havo not got any tiling at all. In the winter, fruit-growers spray with oil, and later on they must spray three or four times with lime sulphur or some other preparation in order to protect their crops. If the Australian manufacturers can supply pumps at prices lower than the cost of the imported article, why should they require high duties? If unnecessarily high ratesare imposed and costs arc not reduced, the fruit-growers will be compelled to appeal to Parliament for further assistance.

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

– Since this matter was last considered by the committee, the Customs Department has obtained certain additional information which indicates that some imported spray pumps could, if a lower duty were imposed, compete with the Australian product, but in the ease of other lines the present duties are required. The Government proposes to refer the duties back to the Tariff Board for further inquiry and report, but meanwhile I suggest that the existing rates should remain. It would be better if this item were sub-divided. In the United Kingdom the retail price of hand operated bucket, spray pumps, model A1, is 30s.; that of the Australian article is 31s. 6d. For the model A pump the English price is 24s. 6d. and the Australian price 32s. 6d. For the Knapsack spray pump the Australian price varies from 75s. to80s. and the British price from 92s. 6d. to 97s. 6d. For barrel spray pumps the Australian price is £6 7s. 6d. and the New Zealand retail price of similar pumps imported from the United States of America is £8 2s. 6d. I have not the price of the British product. In these circumstances I suggest that the request should not be pressed.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- The remarks of the Minister (Senator McLachlan) should fortify those who supported a reduction of duty. The prices he quoted were extraordinary in that they showed that. British spray pumps could not be profitably imported even under the proposed lower rates of duty. If that is so, why should there be any opposition to the Senate’s request?

Senator McLachlan:

– The item should be subdivided.

Senator PAYNE:

– Thai; is the responsibility of the Government. A reduction of duty would be of great benefit to Australian orchardists. As stated by Senator J. B. Hayes many fruit-exporters have not received any money for their labour: the reward of the year’s efforts of many of them is a debit instead of a credit. Fruit-growers work continuously throughout the year, and their . duties are more arduous than those of any other primary producer. I trust that those who supported the request on the previous occasion, will oppose the motion.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- The Minister has considered this matter only from the viewpoint of the Australian manufacturers-

Senator Collings:

– From the national viewpoint.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– If the Minister studied it from that viewpoint, he would realize that it is the Government’s duty to develop the natural resources of Australia. If the Minister conferred with his colleague, Senator Lawson, he. would find that many of the apple-growers in Victoria and in the other States, who have sent shipments overseas, have not received any return at all, and in fact are in a worse position than when they shipped their fruit. The industry is in a particularly precarious position, and proper consideration has not been given to it by the Government.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

.- I trust that the committee will press for a reduction of the duties to 20 per cent. British and 37½ per cent, general. I cannot understand why any honorable senator should penalize primary producers who are in such sore financial straits. The Australian fruit-growers are disposing of the bulk of their products in the markets of the world without any protection whatever. Fruit growing provides one ofthe most desirable forms of closer settlement, and those engaged in it have developed virgin land to a remarkable extent. This year many fruit-growers in Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia have not received the cost of production. Some who were fortunate enough to sell on the earlier markets is Great Britain received a few shillings a case, but many others, through no fault of their own, did not receive any return at all. The Almighty may send a hail storm, and in half an hour, the whole crop will be destroyed.

Senator Collings:

– Of course, all their troubles would be over if only these sprayers were admitted duty free!

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The honorable senator must know that the reduction of this duty would be some indication of our desire to help the orchardists. We are sometimes accused of pandering to the big man, but that cannot be said on this occasion. The men whose interests we are now endeavouring to protect are small, hardworking, struggling settlers, who are doing a useful service to the State by turning waste lands into productive orchards. I should be prepared to vote for the free admission of these goods, if necessary, and I certainly support the request for the reduction of duty.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– The Tariff Board, in its report on spray pumps, states -

  1. The board is satisfied that the quality of the Australian product of the types under consideration is good, and that they give satisfaction to users.
  2. Although these goods are in very general use and the public enquiry was widely advertised, no witnesses appeared in opposition to the request for increased duty.

Why were not Senator J. B. Hayes, Senator Guthrie, and the Leader of the Country party (Senator Johnston) present at the inquiry ? The report continues -

  1. Prior to 20th June, 1930, the bulk of Australian requirements was imported.
  2. Evidence available to the board confidentially indicates that the operations of the Australian manufacturers under these rates (1921-30 tariff) could not be regarded as reasonably profitable.
  3. A considerable amount of labour is involved in the production of these goods. ,
  4. Notwithstanding that the existing pro tection by the way of duty under the customs tariff, and the abnormal charges at present operating have been more than are necessary to protect the Australian manufacturers, evidence shows that such manufacturers have not taken undue advantage of the position to exploit users. On the contrary, the indications are that the Australian manufacturers have endeavoured to supply a high quality product at a reasonable price, and that users have derived advantage from the existence of local industry. 7.It is evident that under normal conditions as to exchange and other charges incidental to importing, the duties provided by the customs tariff, . 1921-30, viz., 20 per cent. (British tariff), 35 per cent. (General tariff), would not adequately protect the local industry.
  5. The Tariff Board regards the industry as worthy of encouragement.

The following is a comparison of prices in Australia and overseas: -

Evidently those who opposed the present duties would like to see the Australian orchardists paying twice as much for spray pumps and atomizers as they are paying now. The board reported that, not only was the price of the Australianmade article lower than that at which similar articles were being sold abroad, but that the quality was better. It also pointed out that the industry furnished employment to Australian workers at satisfactory rates of pay. I have not heard Senator J. B. Hayes say that the price of zinc should he reduced, or that the duty on carbide is too high, yet he is not prepared to assist secondary industries on the mainland. Honorable senators of the Country party are fond of saying that Parliament should be guided in tariff matters by the Tariff Board, but in this instance, the board has recommended in favour of the retention of the present duties. My vote will be recorded in support of an Australian industry that employs men who spend their wages in Australia. The workers in this industry buy the fruit grown by the orchardists who use the spray pumps. I suspect that honorable senators who are opposed to the present rates of duty are merely hoping to create a favorable impression among the orchardists in their State, with a view to winning their votes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is not in. order in imputing motives of that kind to honorable senators.

Senator DUNN:

– Then I withdraw the statement. If honorable senators are proposing to use Hansard as a medium for the cold storage of their opinions until next election, good luck to them, but I have a right to expect that they should be at least consistent in their attitude to the Tariff Board. They should not say on one occasion that the Government should accept the recommendations of the board, and on another that those recommendations should be ignored.

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

– Since December, 1932, when the Tariff Board made the report to which the honorable senator has referred, the board has again considered the position of the industry with a view to subdividing the items, on some of which, I admit, the amount of protection now afforded may not be necessary. The board expressed the opinion that the present rates of duty provided for reasonable competition between Australian and United Kingdom manufacturers. No hand spray pumps have come in for a considerable time, and the board commended the fourteen Australian manufacturers of these goods for their efficiency, and for keeping faith with the public with regard to prices.

Senator Elliott:

– The duty is so high that pumps manufactured abroad cannot compete with the local article.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– That is so in some cases.

Senator Elliott:

– Then evidently the increased duty is not required.

Senator McLACHLAN:

-Do honorable senators propose to. set themselves up as a dissecting body to undertake the task of determining what particular duties shall apply to such articles as spray pumps and garden syringes? Should we not be dealing with the matter in rather an unscientific way if we endeavoured to determine such details without having all the facts before us? Australia requires spray pumps to the value of about £50,000 annually, and the fact that no complaint has reached the board from the representatives of the fruit-growers concerning the goods supplied by the local manufacturers, shows that the latter are not taking an unfair advantage of the tariff.

Senator Crawford:

– Apparently, there is a good deal of local competition.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– That is so. Since the committee preferred this request, the department has decided that lower duties could be applied to some of the items, but the Government will stand by the recommendation of the Tariff Board.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– It is true, as pointed out by Senator Dunn, that a study of the price lists issued by reputable firms in the United Kingdom and New Zealand shows that the Australian prices are about the same, or perhaps a little lower, and are similar to those charged in the United States of America. This fact appears to provide a ray of hope that Australian secondary industries may be able to compete in the markets of the world. The Tariff Board, in its report issued about two years ago, stated that Australian orchardists were obtaining good spray pumps from the local manufacturers at lower prices than those at which similar goods could be obtained from overseas; therefore, 1 cannot understand why heavy duties are desired. The only conclusion at which I can arrive is that the local manufacturers wish to keep the Australian market entirely to themselves. The original duties of 45 per cent. British and 65 per cent, general are prohibitive. When I discussed this matter with a representative of one of the leading manufacturers of these goods, whose factory is situated at Petersham, New South Wales, he was unable to give me a satisfactory explanation of why heavy duties were needled. He merely said. “We want the Australian market to ourselves.” Duties of 20 per cent. British, and 37-^ per cent, general ought to be sufficient, and would keep the local industry in a healthy condition. I trust that the committee will adhere to its previous decision.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I was twitted with having shown no practical sympathy with the fruitgrowers, but I point out, that for about seventeen years I was an orchardist. Although for four of those years I was’ a member of the Senate, for the remainder of the period I did most of the work on the orchard, and therefore, am familiar with the difficulties of fruitgrowers. It is unreasonable to. suggest that the success or failure of the industrydepends on whether an extra shilling or two has to be paid for a hand spray pump. The arguments advanced by those who oppose the higher duties, are contradictory. In one instance we are told that the rates should be reduced in order that the Australian fruit-growers may receive cheaper pumps. On the other hand, they admit that in countries where the industry is not protected similar pumps are considerably- dearer than in

Australia. It follows, therefore, that a reduction of the duty would not mean cheaper pumps for Australian orchardists^ We should not regard the Tariff Board as an extra parliamentary body whose reports should, in every instance, be accepted; but if we are not in agreement with the board in respect to any particular item, we should bo able to expose the weakness of its case. Honorable senators who are pressing the request have not brought forward any argument to show that, in tins matter, the board is in error, so we must assume that the manufacturers are not profiting unduly from the protection given to them.

Senator Sampson:

– Why the need for such heavy duties?

Senator RAE:

– If the existing protection were withdrawn importing firms would be able to destroy the Australian industry, and, having done that, would be free to raise their prices against’ Australian users of spray pumps. This has happened over and over again in the history of Australian industries. Therefore, instead of its being a crime for local manufacturers to seek to obtain the whole of the Australian market, it is really a reasonable and businesslike course. The population of Australia, being so limited, it is essential that local manufacturers should be assured of the greater part of the market so as to expand production, and market their goods at competitive prices. If, owing to unrestricted competition from manufacturers in Great Britain or the United States of America, they had only a small portion of the Australian market, they could not be expected to produce at present prices, and it would not be long before the industry would be destroyed. I admit that the fruit-growing industry is in a bad way, largely because of the perishable nature of the output, the prices being so low that, in some cases, no income is provided for the growers. On numerous occasions earlier in my life, I ploughed in large quantities of beautiful lemons, which, had they been marketed, would not have ‘ returned me the cost of the cases and selling agents’ commission. Yet much inferior fruit was, at that time, selling in Sydney at a fairly good price. The difficulty with the fruit-growing industry is the enormous gap between the price receivedby the grower and the price paid by the consumer.

Senator BADMAN:
South Australia

– This debate seems to be largely concerned with the question of profits and losses. Apparently, the Government is determined, with the support of the Opposition, to ensure high profits for the manufacturers of spray . pumps, and heavy losses for fruit-growers. I fail to understand the reasons why the Government is not pressing the Senate’s request on this item. The figures quoted by the Minister (Senator McLachlan) show that piunps manufactured locally are being sold more cheaply than the imported article. This being the case, there is no need for a high rate of duty. Apparently, the Government litis made up its mind that” the profits of the manufacturer must be guarded without regard to the position of the fruitgrower. I was surprised that Senator Hoare should support the Government in this matter, because a large number of fruit-growers in a small way in South Australia are affected by this duty. We are told that the local market is the best market, but if, as has been the case during the last two or three years, fruit-growers are suffering losses both at home and abroad, the local market is no better than the overseas market. Senator Rae sought to justify the establishment of the smaller industries in Australia by arguing that they provide employment and keep down prices. I do not agree with him. The establishment of so many minor industries on an uneconomic basis has a very seriouseffect on other Australian industries. If a small manufacturer is making a decent living, others set up in competition with him, and it is not long before they come together to make representations for higher protection, thus enabling them to increase prices.

Senator Rae:

– That cannot be said of the industry affected by this item, because its product is being retailed at a price below that of the cost of the imported article.

Senator BADMAN:

– On the honorable senator’s own showing, the duty should be abolished. The real test should be the ability of Australian manufacturers to compete with overseas manufacturers.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– A little while ago, the Minister (Senator McLachlan) waxed eloquent in support of the Ottawa agreement, one article of which provides that the Commonwealth Government shall impose such rates of duty as will enable British manufacturers to market their products’ in Australia on a competitive basis. Can the Minister say that, in respect of this item, British manufacturers will have that opportunity?

Senator McLachlan:

– When the Tariff . Board presented its report on this industry, it considered that the existing rate was competitive.

Senator CARROLL:

– The Minister’s statement comes as a surprise to me, because the considered opinion of the Tariff Board is not borne out by other evidence which has been placed before us. Therefore I am forced to the conclusion that, in respect of this item, the British manufacturers have not the opportunity to market their products in Australia on a competitive basis.

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

– It is only fair that I should explain that this industry was examined by the Tariff Board ‘before the Ottawa agreement was made. There has been no inquiry since then. The suggestion that the Australian manufacturers are making big profits at the expense of the fruit-growers is not borne out by the facts. The requirements of the Australian market are estimated at about £50,000 per annum, and there are fourteen firms manufacturing spray pumps. . If all shared the market equally, each would be receiving about £4,000 per annum, which would not allow of huge profits after allowing for the costs of raw material and wages. It is because they have the Australian market that they are able to manufacture this article so cheaply.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– Some honorable senators have argued that, because this item affects a minor industry, the request should not be pressed. But is it not possible that this duty is regarded by fruit-growers as equivalent to the last straw which, we have been told, broke the camel’s back? Fruit-growers and other primary producers, suffering as they are, from a multiplicity of tariff and other taxation burdens, naturally feel that some relief should be afforded them by the removal of a portion of the excessive protection given to a number of secondary industries. That the tariff has not, as has been contended, been framed on scientific lines, is plain from the number of inconsistencies .in the rates of duty on such goods as internal combustion engines and rabbit traps. When the present schedule is ratified, it will publish to the world the matured opinion of this Parliament, that the rate of duty required for the protection of an Australian manufacturer of an internal combustion engine, is also necessary for the manufacture of such a simple article as a rabbit trap. It is claimed that duties of 45 per cent. British and 65 per cent, general are necessary to protect the industry. Australian manufacturers have become accustomed to such high protective duties that we shall have to remodel our ideas of what are reasonable rates. Some years ago a duty of 25 per cent, was considered exorbitant, but rates have now soared to such an extent that in many instances the protection amounts to approximately 10.0 per cent, when all charges are brought to account. Let us study the subject from another angle. Unnecessarily high duties affect primary producers struggling to hold their own against overseas competition. The fruit-growers have not any protection when their product is placed alongside, similar products from other countries in the London and Hamburg markets. They- are handicapped not only by excessive competition, but also by exorbitant duties on many of the commodities that they require. The duties are imposed to support those engaged in secondary production in Australia. Fruitgrowers conduct their operations on light soil that is unsuitable for dairying, or wheat-growing. Land with a clay subsoil that is too poor for almost any other purpose can be used for fruit-growing. Those producing fruit are using the waste lands of this country.

Senator Rae:

– That is quite right.

Senator LYNCH:

– Even Senator Rae will support me to that extent, and I hope that he will also support me in opposing this motion. Senator Rae also knows that fruit-growers are recruited from the ranks of working men, who, by diligence and thrift, have been able to save sufficient to purchase land and to engage in business on their own account. Yet these men are called upon to pay a duty of 45 per cent, to help Australian manufacturers. According to the annual report of the Federal Commissioner of Taxation, the total taxable income of primary producers, including fruit-growers, in 1918, was £12,000,000. What is their taxable income to-day? Only about £2,000,000 remains. For every £5 of taxable income in 1918, there is les3 than £1 to-day. What has happened to the manufacturing interests which, in this instance, are asking for a duty of 45 per cent.? In 1918, their taxable income was approximately £2,000,000, but to-day it is £9,000,000. The Senate has the responsible duty to request’ the reduction of customs imposts and thus assist primary producers. The secondary industries are receiving too much assistance, and are not shouldering their share of the burden. Many primary producers are broken in spirit and in pocket, because the tariff is not properly balanced. I oppose the motion.

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

.- Whatever may be the result of the division - the Government Whip does not seem to be at all uneasy - I submit that it will not be carried in favour of the Government by the force of the arguments employed. Senator Carroll referred to one aspect, which he said had not been mentioned up to the present, and that is the relation of these duties to the Ottawa agreement, under one of the articles of which we undertook to extend to British manufacturers reasonable opportunity of fair competition. The Minister (Senator McLachlan) has admitted that information obtained by the Trade and Customs Department since this matter was last before the Senate, has led it to the conclusion that Australian manufacturers of these articles could succeed with lower duties than they now actually enjoy, and, apparently, could also succeed under the duties requested by this chamber. Of course, if the figures supplied to Senator Sampson are accurate, it is clear that they could succeed without any protection at all. It does not appear to me to be carrying out the spirit of the

Ottawa agreement to persist in retaining extremely high duties. Honorable senators do not wish to dispense with the duties altogether. As Senator Lynch stated, a few years ago duties of 20 per cent. British and 37½ per cent, general would have been regarded as excessive. Yet, to-day, those engaged in the manufacture of spray pumps contend that they require duties of 45 per cent. British and 65 per cent. general.

Senator McLachlan:

– As spray pumps are not being imported, and the Tariff Board has been instructed to examine the matter further, what harm has been done?

Senator BRENNAN:

– I cannot rest assured that no harm has been done if the rates of duty are so high as to prohibit importations. Until quite recently, a protectionist, however ardent he might claim to be, did not favour absolute prohibition. We now find that advocates of’ prohibition of imports are quite common. They say, “ We want the local market to ourselves,” and that is another way of demanding prohibition. But, sooner or later, harm must result from this policy. When cut off from world competition, there is no pressure on manufacturers to keep down prices. In the absence of competition, the Australian manufacturers will be able to do those things which Senator Rae said are done by the importers. Instead of competition among local manufacturers, we shall have combination.

Senator Rae:

– Is there not a combination amongst the importers?

Senator BRENNAN:

– If I accept the assurance of Senator Rae, and the information I have seen in the press, that is always happening, but I do not believe it. There may be combination with respect to some patented articles, but with a free market, we are not likely to have a combination of inporters to regulate prices. There is another comment which I should like to make which relates not specifically to this item, but to other items which we have discussed. So far as we know no arguments were adduced in the House of Representatives why the duties originally proposed by the Government and adopted in that chamber should stand. After a long debate in this chamber, a request was carried that the duties on this item should be reduced from 45 per cent. British and 65 per cent, general to 20 per cent. British and 37½ general. So far as I know that request did not receive proper consideration, as the Minister in another place simply moved that the requested alteration of duty be not made. Up to the. present, no requests made by the Senate, except those initiated by the Government, have been accepted by the House of Representatives. In my opinion, it behoves the Senate, as abody possessing constitutional powers, to press its claims more strongly.

Senator McLachlan:

-This matter has been referred to the Tariff Board again. Is that not a good reason for not pressing the request at this stage?

Senator BRENNAN:

– That might be so if there were any doubt regarding the unfairness of the present duties, but the evidence is overwhelming, and it is even admitted by the manufacturers themselves, that the duties are excessive. Therefore, I urge honorable senators to press the request.

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Senator J. B. Hayes.)

AYES: 16

NOES: 16

AYES

NOES

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The “Ayes” and “Noes” being equal, the question is resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Item 194-

Chain and chains of base metal, viz.: -

  1. ) Wrought iron and steel, composed of welded links manufactured from metal½ inch in diameter and over, ad valorem, British, free; general, 15 per cent.

Senate’s request -

Insert new paragraph -

  1. Plough and trace chain, ad valorem. British, free; general, 15 . per cent..

House ofRepresentative’s message - Not made.

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

– I move -

That the request be not pressed.

The facts obtained in connexion with this industry indicate that while the present rate of exchange is in operation, users would not obtain chains any cheaper if the duty were reduced. The adoption of the request would divide the market between importers and the local manufacturers. This would probably injure an industry which, although not large, appears to be operating economically. It provides an outlet for Australian steel, furnishes employment for twenty persons, and supplies good quality chain at reasonable prices.

Request No. 26, which gave effect to the rates of 27½ per cent. British, and 45 per cent, general on plough and trace chain and chains, as recommended by the Tariff Board, was agreed to by the House of Representatives. These rates are not high when ‘the difference between wages and other production costs in Australia and those in other countries is taken into consideration. All the available information shows that prices are reasonable, and that the industry is operating efficiently. The committee is, therefore, asked not to press the request.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– When this request was first moved in the Senate, Senator McLachlan apparently recognized its justice, and accepted it without protest. For a long time, plough and trace chains were admitted free from Britain, while a duty of 15 per cent, was imposed on those imported from foreign countries. Then they were placed in item 325a, under which the duties were 45 per cent. British, and 65 per cent, general. The Senate’s request was that the duties should again be free British, and 15 per cent, general. Item 325a covers chains made partly of leather, and though I was told that all plough and trace chains had been placed in that item, I am prepared to believe that the information was incorrect, and that the item really covered only those plough and trace chains which contained, some leather. The Minister said that twenty persons wore employed in this industry in Australia. Plough and trace chains are used by primary producers and others from one end of the continent to the other, and it is the wish of the Government to tax them for the benefit of twenty workers.

Senator Barnes:

– Imported chains are made by women under slavery conditions in Great Britain.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I have no information on that point, and, until the contrary is proved, I am prepared to believe that workers in this industry in Great Britain are properly treated. Most of the plough and trace chains used in Australia are imported , from Great Britain, and a duty of 27½ per cent, has to be paid on them.

Senator McLachlan:

– No plough or trace chains have been imported into Australia for years.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– They are durable articles, and last for a long time, but as new supplies are needed they will have to be imported, and they should be admitted free from Great Britain. So far, no requests of the Senate for reduced duties, except those moved by the Minister in charge of the bill, have been accepted by the House of Representatives, even though, as in the present instance, the request was made unanimously. Even the most reasonable requests have been treated in arrogant fashion by the House of Representatives. We should stand firmly on this matter.

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The committee divided. ( Temporary Chairman - Senator J. B. Hayes.)

AYES: 16

NOES: 14

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Item 215-

Saws n.e.i., ad valorem - British, 45 per cent. : general,65 per cent.

Senate’s request: - Makethe duty ad valorem - British. 15 per cent.; general, 35 per cent.

House of Representatives’ message. - Made with the following modification: -

Item made to read - 215. Saws, viz. : -

  1. Inserted tooth circular saws, ad valorem - British, free; general, 15 per cent. (b)N.E.I. ad valorem - British, 45 per cent.; general,65 per cent.

Motion (by Senator McLachlan) proposed -

That the modificationbe agreed to.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I regret that the Government has not accepted the duties requested at the instance of Senator Sampson, who desired to reduce the rates for all saws to free British, and 35 per cent. general. The timber industry has suffered, probably, more than any other from the general depression, because the building trade has been inactive, and the local demand for timber has fallen to a negligible quantity. Overseas countries have not been taking the usual supplies of Australian timbers. In Western Australia it has been almost impossible to find a market for karri, and the local mills have been working on short time for the last three or four years. Only lately has the trade in jarrah improved slightly. Most of the saws required by the millers are imported, and they have to be replaced frequently. The well organized and efficient timber industry ordinarily affords much employment at good wages, and I trust that the committee will adhere to its previous decision.

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

. - This item includes circular saws, which are tools of trade in the timber-milling industry. It was contended that the cost of a circular saw today is about half as much again as it was prior to the introduction of the Scullin tariff, and that the duties had placed a severe impost on this industry. When this item was last dealt with by the Senate the Tariff Board had not submitted its report. The report has since been received, and when the request was having attention in the House of Representatives, an amendment was made at the instance of the Government which brought the item into line with the Tariff Board’s findings. This item covers principally the blades of circular saws for both wood and metal, band saws, and gang saws. The board ascertained that capital amounting to approximately £30,000 is invested, and employment is given to 40 workers, who annually produce saws to the value of £17,000, which is equivalent, to 70 per cent, of the total demand. Of the Australian production, 86 per cent. comprises circular saws. The Tariff Board was satisfied as to the efficiency of the industry in general, and considered that the rates recommended by it are necessary for the continuance of the manufacture of saws in Australia. The modified rates provide for the five admission from the United Kingdom of inserted tooth circular saws, which are of a type not manufactured in Australia. As the Tariff Board has submitted a recommendation since the Senate last dealt with this item, and this recommendation has been adopted by the House of Representatives, I ask honorable senators to accept the modification.

Motion agreed to.

Item 220-

Traps, viz: -

And on and after 9th March, 1933 -

Rabbit, ad valorem, British 45 per cent.; general, 65 per cent.; or, per dozen, general, 5s. whichever rate returns the higher duty. Senate’s request. - Make the duty ad valorem, British, 30 per cent.; general, 50 per cent.

House of Representatives’ message - Not made.

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

. - I move -

That the request be not pressed.

This request was submitted by Senator Sampson after two other requests for lower duties had been defeated. The reasons advanced for requesting lower duties were: - (1) To obtain lower prices for traps. (2) To give effect to the competitive level provided for in the Ottawa agreement.

The report of the Tariff Board shows that the industry is one for which Australian conditions as regards demand are suited. Local manufacturers make the class of traps required by the market of both the wire spring and the flat spring types. Practically all the raw materials used are of Australian origin. The capacity of Australian factories is sufficient to supply all demands, the local manufacture is efficient; and the users of the traps are not penalized. Some doubt was raised as to whether the Tariff Board’s recommendation regarding these goods complies with the Ottawa agreement. A passage in the board’s report in the following terms has perhaps given rise to such doubt : -

The selling price to the trade of the Australianmade trap exceeds the landed coat duty free par exchange of the cheapest heavier type British trap by only four and one-sixth per cent… but it exceeds the corresponding landed cost of the “ Star and Crescent “ light British trap by 53 per cent.

This matter was taken up with the Tariff Board, which replied in the following terms : -

The board recognizes that the duty of 45 per cent. is a higher protection than is necessary against the heavier traps but there is a lighter and cheaper trap being manufactured in the United Kingdom. The board’s report (page 6 of printed copy) indicates that the selling price to the trade ofthe Australian-made trap exceeds the landed cost duty free par exchange of this light weight trap by 53 per cent. This trap, although not equal in quality to the Australian, could compete after paying the rate ofduty recommended by the board. If the duty were lower than that recommended by the board, competition would be unduly in favour of the imported line.

This shows that in respect of the kind of trap in general demand, that is the trap of the light type, the present duties express the competitive levelso far as British manufacturers are concerned. The Tariff Board’s report on this industry is comprehensive, and the whole of the findings of the board indicate that the local manufacturers are efficiently producing traps and selling them at prices very much below those operating prior to the imposition of the higher duties. The request was for a reduction of 15 per cent. The exchange adjustment proposals operate in respect to this item, and the British preferential tariff is at present reduced by111/4 per cent., making it 333/4 per cent. About 150 persons are receiving employment in the “manufacture of these articles locally. This industry has been of benefit to the users of these goods, and, in view of this fact, I ask honorable senators not to press the request.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– When this matter was previously under our consideration, two other honorable senators submitted proposals for reductions of the duties, and eventually a request moved by me was accepted by the Government ; but I am wondering whether the Ministry made a serious attempt to induce the House of Representatives to agree to it. The duties of 30 per cent. and 50 per cent., even allowing for the exchange adjustment, are almost prohibitive, and I urge the committee to press the request.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– The Minister mentioned the interesting fact that . 150 employees were engaged in the manufacture of rabbit traps. The Government’s attitude regarding these duties is rather surprising. On the one hand we have three firms employing 150 persons, and their factories are situated, I understand, in Sydney. On the other hand, applications for reductions of the duties have been received from the Sydney Chamber of Commerce, the Graziers, Farmers and Settlers, and Retail Traders Associations of New South Wales, the Producers Advisory Council, and the Fruit Growers Federation of New South Wales. Apparently the Government regards the claims of these bodies as deserving of little or no consideration by comparison with the interests of three local manufacturers who have 150 employees, despite the fact, as Senator Kingsmill recently remarked, that the primary producers are engaged in a battle with the direst opponent that the pastoral and wheat-growing industries have ever encountered. We should not sacrifice the interests of the country people in an attempt to benefit a few men employed in the manufacture of rabbit traps. The Minister’s reply to that is, “ This duty will place no burden on the pastoral industry “. I should like to hear him offer that explanation of his present attitude to the members of the Stockowners Association in his own State. I have a very good idea of what their reply would be. He says, further, that the duty will invite competition. What competition? lt is not necessary to labour this matter. We have to consider whether the interests of about 150 employees in the cities, including possibly a fair proportion of boys and girls, should come before the interests of the whole of the pastoralists in the Commonwealth and the need for destroying, as Senator Kingsmill has said, one of the most destructive pests in Australia. When I was speaking on this item before, I mentioned also that a large number of unemployed, rather than remain in the cities drawing sustenance allowance, purchased a few traps and went out into the country districts to earn a little money by catching rabbits. The interests of these people also’ are affected by this duty. I can understand a party or an individual standing for a principle; but when it benefits only a handful of people, and is harmful to the interests of thousands of our chief producers, and of a great number of the poorest people in the Commonwealth, the principle becomes a farce. A few years ago I accompanied a rabbit-trapper out in the country to see what, he could do.

Senator Dunn:

– Did the -honorable senator catch any rabbits?

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– No ; but I saw this man, with his bare hands, catch a fully-grown live rabbit and put it info his sack. If, by the retention of this high duty, the price of rabbit traps become prohibitive, and if, as the result of the increase of rabbits, our principal industries collapse, even Senator Dunn and I may become so expert with

Our hands that wo shall not need traps to catch rabbits.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I hope that the Senate will press its request. The rabbit pest has never been so bad as it is to-day. In Western Australia, rabbits are now a grave menace to all primary producers. Why should pastoralists and farmers who wish to use. British traps be required to pay a duty of 45 per cent, on them, especially when clog traps, and rat and mouse traps are free. Why this discrimination against country people? Why should mouse and rat traps, which are used by householders in the cities, be admitted free from Great Britain, and rabbit traps, which are required to keep clown a pest that is threatening the pastoral industry,’ be dutiable at 45 per cent. British and 65 per cent, general? I have a very keen recollection of the debate which took place in this chamber a few weeks ago on this item. On that occasion Senator Duncan-Hughes’s requested amendment that rabbit traps be free in the British tariff was not accepted by the Government, but it accepted a request, moved by Senator Sampson at the suggestion of one of the Ministers, for a duty of 30 per cent. British and 50 per cent, general. Are we to understand that Senate Ministers were overruled when this matter came before Cabinet? I urge them now to support those honorable senators who believe that the Senate’s request should be pressed to display a little backbone for once in tariff matters, and stand up for principles which they advocated on the hustings. The duty on rabbit traps is important, because the rabbit pest is costing the primary producers millions of pounds yearly, and as they have to sell their products in the open market, they should have an opportunity to get their requirements, including rabbit traps, at a reasonable price.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

– I hope that the Senate will press its request, because rabbit traps are necessary to keep down the pest in all country districts. If they were cheaper, many more of the unemployed would be able to make a living catching rabbits. The reduction of the wool clip this year by approximately 450,000 bales was due, in part, to the increase of rabbits, which ate the sweeter grasses, and to the drought, the combination of which resulted in heavy mortality of sheep and lighter fleeces. If we could get rid of the rabbits, Australia would probably be able to carry another 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 sheep, and the added wealth from the sale of the increased clip would be of enormous advantage to the nation. Despite the high price of wool, sheep are almost unsaleable in many pastoral areas, largely because of t,ho increase of the rabbit pest. I have never seen rabbits more numerous in some districts than they are now, and I regret to state that they are increasing at an alarming rate. As drought conditions are developing in the drier central areas, the rabbits aro moving towards the south, and are eating out all the better grasses. Very few people understand how real is the menace and how important it is that the duty on rabbit traps should be lower. If the duty were abolished altogether rabbit traps would be procurable at a more reasonable price and larger numbers of our unemployed, especially in country districts, would bo able to make a living at trapping rabbits.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- I was pleased to hear Senator johnston speak so kindly of Senate Ministers a few minutes ago. The improved relations are probably due to the joint meeting of the United Australia party and the Country party this morning. Evidently it was a step in the right direction. In order that this feeling of goodwill between representatives of the parties may continue, I intend to vote with the honorable senator on this item. There is no more justification for imposing a high duty on the traps necessary for the extermination of rabbits, which, as Sena tor Guthrie has told us, are eating out the richer grasses in all pastoral areas, than there is for putting a duty on cactoblastus imported for the destruction of the prickly pear. In recent years, rabbits have taken possession of large areas of pastoral country, and hundreds of nien, who have been thrown out of work, have been trapping rabbits for a living rather than remain iti the cities and larger towns drawing sustenance. I agree with Senator Duncan-Hughes that we should not place the interests of a small section of the community, such as those employed in the manufacture of rabbit traps, before the interests of the primary producers. Traps should be obtainable at the lowest possible price in order to encourage the destruction of rabbits, which are causing such enormous damage in this country. I trust that the advice of Senator Johnston will not fall upon deaf ears, and that a majority of honorable senators will insist upon a reduction of duties.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I anticipated that this moderate request would have been readily accepted by the House of Representatives. To-day, rabbits are destroying not only valuable stock grasses, but also the mulga foliage, upon which cattle sometimes hare to depend, for fodder. When in Central Australia a little while ago I passed through country where miles of mulga scrub had been destroyed by rabbits which, when unable to obtain any other food, climbed the trees and devoured the bark and leaves. During periods of drought in that locality the only stock fodder available is that provided by mulga scrub which in some places has been totally destroyed by rabbits. Some honorable senators favour the free admission of dog traps, but the damage done by rabbits is infinitely greater than that done by wild dogs.- If dog traps are admitted free from Great Britain, why should we impose a duty of 45 per cent, on rabbit traps? Trappers need at least 100 traps, and, if an unnecessarily high duty is imposed, many men are prevented from earning an honest living. Good rabbit traps are made in Australia, but there is no reason why such a prohibitive duty should be imposed on importations. I shall oppose the motion.

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

– I should not have spoken on this item but for the extraordinary statement of SenatorFoll, that as no restriction is placed on the introduction of cactoblastus, used in the destruction of the prickly pear pest, high protective duties should not be imposed on traps used to combat the rabbit pest. , Surely the honorable senator realizes that the introduction of the cactoblastus does not interfere with an Australian industry. It is an insult to our intelligence to contend that the rabbit traps made in Australia are not as good as those produced in Great Britain or elsewhere. This pest can be destroyed by other means than trapping. They can be poisoned or dug out of their warrens, and on one occasion I saw a rabbit-catcher with 40 dogs of various breeds assisting him. The rabbit was introduced from Great Britain 70 years ago, but it is not the only pest we have received from that country. Amongst others are the fox and prickly pear. After years of costly research, it was discovered that the cactoblastus was effective for the destruction of prickly pear, which had already covered 30,000,000 acres in Australia. We do not now import supplies of cactoblastus, but breed what is required here.

We have had the rabbit pest with us for more than 70 years, and, surely, after all that time, we should be able to make our own rabbit traps. I admit that we cannot make battleships or big steamships, or some forms of machinery, but I see no reason why we cannot make rabbit traps. It is a reflection on our intelligence and industry to suggest that we cannot. The fact is that Senator Foll knows very little of conditions in the back-blocks of Australia, and I hope that honorable senators will not allow themselves to be impressed by what he says. In this instance, the Senate ought to accept the decision of the House of Representatives, where there are 75 members, many of whom are just as concerned for the welfare of the pastoral industry as are members in this chamber. We should give a full measure of protection to this Australian industry against the products of any other country whatsoever.

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 0

N oes . . . . . . 17

Majority . . 2

In division:

AYES

NOES

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon Herbert Hays:
TASMANIA

– There are officers in the House whose duty it is to guard the doors when I order them to be locked. If they make no complaint that the doors have been forced, I cannot do other than regard all honorable members who are in the chamber as being eligible to vote.

Senator Dunn:

– I ask you to inquire of the doorkeeper whether the door was pushed open.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Honorable senators will have an opportunity after the division is taken to enter an objection. If the objection is upheld, the division will have to be taken again. In the meantime. I rule that all honorable senators who have voted were eligible to vote.

Senator Cox:

– I say that you are wrong, Mr.Chairman. If I am permitted to do so under the Standing Orders, I ask that the ruling of the President be obtained on this point.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator will be within his rights in objecting to my ruling. He must present his objection in writing.

Sitting suspended from 6.23 to 8 p.m.

Senator Dunn:

– I move dissent from your ruling, Mr. Chairman. Standing Order 171 states -

No senatorshall be entitled to vote in any division unless present within the Bar when the question is put with the doors locked; and the vote of any senator not so present shall be disallowed.

When the division bells had ceased ringing, you ordered the attendants to lock the doors. During the locking of the doors, Senators Payne and Plain forced their way into the chamber.

Senator Payne:

– That statement is not in accordance with fact.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have already ruled that for the purpose of taking the vote, Senators Plain and Payne were in the chamber and entitled to vote inasmuch as the doors were not locked. Perhaps the business would be expedited if I left the Chair, and stated the reasons for my ruling to the President, who could then determine the point that has been raised.

Senator McLachlan:

– Much as I would like to succeed in the division, I submit that we must follow the usual parliamentary practice. The only question at issue is one of fact. You, Mr. Chairman,have found as a fact that Senators Payne and Plain were in the chamber before the doors were locked. You can be the only judge of that question of fact, and as you have ruled that the two honorable senators were in the chamber notwithstanding the manner in which they arrived - one of them somewhat precipitately - it hardly seems competent for an honorable senator to dissent from that decision.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The only question to be decided was as to whether the doors were locked for the purpose of taking the division. Obviously they were not locked. Does the word “locked” in Standing Order 171 mean “locked and bolted”? I say that it does. It is my duty to afford to each honorable senator every facility to exercise his vote, and until the doors are locked, every honor able senator has the right to enter this chamber. Ordinarily, the doors of the Senate are closed, and it is impossible for an honorable senator to know whether they are merely closed or locked until he tests them. It is clear that in this case the doors were not locked, and I think that I shall have the support of every honorable senator in saying that Senators Payne and Plain were properly in the chamber and entitled to exercise their votes. DoesSenator Dunn persist in his objection to my ruling?

Senator Dunn:

– I withdraw it.

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Item 320- (c)…..

  1. Exposed or developed films -

    1. Other -

  2. Other negative film and other film imported for purposes of copying, per lineal foot - British, free; general,1s.

Senate’s request. - Make the duty, per lineal foot, general, 4d., and add new clause to sub-paragraph (c) -

  1. Film exposed in any territory of the Commonwealth - British, free; general, free.

House of Representatives’ message. - Made with the following modification : -

Clause (2) - The duty, general tariff, made - 8d.

Clause (4) - The date “On and after14th October, 1932 “ has been inserted.

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

– I move -

That the modification be agreed to.

Honorable senators will observe that it has been decided partially to meet the request that the duty under the general tariff on feature films for copying purposes be reduced from1s. to 4d. per lineal foot. The request has been modified to make the duty 8d. a lineal foot. There is little need to recapitulate the whole of the circumstances surrounding this matter, as it was fully discussed when the bill was before the Senate some months ago. I shall, therefore, content myself with stating a few of the salient facts which prompted the Government to decide to adopt the modified rate of 8d. a lineal foot on foreign feature films. The reduction from1s. to 4d. a foot would have involved a loss of revenue to the amount of £76,000. The modified rate of Sd. ‘ will halve this loss, but will return £81,000 less revenue than the average annual collections during the five years ended the 30th- June, 1930, that is, before the rate was increased to 4d. a foot. Although, according to film distributors, rentals fell from £2,095,000 in 1929-30 to £1,391,000 in 1931-32, representing a percentage redaction of 34 per cent., duty collected on films fell from £295,000 t© £57,000 during the same period, a percentage reduction of 81 per cent. The duty collected on cinematograph films during the peak year of 1929-30 represented 14 per cent, of the rentals paid to exhibitors by distributors during that year; but the duty of £96,000, which it is anticipated will be collected at the modified rate of 8d. on. foreign feature film for copying purposes, and 4d. on other foreign film, represents only 7-J per cent, of the film rentals paid during 1932-33. The duty which the film industry is being asked to provide is thus much lower in proportion to film rentals than that paid in 1929-30 before the duty was increased to 4d. a foot.

The increase of the duty to 4d in July, 1930, which has been evaded, brought about the exemption from sales tax of film contracts. Besides evading the greater payment which it was anticipated would result from the increase of the duty to 4d. a foot, the distributors have also escaped sales tax which logically should have been paid on the film rentals. The Income Tax Assessment Act of 1930, provides that the taxable income of film distributors shall be deemed to be equivalent to 30 per cent, of the gross rentals received by them, but the Commisioner may vary such percentage as he thinks proper. Thus, if owing to the increased duties profits are substantially reduced, relief can be afforded from assessable income to the extent that the duty operates harshly. The extra duty should not result in any appreciable increase of film hire to exhibitors, the reasons being - (1) Film distributors’ charges have not been reduced commensurately with the fall in the commodity prices; (2) the easing of the exchange with the United States; (3) the provision in the Income Tax Act for distributors to claim relief from income tax if the duty operates harshly.

Even if the whole of the extra duty of 4d. a foot were passed on to exhibitors, the additional charge on the average film which screens for a week in the city would be in the case of city and suburban theatres, 2s. 4fd. for each screening; and in the case of country theatres, Hid. for each serening. If a double feature programme were provided, the charges would be 4s. 9d. and ls. lid. respectively. The additional charge would be considerably less on the better class of films which are screened in city theatres for twelve to sixteen weeks and sometimes longer periods. The local film printing industry will still” be adequately protected. The increased preference .accorded to British films in 1930 will be partially restored. I trust that, in view of this explanation, the committee will agree to the compromise.

Senator MILLEN:
Tasmania

– I hope that the committee will stand by its former decision. During the debate on this item when last it was before this chamber, there were some heated interchanges and references to certain propaganda, it being suggested that much of the information supplied to honorable senators was not strictly accurate. I have carefully examined the situation since then, and I am satisfied that the information then supplied was reliable. The Minister’s remarks to-night applied principally to film corporations and the larger theatres. Many picture theatre proprietors, including one at Launceston and others elsewhere in Tasmania import their own films. A duty of ls. a foot in the general tariff would be ruinous to them. Now it is proposed to make the duty 8d. When this subject was being discussed in the House of Representatives. the Government promised that an investigation would be made into the conditions of the industry. I therefore say that’, pending such investigation, the duty should remain at 4d. a foot. If the inquiry showed that this was not a fair impost, it would be a very simple matter for the Government to table a new schedule of duties in another place, and put the matter right.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I also hope that the committee will adhere to its former decision. A few weeks ago some honorable senators visited the laboratories of Automatic Films, Sydney, which company, I understand, has expended £25,000 on a f actory and plant for the duplication of films. Before it incurred this expenditure, it communicated with Mr. Bruce, who was then Prime Minister and temporarily Minister for Trade and Customs, asking for certain assurances. The following is a copy of the letter written by Mr. Leslie C. Wicks, the manager of the company, dated the 17 th July, 1928:-

Dear Sir,

I have been very carefully investigating the question of forming a company for the purpose of printing film in Australia.

For the last eighteen years I havebeen actively engaged in the film industry, and I feel that a properly organized business can be established, and that capital is available to carry out my project.

There is one difficulty, and that is, security of tenure. We do not desire or ask for a reduction in the existing duty on negative film, but I can assure you that if the Government will give an assurance that the duty will not be increased on negative film and also raw stock for five years, it will make it possible for quite a large industry to be established in Australia.

Long before the expiration of the five years, this Government increased the duty from 4d. a foot to1s. a foot -

If this assurance is available, we will immediately proceed with the business which will use all Australian labour and a large percentage of Australian-made machinery.

At the present time an Australian inventor has manufactured a machine which we propose using, and this will cost my company considerably over £1,000 for the one machine alone.

The capital of the proposed company will be £25,000.

As I am still engaged in the motion picture industry, I would like this matter to be quite confidential and would thank you for an early decision to my request, as it is imperative that the company be formed as quickly as possible.

To that letter, Mr. Bruce replied in the following terms, from Narrabri, which town he was visiting, on the 31st July, 1928 : -

Dear Sir,

I am in receipt of your letter with regard to the question of the formation of a company in Australia for the printing of films. It is, of course, impossible for any government to give an assurance over a period of years as to what will be done in regard to any tariff matter.

It is, however, in my opinion extremely unlikely that duties on negative films will be increased, as I cannot at the moment see any probability of the production in Australia of films to such an extent that this action would be warranted. You must, however, form your own opinion as to the future, as clearly I can give no pledge or undertaking of the character asked for by you.

Although Mr. Bruce made it quite clear that no assurances could be given, he stated reasons why it was extremely unlikely that the duties on negative films would be increased. In the circumstances, this company considered that it was fully justified in embarking upon the enterprise. When last this item was under consideration, the Senate decided, by 22 votes to 7, that the duty in the general tariff on imported film should be 4d. a foot and not1s. a foot as proposed in the House of Representatives. (Senate Ministers accepted the decision. What is the reason for their volte face? In regard to this item I feel disposed to repeat what theVice-President of the Executive Council (Senator McLachlan) has said on so many occasions when resisting requests for lower duties : “ This has been the duty for years and years, so why alter it?” For many years the duty on foreign films was 4d. a foot-. Why alter it now? If Ministers, two months ago, were in favour of a duty of1s. a foot, but now favour a duty of 8d. a foot, may we not be encouraged to hope that, if this committee stands firm, they will agree that 4d. a foot is the correct duty to impose? I am opposed to excessive duties on films which are the principal entertainment of a large proportion of the people of Australia.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– The situation that has developed in connexion with the duty on films indicates that a considerable amount of influence has been brought to bear to induce certain honorable senators to change their minds, and to vote for a duty of 8d. a foot on foreign films. It is clear that there has been a good deal of log-rolling, and, like the boy who fell out of the boat, I am “ all at sea “. When this item was being discussed in another place, the Postmaster-General (Mr. Parkhill) said that, as the result of a compromise with the Senate, the Government had agreed to the duty being fixed at Sd. a foot. I should like to know what senators were parties to that compromise, and what was the text of the messages that passed between the Senate Ministers and their colleagues in the House of Representatives in connexion with this matter. Nothing has been said, so far, to induce me to support the higher duty in the general tariff. “When the duty “on films was under consideration in the House of Representatives, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) said -

I am not concerned with making out a case for thu American subsidiary companies engaged in the distribution of films in Australia. They can look after themselves; but I am concerned with the exhibitors and their employees, and with those engaged in printing films in this country. I submit that an increase of the -rate from 4d. to (id. would be fair, in view of the fact that the duty was only 1-Ad. in 1028. It was next increased to 1¾d., and later to 3d. The Seullin Government increased the duty to 4d., and the present Government raised it to ls. The Minister said that he was anxious to help the industry, and that the Government proposed to give money prizes with this end in view.

I hold no brief for the American distributing companies. When the royal commission took evidence, 1 stated that Commonwealth legislation was required to deal with quotas and contracts between American branch distributing companies and the Australian exhibitors. According to their association, the exhibitors have been experiencing bad treatment at the hands of the American companies, but this is not the time to investigate that matter. No attempt should be made to prejudice the minds of honorable members by an attack on those companies.

Those are the companies which the VicePresident of the Executive Council attacked a few months ago in order to influence the votes of honorable senators. The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) said -

The film importers may be prepared to accept a duty of Gel. a foot, and not pass it on. The question of the effect of duties on unemployment has been mentioned. I should like to refrain from discussing this item from that angle, as my colleagues have already dealt with that aspect of the matter. Rather would I. stress the fact that picture shows are the chief entertainment of the poorer sections of the community, and that we should not make it more difficult for them to have this enjoy ment. We, in this party, believe that these duties would deprive them of this pleasure, and therefore we shall vote against the Government’s proposal.

The leaders of the two different sections of the Labour party in the House of Representatives agree that an unnecessarily high duty upon films would impose a heavy burden upon those whom they represent in this Parliament. On the 14th August last Messrs. Flack and Flack, chartered accountants, of 31 Macquarie-place, Sydney, despatched the following communication to the President of the Motion Pictures Distributors of Australia : -

At your request, we have summarized figures sent direct to us by the eight film companies which arc members of your association.

The figures purport to show the trading profits or losses on the companies, after charging income taxes us described hereunder, for each of the respective fiscal -years ended in 1930, 1931 and 1932, and up” to the latest possible date in 1933.

Deduction has been made for income taxes for which the companies are assessable. Where assessments have not yet been issued, estimate* of the taxes payable have been made, based on the latest assessments received.

Where assessments have been issued on the companies as agents for overseas corporations, under section 28a of the Federal Income Tax Act, tha amounts have been included willi taxes’ directly assessed on the member companies of the association.

After deducting income taxes in accordance with the foregoing, the combined operating results of the eight companies arc as under: -

On the 20th July the same firm submitted the following statement : -

Attention is drawn to the fact that it is not possible to show income tax payable in respect of the year ended 30th June, 1933, as returns have not yet been lodged with the various taxation departments, and assessments will not be issued for some time.

The above figures have been prepared from figures supplied to us by the member companies of the motion picture distributors of Australia.

The information contained in the documents from which I have just quoted contradicts the arguments advanced by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, who, I submit, endeavoured to mislead the committee. I decline to assist the Government to obtain additional revenue so that further remissions of taxes may be made in the interests of its wealthy supporters.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Question - That the modification be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 17

NOES: 10

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Item 340-

  1. Stationery, manufactured; bill files and letter clips; papers ruled or bordered by waterline or likewise; date cases and cards; albums of all kinds; cards and booklets, viz., printers’, menu, Christmas, and similar kinds; scraps; ink bottles; ink wells; ink stands; paper knives: memorandum slates and tablets; sealing and bottling wax; postcards n.e.i.; bookmarkers; writing desks (not being furniture); writing cases; stationery cases; paper binders; card hangers; pen racks; bookbinders’ staples, ad valorem, British, 45 per cent. ; general, 65 per cent.

Senate’s request -

Make the duty, ad valorem, British, 30 per cent.

House of Representatives’ message -

Made with the following modification: -

  1. (1) Stationery, manufactured, viz.: - - Letterclisp; papers ruled or bordered by waterline or likewise; date cases; ink bottles; ink wells; ink stands; paper knives; memo, slates and tablets; sealing and bottling wax; Christmas and similar cards; scraps; post cards n.e.i.; book markers; writing desks (not being furniture); writing cases; paper binders; card hangers; pen racks; bookbinders’ staples, ad valorem, British, 30 per cent.; general, 50 per cent.

    1. Stationery, manufactured, n.ei., including bill and box files; date cards; albums of all kinds; cards and booklets, viz., printers’, menu and similar kinds; stationery cases, including note paper and/or envelopes, boxed, packed or in compendiums and the like, ad valorem, British, 45 per cent.; general, 65 per cent.
Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

.- I move -

That the modification be agreed to.

The House of Representatives has accepted the Senate’s request that the British preferential rate on manufactured stationery, including letter clips, papers ruled or bordered with water lines, or likewise, date cases, ink bottles, ink wells, ink stands, paper knives, memorandum slates and tablets, sealing and bottling wax, Christmas cards, &c., book markers, writing desks, not being furniture, writing cases, paper binders, card hangers, pen racks and bookbinders’ staples, be reduced to 30 per cent., but has declined to reduce the duty on bill and box files, date cards, albums of all kinds, cards and booklets, namely, printers’, menu and similar kinds, stationery cases, including note paper, and/or boxed envelopes, packed or in compendiums and the like. In moving the request, Senator Payne contended that many of the articles covered by item 340 a, for example, ink wells, memorandum slates and tablets, sealing and bottling wax and writing cases, did not come into competition with the products of Australian industries, and that the high duties, therefore, consti tuted an additional burden on the community. The Government has considered the request, and proposes a modification, because the Tariff Board, in a report dated October, 1930, recommended that on item 340 a 1 the duties should be,ad valorem, British 30 per cent., general 40 per cent., and on item 340 a 2, ad valorem, British 45 per cent. and general 55 per cent. The modified rates follow the board’s recommendation, except for an adjustment of the general tariff rate to provide for the existing margin of preference under the Ottawa agreement. The evidence tendered at the Tariff Board’s inquiry related principally to note paper and envelopes, boxed, packed or in compendiums, but the board considered that the local manufacturers were entitled to increased protection on all the goods covered by paragraph 2 of subitem a. The request, as modified, gives effect to lower duties on those goods referred to by Senator Payne, as well as on many other kinds of stationery, and, at the same time, is in accord with the Government’s policy of following, in broad principle, the recommendations of the Tariff Board.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- It is gratifying to learn thatthe House of Representatives recognizedthe fairness of my submission, and has agreed in part to the request. When I was speaking to the request, I did not think it necessary to mention every article covered by the item, but now I find that the Senate’s request has been agreed to in respect of those items which I mentioned, but on those which I did not mention, the higher duties still remain. My arguments in favour of reduced duties applied equally to the articles I did not mention as to those I did. They applied particularly to boxed stationery, &c., because the importation of such goods necessarily entails heavy freight charges. For that reason, I believe that a duty of 20 per cent. British, in addition to the natural protection which such goods enjoy, should be sufficient to safeguard the local industry. I can well understand the House of Representatives agreeing to the request to reduce the duties on Christmas cards, because quite 90 per cent. of the cards used in Australia have to be imported.

Senator McLachlan:

– The rate of duty shown in the schedule is reduced by11¼ per cent. under the exchange adjustment measure.

Senator PAYNE:

– I realize that, but the duty will not even then be low enough. I trust that, at a later date, the Government will still further reduce the rates.

Motion agreed to.

Item 359-

Vehicle parts, viz.: - (f)…..

Handles of all types for motor car doors, each, British, 4d. ; general, 9d. ; or ad valorem, British, 40 per cent.; general, 60 per cent.; whichever rate returns the higher duty. (f)…..

Window winders for motor cars, each, British, 4s.; general, 5s.

Senate’s request - Amend item to make it -

Handles of all types for motor car doors and for motorcar window regulators, each, British, 4d.; general, 9d. ; or ad valorem, British, 40 per cent.; general, 60 per cent.; whichever rate returns the higher duty. (f)…..

Window regulators for motor cars, excluding handles, each, British, 1s. 3d.; general, 2s.; or ad valorem, British, 40 per cent.; general, 60 per cent.; whichever rate returns the higher duty.

House of Representatives’ message. - Made with the following modification : -

Paragraph (7).- The fixed duty, general tariff, made - 2s. 3d.

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

– I move -

That the modification be agreed to.

The duties contained in the Senate’s request were the same as those recommended by the Tariff Board, but they did not provide for the same margin of preference as existed at the time the Ottawa agreement was signed. The preference then afforded to the United Kingdom was 1s. each, and the modification which has been made provides for the retention of that margin. The request has actually been agreed to, but, in order to give full effect to the terms of the Ottawa agreement, a slight alteration has been made.

Motion agreed to.

Item 367-

Articles of an advertising character, which would not otherwise be dutiable at a higher rate of duty under any other heading, including all articles which would be free, but for their advertising characteristics, ad valorem, British, 45 per cent.; general65 per cent.

Senate’s request. - Make the duty ad valorem, British, 25 per cent.

House of Representatives’ message. - Made with the following modification: -

The duty, general tariff, made - 42½ per cent.

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

– I move -

That the modification be agreed to.

Unless it was shown that something was being done to prejudice the revenue, there was no justification forthe heavy increase of the duty under this item. An importer, desirous of increasing the sale of a certain article in Australia, who arranges with the manufacturer to print on it words indicating that it had been specially imported by that importer, should not be penalized. The principle goods covered by the item are earthenware articles, glassware, pencils, pens, smoking requisites, cinematograph films - other than dramatic - thermometers, fancy goods, and penknives. The request was acceded to with the modification that the general tariff rate be reduced to 42½ per cent. in order that the margin of preference may conform with the formula set down in the Ottawa agreement. Any reasons for the reduction of the British preferential rate apply with equal force to the general tariff rate. The bulk of these goods come from foreign countries, and there is no sound reason for allowing such a wide margin of preference as 40 per cent. The total loss of revenue, if both British preferential tariff and general tariff rates were reduced, would be on the basis of the 1931-32 figures, £809, but possibly, the reduced rates would stimulate importations and obviate any loss. The margin of preference required under the Ottawa agreement formula is accorded, and no objection should be taken to the modification.

Motion agreed to.

Resolutions reported.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - The chairman reports that the committee has considered the message from the House of Representatives, that it does not press certain requests for amendments, that it has agreed to certain modifications made by the House of Representatives to certain requests for amendments, and that it has also agreed to press certain requests for amendments.

Motion (by Senator McLachlan) proposed -

That the report be adopted.

Amendment (by Sir Harry Lawson) proposed -

That the message be re-committed for the reconsideration of request No. 13 of the Senate.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I oppose the amendment. We have witnessed the’ extraordinary spectacleof the Minister in charge of the bill, who is also Acting Leader of the Senate, moving the adoption of the report, and one of his colleagues submitting an amendment to the motion, in order that the message from the House of Representatives may be recommitted for the purpose of reversing a decision given by the Senate on two previous occasions regarding the duties on galvanized iron. The Government might at least have given reasonable notice to members of the Country party, particularly in view of the desire expressed and shown earlier in the day, at a combined meeting of the United Australia and Country parties, for better working arrangements between them. I did not know that the recommittal of the message was contemplated until I heard Senator Rae, a few momenta ago, address remarks to members of the Ministry. Apparently the Lang Labour party has the confidence of the Government, but members of the Country party may not have notice of the Government’s intentions in matters of this kind.

SenatorCollings. - Has the honorable senator heard of political strategy?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Advantage is being taken by the Government of the absence of certain honorable senators who left at 8 p.m., in ignorance of the Government’s intention.

Senator Foll:

– An equal number of senators left from each side.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– By a snap vote the Government hopes to reverse the previous decision of the Senate.

Senator McLachlan:

– That is not quite correct; the previous decision would not have been reached if Senator Reid had been present.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– If the Government had accepted the decision made several days ago, the House of Representatives probably would have been willing to compromise on the galvanized iron duties, as it did on the films duties. In my 4½ years’ experience in this Parliament, governments have always accepted the decisions of one chamber and forwarded them to the other. When the Scullin Government was in power, the Senate made decisions in opposition to it, but, on no occasion did the Ministry adopt the procedure that is now being followed. That Government had only a small band of supporters here.

Senator McLachlan:

– We desire to obtain the true opinion of the Senate regarding the duties on galvanized iron.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– In my view, the true opinion of this chamber was expressed a few nights ago. Certainly the majority of the electors desire that galvanized iron shall be admitted free. I have no doubt that the Government, which so frequently changes its mind, as it did in regard to the film duties, could be induced to meet the Senate half-way in respect of the duties on galvanized iron if the Senate adheres to its twice repeated request for a lower rate.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– On a point of order, I submit that, as the item affected by request number 13 has been twice decided in committee and on both occasions in the same way, the Government is not entitled to take advantage of a temporary majority of supporters to move for its. recommittal in order to consider it for the third time.

Senator McLachlan:

– I respectfully suggest that no point of order is involved because, in this matter, the Senate is following established precedent. I take it that honorable senators generally are desirous that the true opinion of the Senate should be taken on every subject brought before it. The item affected by request number 13 would not have been decided in the first place, as it was, but. for the unfortunate absence, through a misunderstanding, of one honorable senator who would have voted with the Government. When the item was next before this chamber, the decision to press the request was made in a thin Senate. If the request is recommitted, the item will be open for discussion and we shall get a vote that will more correctly represent the views of this chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

– On the point of order raised by Senator Duncan-Hughes, I direct the attention of honorable senators to Standing Order 212 which reads-

On the motion for the adoption of the report, the bill may, on motion, be recommitted, either in whole or in part; in which case, if amendments be made and the bill be reported, a subsequent day shall be fixed for taking the report into consideration and moving its adoption, and the bill, as reported with the amendments, shall in the meantime be printed; but if no amendments have been made, the report may be at once adopted.

My interpretation of the standing order is that the message from another place is part of the bill, and, as such, it may be recommitted. If there were not this power to recommit, the Senate would be placed in a very awkward position. If, for instance, it were thought that a true expression of opinion on a bill or message could be recorded in a fuller Senate, and it were not competent to move for its recommittal, the voice of the chamber would be stifled. Accordingly, I rule that the amendment moved by the Assistant Treasurer is in order.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I am not opposed to the recommittal of the message, but I should like to make it clear that I had not, as Senator Johnston inferred, some knowledge of the Minister’s intention to move for its recommittal. When the Minister moved the adoption of the report I asked - “What about galvanized iron?” - I assure Senator Johnston that the remark was made in a jocular spirit.

Senator E B Johnston:

– The honorable senator’s remark may have put the idea into the Minister’s mind.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I am in agreement with Senator Johnston with reference to the duty on galvanized iron; but I do not endorse his attack on the Government. I did not anticipate that we would pass these tariff items without a struggle, and I know, from a lengthy parliamentary experience, that whenever a Minister is defeated on a tariff item, he considers it his duty to move for its recommittal and further consideration if he believes that there is a prospect of the vote being reversed. Had I been in the Minister’s place to-night, I would have moved for the recommittal of the message to consider the item in question. But, while I agree that the Government is merely doing what any government would do in the circumstances, I shall do all in my power to prevent the recommittal of the message for the consideration of the duties on galvanized iron, and will stand by the previous decision of the committee.

Senator DUNN (New South Wales) 1 9.25]. - I was surprised to hear Senator Johnston suggest that Senator Bae had formed some sort of a coalition with the Government in order to secure the recommittal of the message for the further consideration of the duty on galvanized iron; but I was pleased to hear the honorable senator say that he accepted the assurance of my colleague that his remark to the Minister in charge of the bill was made in a jocular way. Lang party senators in this chamber, and’ in another place, pay very little attention to criticism from any other political party. I would have been surprised if the Government had not moved for the recommittal of the message, and I am entitled to assume that, if an understanding has been arrived at, it was the result of a joint meeting of the United Australia and United Country parties in regard to the wheat problem thi3 morning. I intend to vote with the Government on this issue, because I believe in doing everything possible to give adequate protection to Australian industries. The industry affected by the item which the Government seeks to have recommitted gives employment to many thousands of- people in the Newcastle district, and distributes in wages about £8,000 weekly. I am just as much concerned as is Senator Johnston about the welfare of the primary producers. I have had some experience of primary industry. Earlier in my life I was employed on farms, and, I may add, I never worked harder in my life. If Senator Johnston says that, because I represent mostly wage-earners, I have no right to speak on behalf of primary producers, I hurl the statement back in his teeth. It is suggested that because Senator Rae interjected when the Minister was speaking that we are in. league with the Government in this matter, and I merely wish to clear my colleagues of any suspicion of unfair collusion.

Senator Brennan:

– I agree with Senator Payne that it is a common practice in parliamentary tactics to recommit a clause upon which the Government thinks that it has been defeated on a snap vote. But we are now dealing with an exceptional matter - a message which has been received from the House of Representatives with reference to certain amendments to the tariff schedule requested by the Senate. Therefore, with great respect, I submit that that passage in the Standing Orders dealing with the report stage, upon which you, sir, relied, can be relevant only by analogy, and is not directly associated with the point we are now considering. The amendment moved by the Minister (Senator Lawson) is that .the message be recommitted for the purpose of reconsidering one of the principal requested amendments. I do not know whether or not that involves two questions - first, whether the bill be recommitted, and, secondly, that it be recommitted for the purpose of reconsidering a particular request. I submit that we cannot reconsider this particular request to-night. No resolution, whether of a club, an association, or a legislative chamber, can , be rescinded, unless the proper forms are observed. Standing Order No. 134 reads -

An order, resolution, or other vote, of the Senate, may bc rescinded; but no such order, resolution, or other vote may be rescinded during the same session, unless seven days-‘ notice be given and at least one-half of the whole number of. senators vote in favour of its rescission; provided that, to correct irregularities or mistakes, one day’s notice only shall be sufficient.

Senator McLachlan:

– I suppose that the honorable senator has not overlooked the fact that in connexion with this tariff, and the message relating to it, the Standing Orders have been suspended.

Senator Brennan:

– Does the VicePresident of the Executive Council mean that the contingent notices of motion which are always on the notice-paper, and which, I submit, are often greatly abused, have been moved to-day in connexion with this matter?

Senator McLachlan:

– The original suspension in relation to this measure governs the present position.

Senator Brennan:

– The first contingent notice of motion provides “ That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through all its stages without delay”. If that motion had been moved, it would not cover the present position. The next contingent notice of motion provides that so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders may be suspended as would prevent the message from being at once considered and all consequent action taken. The Standing Orders were not suspended for that purpose. The next contingent notice of motion provides “ That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay “. They were not suspended for that purpose. I have been in the chamber all day, but I have not heard any motion moved for the suspension of the Standing Orders. If no motion has been moved for the suspension of the Standing Orders, every honorable senator taking his seat is entitled to assume that the ordinary rules are in force. If we wish to rescind a step deliberately taken by the Senate - and what applies to the Senate applies to a committee of the whole - we must do so according to prescribed forms.

Senator Rae:

– Time after time, bills have been recommitted, as is now proposed.

Senator Brennan:

– Even if that is so, no amount of repetition of a wrong will make it right. I do not object to the formal motion for recommittal, but I do oppose the proposal to rescind a decision of the committee duly arrived at without giving to honorable senators an opportunity to be present and say whether or not they desire to recant their votes. “We will assume that when the decision was arrived at, it was the considered opinion of a reasonably full Senate. If what is proposed can be done, the Government could, at any time, with a vigilant Whip, take due regard to the state of the House or of the committee, and move for a recommittal when the attendance was thin, and a decision arrived at in a full committee could be upset by a committee in which barely a quorum was present. I submit that the

Standing Orders were framed to prevent that. While I do not object to the recommittal, I dissent from the view that the message should be recommitted for the purpose of reconsidering any particular request that has already been considered, unless proper notice is given, so that honorable senators may attend. Of course, the rules of this chamber are modelled upon those of other parliaments in Australia and in Great Britain, but whatever necessity there may be in the parliaments of the various States of Australia, or in the Mother of Parliaments, for proceeding in an orderly manner with respect to rescinding a resolution, the necessity is much stronger in a parliament such as this. Australia is a country of great spaces, and doubtless the provision in the Standing Orders requiring that seven days’ notice of a proposed rescission shall be given was inserted with the knowledge that it is impossible for many senators to attend here at short notice. It will be seen that to correct irregularities or mistakes one day’s notice is sufficient, in other cases seven days’ notice is necessary, and at least half of the total number of senators must vote for the rescission. Standing Order 134 is intended to prevent anything being undone without proper notice being given. While I do not object to the first portion of the motion, I do object to theitem being recommitted for the purpose of reconsidering a decision already reached.

Senator McLachlan:

– The honorable senator has given us a very interesting dissertation upon something which has nothing to do with the motion. Standing Order 134 is included in chapter 14, which deals with motions and questions. Standing Order No. 202 reads -

No new clause or amendment shall be at any time proposed which is substantially the same as one already negatived by the committee, or which is inconsistent with one that has already been agreed to by the committee, unless a recommittal of the bill shall have intervened.

That clearly shows that it is competent for the Senate, upon report from the committee, to recommit the bill. That is provided for in Standing Order 212, and the amendment moved by my colleague is in accordance with what has been the practice in this Parliament for many years.

Senator Millen:

– According to Standing Order 255, when a message is received from the House of Representatives it shall be referred to the committee for consideration. The committee may, under Standing Order 256, do any one of a number of things. It may say that the request shall be pressed or that it shall not, be pressed; that the modification be agreed to or that it be not agreed to; or that some other modification of the original request be made. The committee having come to a decision, the Chairman, in accordance with Standing Order 257, notifies the Senate of the resolution. In Standing Order 212, which deals with tin; recommittal of bills - a totally different subject - it is provided that the resolution of tlie committee shall come before the Senate on a motion for the adoption of the report. This is analogous to the procedure under Standing Order 2.14., which deals with the adoption of a report and a message to the House of Representatives; but that is not necessary in connexion with messages returned from tho House of Representatives. We are now dealing with ». bill which the Senate may not amend, and in respect of such measures, Standing Order 257 provides that the committee shall merely make a report which the Senate shall send on to the House of Representatives without adopting it. There is no provision in any of the relevant standing orders for the recommittal of the bill.

Senator McLachlan:

– But some one must move for. the adoption of the report.

Senator Millen:

– That is not so. The Senate merely conveys to the House of Representatives the resolution of the committee in accordance with the standing orders quoted.

Senator McLachlan:

– May I refer Senator Millen to Standing Order 254, which is as follows: -

Upon any amendment containing a request to the House of .Representatives being made upon- the motion for the first reading of any such hill, or the motion for the third reading thereof, and upon the adoption of any report from the committee, or of any report as amended by tho Senate recommending requests for amendments, a message shall be sent to the House of Representatives requesting that > House to make amendments in the bill in accordance therewith, and returning the bill.

I lay stress upon the word3 “ and upon the adoption of any report from the committee.” “When that is read, in conjunction with No. 257, it is quite plain that the report of the committee has to be adopted by the Senate.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– It is quite clear that the Minister has selected out of the Standing Orders those which will best suit his purpose. Standing Orders 1S5 to 1S8 refer to the Initiation, 189 to 192 to the First Reading, 193 to 196 to the Second Reading, 197 to -212 to Committal and Consideration in Committee, 213 to 220 to Third Reading, &c. Each step falls into its own compartment; and Standing Orders 251 to 258 arc those which relate to proceedings on bills which the Senate may not amend.

The Standing Orders were not drawn up by persons who knew nothing whatever about this subject, or to enable Ministers to take advantage of one particular section in order to rush a vote through the Senate. They were drawn up carefully, with a view to ensuring that members of the Senate should have an opportunity to deal properly with the business that comes before it. I submit that what ‘Senator Millen said is perfectly correct, and that Standing Orders 255 to 257 are those which cover this particular case. I understood the Minister to say, in reply to Senator Brennan, that, under the contingent notice of motion on the notice-paper, all Standing Orders have been suspended.

Senator Rae:

– So much of them as would prevent the passage of the bill.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– If that is so, then Standing Order 212 also was suspended, and the Minister is not able to rely upon it. The Minister says that the Standing Orders have been suspended on a motion moved by the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce). I maintain that they have not been suspended. The contingent notice- of motion reads that so much of the Standing Orders may be suspended as would permit the message being at once dealt with, and all consequent action taken. The obvious intention is that, immediately upon the Standing Orders being so suspended, the particular matter is to be considered and dealt with forthwith. The fact is, of course, that, in this particular instance, the bill was not dealt with forthwith. Half a dozen bills have been considered since the Standing Orders were suspended to enable this bill to be dealt with. I maintain that, as soon as any other bill intervened, the suspension of Standing Orders in respect of this one automatically lapsed. If the Standing Order does not mean what I say, why were the words “at once” included in the motion for suspension?

Senator McLachlan:

– There was an earlier suspension than the one to which the honorable senator has referred.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– Even on the reading of this standing order, the Minister’s case has broken down. But I do not think that the Standing Orders have been suspended. The whole procedure to be followed in connexion with a money bill is clearly set out in its own compartment of the Standing Orders, namely, Nos. 255 to 257. I emphasize one aspect at which Senator Brennan hinted. It is unusual for the House of Representatives to decline to accept a request of this chamber and for the Senate to press it a second time. What might be a reasonable thing to do when a bill was first before this chamber would be an extraordinary thing to do when the bill was before us a second time. The attempt of the Ministry to smuggle this item through in the absence of certain honorable senators who have had no notice of the Government’s intention appears to be unusual, to say the least. I admit that the Government is acting within its legal rights, if its action is in accord with the Standing Orders. But the Senate having resolved to press its request, it seems injudicious to attempt, by a hasty vote, to prevent its considered and reiterated decision from being sent back to the other chamber.

Senator McLachlan:

– I do not share the view that has been advanced by the honorable senator. The practice that is now being followed is not without precedent. Precisely similar action was taken in 1921 in connexion with the customs tariff. When Senator J. D. Millen proposed “ That the report be adopted “, an amendment was submitted by Senator Russell, his colleague, that the message be resubmitted for the reconsideration of certain requests, and the recommittal was agreed to. This practice has been followed on subsequent occasions, and I believe that it was adopted prior to 1921.

Senator MacDonald. - Honorable senators who are lawyers have expressed different opinions on the point at issue. Senator Brennan discussed for a quarter of an hour standing orders that were entirely irrelevant to the point at issue, and Senator Duncan-Hughes, another lawyer, after grappling with the question, was glad to adopt the point of view of a mere engineer, Senator Millen, that the matter was covered by Standing Orders 251 to 258 headed “ Proceedings on bills which the Senate may not amend.”Standing Order 256 states -

If the bill is returned to the Senate by the House of Representatives with any request not agreed to, or agreed to with modifications, any of the following motions may be moved: -

That the request be pressed.

That the request be not pressed.

That the modification be agreed to.

That the modification be not agreed to.

That some other modification of the original request be made.

That the request be not pressed, or agreed to as modified, subject to a request as to some other clause or item which the committee may order to be reconsidered being complied with. “ Reconsidered “ may not be regarded as recommitted ; but there is no direction that any request previously considered should not be recommitted. I take it that the Senate is master in its own house.

Senator Brennan:

– I agree with the honorable senator.

Senator MacDonald:

– There is no direction that we cannot recommit the message.

Senator Brennan:

– But there is a direction to the effect that we cannot without due notice rescind something which we have already resolved.

Senator MacDonald. - The honorable senator is referring to another matter which Senator Duncan-Hughes brushed aside, although agreeing with Senator Millen, who directed attention to proceedings relating to bills which the Senate may not amend. I believe that the Minister could have cited other precedents for the recommittal of the message.

The PRESIDENT:

– The original point of order taken by Senator Brennan was that the recommittal of the message could not take place until certain formalities had been observed. Senator Duncan-Hughes, in supporting Senator Brennan, contended that bills which the Senate may not amend were to bo treated according to theprocedure laid down in. Standing Orders 251 to 258. I point out that these bills are subject, not only to those standing orders, but also to others in Chapter XIX. which deals with public bills. Returning to Senator Brennan’s contention, it is true that if the Standing Orders had not been suspended the bill would have to be passed through its various stages at such intervals as would allow adequate time for honorable senators to express their views upon it. But provision is made for the Standing Orders to be suspended on special occasions for the purpose of enabling a bill to be passed through all its stages without delay. A motion for such suspension can be carried only by an absolute majority of the Senate unless notice of motion has been given. The Minister gave the required notice in this case, and a simple majority was sufficient to carry the motion. For the purposes of the consideration of this bill the Standing Orders are already suspended, and the suspension will operate until the bill is either passed or rejected. I am afraid that Senator Brennan has placed a wrong construction upon Standing Order 134. He said that a proposal for the recommittal of the bill is not in order until certain formalities provided in that standing order have been complied with, but I call attention to the fact that the standing order refers to “ an order, resolution, or other vote of the Senate.” There is no reference to a report from the committee. Therefore, this standing order does not apply in the present case. The Minister properly cited precedents and he promptedme to go further afield and find out the practice in the Mother of Parliaments. I draw attention to a marginal note on page 494 of the twelfth edition of May, “ consideration of reports from Committees of Supply andWays and Means “ and the following passage on page 495 : -

Postponement or recommittal. - Before the final question is put upon each resolution, the postponement of the consideration thereof may be proposed or a motion may he made for its recommittal.

I suggest that the motion by the VicePresident of the Executive Council for the adoption of the report of the committee On its consideration of the message from the House of Representatives corresponds exactly with a similar stage of a bill in the House of Commons, and gives an opportunity to recommit for the purpose of getting a fuller opinion of the members upon it. I agree with Senator Brennan that we should not lightly limit our own freedom. If we decided that at this stage we should not in any circumstances recommit a message or bill received from the other chamber, we should definitely limit the legislative powers of the Senate. If the Senate approves of such a limitation it must of course accept responsibility for it; but my ruling is that the procedure now being adopted by the Minister is in order.

Question - That the message be recommitted for the reconsideration of request No. 13 of the Senate - put.The Senate divided. (President - Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch.)

AYES: 14

NOES: 12

Majority … . . 2

AYES

NOES

Questionso resolved in the affrmative.

Motion agreed to.

In committee (Recommmittal) :

Item 145-

Iron and steel plate and sheet, viz.: -

Corrugated galvanized, galvanized not corrugated, and corrugated not galvanized, per ton, British, 90s.; general,130s.

Senate’s request -

Make the duty per ton, British, 20s.

House of Representatives’ Message -

Not made.

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

.- I move-

That the request be not pressed.

As we had an exhaustive debate on this item when previously it was before the committee, I do not propose to weary honorable senators by repeating what I then said.

Senator Brennan:

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that the Minister may not move his motion until he has first moved that theresolution of the Senate to press the request has been rescinded.

Senator McLachlan:

– No resolution has been carried by this Senate.

Senator Brennan:

– The committee on another occasion negatived a motion that the request be not pressed. I, therefore, submit that the Minister must move for the rescission of that resolution before he can submit another that the request be not pressed. I refer honorable senators to Standing Order 133, which reads -

No question or amendment shall be proposed which is the same in substance as any question or amendment which, during the same session, has been resolved in the affirmative or negative, unless the order, resolution or vote en such question or amendment has been rescinded.

Senator Sir Walter Massy-Greene:

– The honorable senator should read Standing Order 202.

Senator Brennan:

– Standing Order 202 states that -

No new clause or amendment shall be at any time proposed which is substantially the same as one already negatived by the committee, or which is inconsistent with one that has been already agreed to by the committee, unless a recommittal of the bill shall have intervened.

That standing order does not overrule the provisions of Standing Order 133.

Senator McLachlan:

– No resolution was carried in the committee. It refused to adopt my motion that the request be not pressed.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon Herbert Hays:

– I point out to Sena tor Brennan that this is not the same committee as made the first resolution. The decision of the committee on the message was reported to the Senate, and, on the motion for the adoption of the report, the Assistant Treasurer moved that the message be recommitted for the further consideration of the item now before the committee. It would not have been competent for the Minister to submit in the same committee the motion which is now before this committee.

Senator Brennan:

– Surely a committee of the whole Senate must always be the same committee. I must accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that this is not the same committee, but I must add that had you not said so, I should not have reached that conclusion with my own unaided intelligence. I am raising this matter, not merely with the object of delaying the committee, but it appears to me that we may be establishing a precedent, and may be laying down a practice which may be used to limit, if not to destroy, the rights which we possess. The opinion of the Senate, or of a committee of the whole, may be obtained by a deliberate vote, but at some future time, a member less conscientious than the present Minister, noticing the state of the committee, may upset a decision deliberately arrived at. If that is allowed, the Government may, when some honorable senators who previously voted are hundreds of miles away, and unable to return in time to vote, submit a motion nullifying that which the committee did perhaps two days before.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I rule that the motion by the Minister is in order.

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

.- I am afraid that some honorable senators who are prejudiced, may feel that they cannot give to the Government’s proposal the sympathetic consideration it deserves. Honorable senators should remember that the galvanized iron industry is essential to Australia, for both commercial and national reasons. The Australian producers of galvanized iron have given satisfactory service to the people of Australia, by supplying a commodity of good quality at a price which commends itself to the Australian public. The first alternative suggested by the Tariff Board was punitive in character, and the second, which provides for a reduction of price, should be acceptable to the users of galvanized iron. In these circumstances, those honorable senators who favour lower duties, should admit that the Government’s proposals are reasonable, and that as the Tariff Board is policing this industry, the Australian public is not likely to be detrimentally affected. At times, I too have criticized this industry, tut honorable senators should not allow prejudice to influence them in the vote which they will shortly record. Having regard to the value which this industry is to Australia, and the report of the Tariff Board regarding it, I do not see how the Government can possibly give way on this item. The Government does not desire to take advantage of the absence of honorable senators, but now that the strength of the committee has been increased, I believe that the vote taken to-night will be truly indicative of the opinion of the committee.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

– On two previous occasions, the duties on galvanized iron have been debated at length, and when a vote was last taken, the committee decided to request the House of Representatives to reduce the British preferential duty from 90s. to 20s. a ton. That request has been returned from another place, and the Minister who has moved that it be not pressed has not given any reasons why the committee should reverse the vote previously recorded. I am surprised that those who profess to represent the workers of Australia in this chamber should favour the imposition of a high duty, which will increase the ‘cost of galvanized iron used for constructing tlie cheaper types of dwelling, and for many other purples.. Those who occupy the more expansive dwellings use tiles and slates for roofing purposes, but workers in the big cities and in country districts are compelled to use galvanized iron extensively. This commodity, which now costs £23 10s. a ton, is also used by primary producers, in the construction of dwellings, wool sheds, milking sheds, barns and other farm improvements. We have been told over and over again that galvanized iron is obtainable at a cheaper rate in Australia than it is in New Zealand, where it is admitted free of duty. That is an inaccurate statement.

Senator McLachlan:

– The Acting Premier of New Zealand is responsible for the statement.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I communicated with one of the largest and most reputable hardware firms in Australia, which has branches in London, Sydney, ‘Melbourne, Dunedin, Wellington, Auckland, Invercargill and Christchurch, and received a reply by cablegram which was confirmed later by the following letter: - 1 received your telegram this afternoon, asking me to give you prices for galvanized iron, Australian, British, and New Zealand.

British is £15 17s. c.i.f. You will understand that to this must he added exchange, duty and landing charges, hut it shows what the British manufacturer is willing to take for the payment of his iron.

Australian is £22 10s., delivered into our warehouse.

New Zealand is £19 10s., delivered into warehouse.

All tlie above juices are the actual wholesale costs to trading houses like ourselves. Tlie profit, of course, has to be added to this, but it is a very small profit on galvanized iron, and would not average 30s. per ton.

There is no duty in New Zealand, but there is a primage duty of 3 per cent., and the cost in New Zealand includes a sales tax of 0 per cent.

That proves that in New Zealand, where there is a sales tax and a primage duty, but no protective duty, galvanized iron is available at £3 a ton less than in Australia. In New South Wales the power of Lysaght Limited is apparently so great that it is able to induce the Railways Department to grant to it specially favorable freight rates. If I use British galvanized iron en my farm in the Riverina, I have to pay £2 a ton more in freight for bringing the iron from Newcastle than if I buy Australian galvanized iron. That does not seem, to be in accordance with either the spirit or the letter of the Ottawa . agreement. It is scandalous that the New South Wales Railways Department, should charge a higher freight on British than on Australian iron. It shows what power is possessed by this monopolistic firm.

Senator Crawford:

– ft is highly creditable to the Government of New South Wales.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– It is disgraceful. Every primary producer and worker from Cape York to Tasmania uses galvanized iron, and we know what difficult times the workers are passing through jUSt now. The primary producers also have tremendous difficulties, as we know only too well. It seems remarkable therefore, that the Government should be attempting to make galvanized iron still dearer, instead of doing whatever it can to make it cheap.

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

– In order that honorable senators may have authentic information regarding the price of galvanized iron in New Zealand. I propose to quote the cablegram which was sent to the Acting Prime Minister of New Zealand, and also the reply which was received from him. together with the reply received to a cablegram sent yesterday in order to confirm the report which we hail received. In July, the following cablegram was sent to the Acting Prime Minister : -

Would appreciate early advice landed costs wholesale and retail prices 2(i gauge galvanized iron equivalent Orb quality.

The following reply was received: -

Orb corrugated iron 20 gauge landed cost £23 12s. 4d. per ton, wholesale selling price £25 2s. 2d., plus sales tax £1 5s. Id., retail £28 to £2!) including sales tax: Titan and Emu brands invoiced first grade iron said to be similar quality to Orb. lauded costs £23 8s. 5d. 1.1 id £22 2s. 2d.; wholesale £24 8s. lid. and £22 17s. 2d., plus sales tax £1 5s. 7d. and £1 2s. 10d., retail £20 14s. (id. and £24 10s. respectively.

Later, in order to find out whether there had been any variation of the price, we sent this cable to New Zealand -

Would appreciate urgent advice whether British galvanized iron prices and landed cost to New Zealand quoted your Acting Prime Minister’s cablegram 27th” July, 1933, for 2(i gauge Orb brand. Titan brand. Emu brand have varied, and, if so. extent variations.

To that cable the following reply has just come to hand : -

Your telegram loth particulars Orb iron unaltered; Titan lauded cost reduced 5s., Emu increased 5s.; other prices unaltered.

The last reply was received from the Department of Customs in New Zealand, and it confirms the previous cable sent by the Acting Prime Minister of New Zealand (Mr. Forbes). I quote those documents in justification of the attitude of the Government. We have done our best to check the prices, and we believe them to be reliable.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– In view of the discrepancies in the figures quoted by the reputable firm of ironmongers with whom Senator Guthrie has been in communication, and those quoted by the M inister, I suggest that the consideration of this item be postponed until we can obtain independent evidence upon the point.

Senator McLachlan:

– I cannot accept the honorable senator’s suggestion.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I am sorry to hear that, and I must, in consequence, take my stand beside Senator Guthrie. The Minister said that the merits of the argument up to date had been with the Government. I have listened to. all his speeches. and I cannot agree with him. When this matter was first debated, we who opposed the duties proposed by the Government had a majority of one. When the matter came up again three months later, we were able, in. spite of the Minister’s eloquence, to double our majority. * Under the Iron and Steel Products Bounty Act, there is provision for the protection of this industry, even should the duties be reduced. The Tariff Board, in its report on galvanized iron, states -

The Iron and Steel Products Bounty Act 1922-29 authorizes payment of bounty at the rate of £4 10s. per ton on galvanized sheets manufactured in Australia, and delivered from the factory on and after 1st January. 1930. Section 3 of the act cited provides that on the introduction of a customs tariff bringing into operation increased duties on galvanized iron the rate of bounty shall be decreased by an amount which, in the opinion of the Minister, after inquiry and report by the Tariff Board, corresponds to the amount by which the duties are increased. At the present time no bounty is payable, because of the operation of Tariff Resolution of 3rd May, 1932, increasing the duties by £4 10s. per ton.

In other words, when the duty was increased to £4 10s. a ton the bounty automatically became inoperative. The law provides that, if the duty is reduced, the bounty may be correspondingly raised, even though Parliament is not sitting at the time. If the Government thinks that the industry should be assisted - and for the moment I do not argue against it - that assistance should be given by the whole community in the form of a bounty, so that we may know just what it is costing us. I strenuously oppose the action of the Government in seeking to retain a duty of £4 10s. a ton, because the burden of assisting the industry under that system falls entirely on the users, who are chiefly the workers and primary producers. The heavy duty operates chiefly against Great Britain, from which country most of our iron, whether flat or corrugated, has been imported. We have hoard much of the Ottawa agreement, and here is an opportunity for us to show our bona fides by reducing the duty on British iron. The Tariff Board’s report sets out as follows the imports of galvanized iron, plain and sheet, into Australia from various countries, for the four years ended 30th June, 1931-

The reason why no importations were made in 1930-31 from countries other than the United Kingdom is that they were prohibited by customs proclamation from the 3rd October, 1930, until the 6th May, 1931. This restriction directed a serious blow at British trade, yet we have heard people prating about the way in which the Government is giving effect to the Ottawa agreement.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– I do not propose to discuss the galvanized iron duties at the moment, but to direct attention to the way in which this matter has been raised to-night. Has the Minister arranged with the Opposition for the reconsideration of these duties?

Senator McLachlan:

– I have not arranged the matter with anybody. I conferred with the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), and I am acting in accordance with the dictates of my conscience.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– That does not necessarily mean that the Opposition was not aware of the course to be followed to-night. A number of honorable senators, who knew nothing about the Government’s intention in this matter, are absent. Were Senators Grant and Elliott inforced, before they left this afternoon, that the message from the House of Representatives would be recommitted to-night? Did Senator Hardy know? When the vote on these duties was originally taken, the majority comprised seventeen senators. Senator Carroll, who .is of the same opinion, was not present. We are entitled to ask where are the eighteen senators who might normally be expected to vote against the recommittal of the message. Of those eighteen, Senator Kingsmill is absent through illness. I do not know whether the Government proposes to pair him.

Senator McLachlan:

– The Whip tells me that all absentees have been paired.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Pairs have no bearing on the question under consideration.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– We are now asked to vote on this matter for the third time. Until the Minister brought this motion forward, we were not aware of the form which it would take, but we now find that it consists of a resubmission of the original motion which the Senate refused to pass. I am told that Senator Hardy, who is ill and has a month’s leave of absence, has informed a member of the committee that he desires a pair. Will a pair be given to him? Is it a fact that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Pearce), who, I understand, has gone to Melbourne to-night, is paired with an honorable senator on this side who is in Canberra at the present time? Tomorrow possibly the billwill again be recommitted to enable the duties on dates, sprays or rabbit traps to be reconsidered. However the measure is in its final stages, and the Government has had to rely practically throughout on the votes of the Labour Opposition. The time may come when Labour senators will not be so docile, and so ready to give their support to the Government; and when Ministers may once more desire the support of senators of their own party.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I regret that the Minister is not prepared to postpone fur ther consideration of the motion. Even at this stage, I appeal to him to have this discussion adjourned until we can ascertain the reason for the difference between the figures quoted by the Minister and those given by Senator Guthrie regarding the price of galvanized iron in New Zealand.

Senator McLachlan:

– The honorable senator will vote against the Government’s proposal in any event.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Yes ; but I should do so with greater pleasure if I knew the facts regarding the prices of galvanized iron in New Zealand. When I was addressing the committee a few minutes ago, I was about to direct attention to the calibre of thewitnesses who gave evidence before the Tariff Board. The two witnesseswho appeared in favour of the retention of the present duties were Fred Lightfoot Walker, managing director, John Lysaght (Australia) Limited, 33 Macquarie-place,

Sydney, on behalf of Lysaght’s Newcastle Works Limited, galvanized iron manufacturers, and James Kerr Merritt, director of John Lysaght (Australia) Limited, galvanized iron manufacturers, 24 Queenstreet, Melbourne. Although the whole of the people are vitally affected by the duty on galvanized iron, only two persons, both representing the same firm, appeared before the board to give evidence in. support of the higher duty. Those who gave evidence in support of reduction of the dutywere Walter Corries Cambridge, general secretary, Farmers and Settlers Association,7 O’Connellstreet, Sydney; Sydney Linden Officer, secretary of the Graziers Association of Victoria, and the Graziers Association of Southern Riverina, Melbourne; Norman William Hutchinson, president of the Australian Association of British Manufacturers, and manager in Australia of Nielson and Maxwell Limited, iron and steel merchants, London, Glasgow, Melbourne, Sydney and New Zealand; Reginald Dines Westmore, on behalf of the Sydney Chamber of Commerce, and secretary of the Joint Committee for Tariff Revision, expressing the views of the Graziers Association of New South Wales, the Farmers and Settlers Association of New South Wales, and the Fruit-growers Federation of New South Wales; Norman Lee Rigg, trading as N. L. Ragg, seller of galvanized iron, Melbourne. It was, of course, quite right that the Association of British Manufacturers should be represented before the board because, if we had a reasonable tariff, Ave should be importing large quantities of galvanized iron from the Mother Country. As the committee has on two occasions decided that the British duty on galvanized iron shall be £1 a ton, its decision should stand. Honorable senators should not accept the Government’s proposal to give higher protection to this selfish, monopolistic combine that wants the whole of the Australian market in order to extract higher profits from the whole of the primary industries. I regret that Senator Hardy is. prevented, by illness, from taking part in this debate, because I am sure that he would have been able to advance strong arguments in favour of the lower duty. When this subject was last debated, he mentioned the difficulty experienced by reputable hardware merchants in securing supplies of Australian galvanized iron from the combine. Regarding the prices charged for steel sheet bars, evidence was given by William Roy Coles, representing Broken Hill Proprietary Limited, iron and steel masters, Melbourne. Cannot honorable senators see the hand of the combine in so much of the evidence that was given before the board? The Broken Hill Proprietary Limited and Lysaght Limited have interests in common: WhenI visited the Newcastle Steel Works a few months ago, I did not notice any boundary between the properties of the two companies. Mr. Essington Lewis, the general manager of Broken Hill Proprietary Limited, is a director of Lysaght Limited, and Mr. Lysaght is a director of Broken Hill Proprietary Limited. Therefore, it was not surprising that Mr. Coles, representing the Broken Hill Proprietary Limited should appear before the board to say a few words in support of the request by Lysaght’s Limited for higher duties. Regarding the wages paid in the galvanized iron industry, evidence was given by Mr. William Hopkins, iron worker, employed at the worm of John Lysaght Limited.

Senator Dunn:

– Has not all this been said before?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– As far as I know, it has not been put before the Senate. I feel that, if I had done my duty more thoroughly in this respect when last this item was under discussion, I might have had more support for my plea for the lower duty.

Senator Dunn:

– Will all this appear in the Perth Sunday Times?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– The whole of the press of Western Australia, including that important organ of public opinion, the Sunday Times, supported the attitude of the majority of the Senate when this item was last dealt with. TheChamber of Mines, primary producers, and the wheatgrow ers’ associations of that State, as well as the chambers of commerce, are behind me in my protest against a reversal of the Senate’s decision with respect to this item. They object to the primary industries being forced to pay tribute to this Newcastle monopoly, and also to the imposition of a duty of £4 10s. a ton on British iron. The committee is further handicapped in dealing with this item because the board’s report contains no summary of the valuable evidence given by the witnesses whose names I have given.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Motion (by Senator Foll) put -

That the committee do now divide.

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

AYES: 14

NOES: 12

Majority . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question. - That the request be not. pressed - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 14

NOES: 13

Majority . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Resolution reported.

Motion (by Senator McLachlan) proposed -

That the reportsbeadopted.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– The motion just carriedat the third time of askinghas been so carried owing to the fact that SenatorHardy was refuseda pair.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– Owing to the action of Senator Pearce in pairing with Senator Collett, Senator Hardy was left without a pair. AlthoughI madea request early this afternoon that Senator Hardy should bo paired with Senator Pearce, my request was not granted. With the aid of the Lang Labour party, the Government has secured a victory against the majority of its own party, and the members of the Country party owing to the fact that Senator Pearce was given a “live” pair, while a member of the Country party, who is absent on sick leave, was refused that privilege. If Senator Hardy had been given the pair with Senator Pearce, Senator Collett’s vote would have retained the Senate’s reduction of this duty.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– I wish to place on record my appreciation of the glorious victory which the Australian workers engaged in the galvanized iron industry have just secured.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– I enter my strong protest against the manner in which this matter has been disposed of. Some time ago, when fighting for tariff reduction, we said, “ Thank God that we have a Government which will give us a tariff policy for which we have been fighting so strenuously for years”. In these circumstances,I expected that when a clear expression of opinion was given on two occasions in favour of a reduction of duty, the Government would have accepted that decision us the considered opinion of this chamber, and abided by it. I am bitterly disappointed with what has taken place . I could say a good deal more, but I feel that that is all I dare say.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– A few moments ago, a complaint was made that the last question was put from the Chair in such a hurried manner that some honorable senators did not have sufficient time to take the action they desired. In the absence of any notification that an honorable senator wished to move an amendment, I naturally thought that no amendments were to be moved. If it is thought that I submitted the motion with undue haste, I regret it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Reports adopted.

page 4613

ADJOURNMENT

Report on Tobacco Industry - Northern Teritorry Aborigines.

Motion (by Senator McLachlan) proposed -

That the Senatedo now adjourn.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- I regret that the report on the tobacco industry, which the Minister (Senator McLachlan) has just tabled, has not been made available to honorable senators until this late hour, in view of the fact that we were given an assurance yesterday that it would be at our disposal early today. My principal objection, however, is that extracts from the report, which is of particular interest to honorable senators representing Queensland and New South Wales, have already been published in certain evening newspapers before honorable senators have even seen it. As the report may have a far-reaching effect upon the tobacco-growing industry, it was the duty of the Government to make it available to members of this Parliament before the newspapers had access to it.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I am a member of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee which held a meeting to-day. While I was at the meeting, I read the following: -

THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA.

Regulations under the Aboriginals Ordinance1918-1933.

In pursuance of the powers conferred upon me by the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918-1933, I, George Foster Pearce, for and on behalf of the Minister of State for the Interior, do hereby make the following Regulations under the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918-1933.

Dated this twenty-seventh day of June,1933.

F. PEARCE

for Minister of State for the Interior.

The Government, and Government departments, ought at least to try to couch official publications in correct English. It is not correct to call the natives of Australia aboriginals; they are aborigines. The word “ aboriginal “ is an adjective, while “ aborigines “ is a noun. While I do not desire to pose as a grammatical purist, I think that some regard could be paid to the rules of grammar. We are setting a bad example when the intellectual giants of our governmental institutions show that they are unable to distinguish between a noun and an adjective. I trust that more care will be exercised in these matters in the future.

SenatorMcLACHLAN (South Australia - Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.46].- I shall refer to the Minister for Grammar, or whoever may be the person responsible, the matter of which Senator Rae has complained.

Senator Foll raised a matter which has caused me considerable concern. He is not quite fair in saying that the report was made available to the press.

Senator Sampson:

– Then how did the press obtain possession of it?

Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

– It is the practice with documents of this kind, which it is desired to publish simultaneously all over Australia in centres as far apart as Brisbane, Hobart, Launceston, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth, to send copies under seal to the newspaper offices sometimes weeks before the date on which they are to be released, so that the journals may bring out a complete story on the specified date. So far as I know, that confidence has never before been abused. In this case, one pressman unfortunately did abuse the privilege, but I understand that he has since expressed his regret for what he did. I assure honorable senators that it was my intention to place the report on the table of the Senate at the same time as it was tabled in the House of Representatives by the Acting Leader of the House (Mr. Latham). There was some delay, and in the meantime certain newspapers in the capital cities published a summary of the report. I wish to distinguish between what was published by them yesterday, and what appeared on a previous occasion, purporting to be a summary of the report. The Government will be very watchful of these matters in the future.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourneda t 11.50 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 November 1933, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1933/19331116_senate_13_142/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant