View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
21 September 1922

8^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- SITUATIONINTHENEAR-EAST
POLITICAL ASPECT
- Empire’s Safety First
- Melbourne, Sunday
QUESTION
- COCKATOO ISLAND DOCKYARD
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- TRADE BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE EAST
PAPERS
SENATE ELECTIONS BILL
PRESENTATION OF ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
QUESTION
- TELEGRAPHY AND TELEPHONY
TASMANIA GRANT BILL
WAR PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL
ELECTORAL BILL
ENTERTAINMENTS TAX BILL
- Second Reading
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
- Second Reading
COMMONWEALTH AND STATES
- Rural Development: Taxation
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
- Second Reading

The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took thechair at3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2497

QUESTION

SITUATIONINTHENEAR-EAST

AllegedPoliticalAspect.

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the leader oftheGovernment in the Senate if his attention has been directed to the following statement published in theSydney Morning Herald, of 18 thSeptember, 1922:-

page 2497

POLITICAL ASPECT

Mr. HughesComments.

Empire’s Safety First

Melbourne, Sunday

The Prime Minister(Mr. Hughes),discussing the Federal political . situation to-day, said the Nationalists’position wouldbe greatly strengthened ifthe Near-Eastern situation continued to develop so threateningly. “ The British Government,”he said, “ has communicated with the Dominions on the question of sending contingents toprotect their interests. These interests no doubt are the graves of our glorious dead onGallipoli. This sounds like a renewalof the national danger which enabled the Nationalist Government to remain in power so long in the Federal arena. Who would vote for a Labour party which has flirted with Communists at a time when the national interests are endangered! The world outlook at present will greatly assist Nationalism ifan early appeal is made to the country. This, combined with the improved position locally, willdoubtless result in an increased Nationalmajority.”

Iask if that statementhas been noticed by the Government, if it was made by the Prime Minister, and if it is. supported by the Government?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The Prime Minister hasdenounced those who have placed these words inhis monthas guilty of a deliberate lie.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The Sydney Morning Herald has apologized for their publication.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I was going to say that I have heard that the Sydney Morning Herald had done as the honorable senator has mentioned, though I have not seen the correction. It is sufficient to say that the Prime Minister denounces the statement as a deliberate lie.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– What happened was that the Melbourne representative of the Sydney Morning Herald sentthe statement across to Sydney, and the newspaper published it as though it were part of an interview with Mr. Hughes.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Those of us who have had any experience can detect in the published statement the mixing up of two things. There is first a statement which was possibly made by the Prime Minister concerning certain events, and there is coupled with that the comments of the representative of the Sydney Morning Herald in Melbourne.

page 2498

QUESTION

COCKATOO ISLAND DOCKYARD

Reported Sale

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate if it is a fact, as reported in a Melbourne newspaper, that the Cockatoo Island Dockyard has been sold to a syndicate, and the transfer is to take place immediately? If so, who are the persons constituting the syndicate, and what was the price paid? If not, is it a fact that negotiations of this nature are proceeding?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I can say at once that there is no justification for the statement that the Cockatoo Island Dockyard has been sold. As other matters are involved in the honorable senator’s questions, perhaps it would be bettor if he gave notice of them.

page 2498

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Prizes to Encourage

SenatorFOLL.-I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether, in order to encourage civil aviationin Australia, the Government will consider the advisability of offering a further prize for a flight to or from England and Australia, the competitors to be limited to Australia, and also a prize for a flight around Australia!

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– It is not possible for me to answer the honorable senator’s questions at once; but, rather than ask him to give notice of them, I suggest’ that he should be content if I undertake to bring them under the notice of the Prime Minister.

Senator Foll:

– That will satisfy me.

page 2498

QUESTION

TRADE BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE EAST

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate if he will cause to be laid on the table of the Senate, or otherwise made available to honorable senators, a report on trade between the Commonwealth and China furnished by Senator Bakhap, with whom I happen to be in close association ?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– And in entire agreement.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Yes, in entire agreement. I have heard adjectives of a mixed character applied to the report, and I think it should be made available to honorable senators.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– It is not possible for me to say offhand whether the report is to be tabled ; but, if the honorable senator will give me an opportunity of inquiring, and will repeat his question after a day or two’s time, I shall give him an answer,

page 2498

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

New Guinea - Ordinance No. 28 of 1922- Public Service (No. 2).

Trade between the Commonwealth and China - Report by Senator T. J. K. Bakhap.

page 2498

SENATE ELECTIONS BILL

Bill presented, and (on motion by Senator Pearce) read a first time.

page 2498

PRESENTATION OF ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I have to announce for the information of honorable senators, that His Excellency the Governor-General has appointed the hour of half-past 11 a.m. to-morrow as the time when he will receive, at Government House, the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency’s Opening Speech.

The PRESIDENT:

-(Senator the Hon. T. Givens). - In connexion with the announcement made by the Minister for Repatriation, I desire to intimate to honorable senators that to-morrow I propose to suspend the sitting at a quarter past 11 o’clock for the purpose of proceeding to Government House to present the AddressinReply.I shall be glad if as many honorable senators as possible will accompany me to make the presentation.

page 2499

QUESTION

TELEGRAPHY AND TELEPHONY

Report by Mr. Hesketh.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

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

Did the late Mr. John Hesketh, Chief Electrical Engineer an the Postal Department, visit England and America re telegraph and telephone matters?
Did he present a report to the Postal Department?
Was the report laid on the table of Parliament in September, 1905?

Senator EARLE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · TASMANIA · NAT

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers : -

Mr. John Hesketh, then Electrical Engineer, Postmaster-General’s Department, Queensland, was appointed to represent the Commonwealth of Australia at the Electrical Convention held at St. Louis, United States of America, in 1904, and was requested to investigate certain matters affecting the Department whilehe was in America. He applied for all leave due to him so that he might extend his tour to England and Europe.
Yes.
Yes.

page 2499

TASMANIA GRANT BILL

Bill read a third time.

page 2499

WAR PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL

Bill read a third time.

page 2499

ELECTORAL BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives, with amendments.

page 2499

ENTERTAINMENTS TAX BILL

Second Reading

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

This measure is necessary to carry out one of the proposals of the Treasurer (Mr. Bruce), indicated in the Budget Speech, which was to exempt from taxation entertainment charges up to, but not including,1s. The present tax is as follows: - Not exceeding 5d. (for admission toa continuous place of entertainment of persons apparently over the age of sixteen years),?d. ; 6d.,?d. ; exceeding 6d., but not exceeding1s.,1d.; exceeding1s.,1d. for first1s., and?d. for each additional 6d. or part of 6d. The rates now proposed in the Bill are - Under1s., exempt;1s.,1d.; exceeding 1s.,1d. for first1s., and?d. for each additional 6d. or part of 6d. The estimated loss of revenue by the proposed reduction of taxation is approximately ?100,000. The tax collected in previous years was as follows: - 1916-17, ?112,000 (part year only); 1917-18, ?238,000; 1918-19, ?355,000; 1919-20, ?551,000; 1920-21, ?644,000; 1921-22, ?675,000. I do not deem it necessary on the second reading of the Bill to amplify the particulars I have just supplied.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

). - There does not appear to be anything very objectionable in the Bill, but it might have gone a little further. I think the Government are displaying an anti-Federal spiritin interfering in taxation in small matters of this nature.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Have you forgotten the origin of the tax?

Senator GARDINER:

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

SenatorWilson. - Does not the honorable senator think it would bebetter if they bought more sweetsand consumed more sugar?

Senator FOLL:

– Now that the honorable senator has toucheduponthe question of sugar I shouldlike to state that when I was in Bundaberg recently I saw a film of work on the Bingera plantation, and showing the operations of the sugar industry pretty well from start to finish. Other films have ‘been prepared to ‘educate the people upon the importance of the sugar industry in Queensland. It would be wise if more of that class of film were shown in order to educate the people upon the moreimportant industries of theCommonwealth.

Senator Crawford:

– They will only show that class of film as an advertisement.

Senator FOLL:

– That is so. This question has already received some attention in certain quarters, including the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Association in Brisbane. At present the Australian picture theatre patrons get too few films from Australian or British sources. Generally speaking, the young Australian knows infinitely more about American affairs, and recognises more easily White House at Washington than the Federal Parliament House in Melbourne. He knows much more about Niagara Falls in the United States of America than about our own beautiful Barron Falls in Queensland. All this, of course, does not touch the question of the remission of taxation on entertainment tickets, which is the subject of the Bill now under consideration, and whilst these reforms are very desirable, I do not see how we are to give effect to them in this measure. I cannot agree with Senator Guthrie and other honorable senators who hold that picture shows play no part- in the life of country districts. There is hardly a town in any part of Australia that has any sort of a population where a picture show is not provided at least once a week. I recently visited a small town in North Queensland 600 miles west of Townsville, and found that there was a picture show there.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Thehonorable senator is very confident that no Government would introduce sucha proposal.

Senator LYNCH:

-Itis contended that this is a measure to relieve thesection of the community that has the least money in its pockets, but we knowthatthese people have gone to picture shows in the past, and will do so again ;andthe remission of this taxation willincrease the facilities for presenting to the people a form of entertainment which many consider is not in the interestsof the moral advancement of therising generation. Honorable senators may throw the blame onthe Board ofCensors, and, while I agree that the members of the Board should do their work properly, we may do a little by taxation to preventover-indulgence in this sort of entertainment. It is hypocrisy to contend that this measure willgive relief to people of small means. I am concerned about the principleinvolved and the fact that the remission ofthis taxation to the extent of £100,000 per annum must necessitate the maintenanceof other forms of taxation. When we were considering the Tariff, it was suggested that by reducing the duty proposed on cotton piece goods we could give some real relief to the people whom we are nowconcerning ourselves about,and I remind honorable senatorsthat the remission of the duty on entertainments must serve to maintain the duty oncotton piece goods.

This proposal is not warranted by the facts of the case. It deals with a tax on what is, after all, a luxury. The human being must first of all findthe wherewithall to feed,clothe, and educate hischildren. Speaking for the majorityof men, if they do thatthey cannot afford to : send their children three times a week toa picture show. In my opinion, it is possible to give more pleasure to some people than is for theirown good. I am opposed to this make-believe proposition. It is intended to reducetaxation for the benefit of a class that does not need such relief. The Bill would certainly help the great millionaire film company that fills the minds of children with the glories of the UnitedStates of America and western life. They are the first people who would rub theirhands with glee if this remission of taxation took place. As it would be betterto reduce other forms of taxation, I oppose the Bill.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– When the Government proposed to remit the entertainments tax altogether, I opposed them. I thought that I had very good reasons at that time for doing it, and I still think so. The Senate declared on that occasion that the Government would give more relief to a large section by increasing the exemptions for children under the Income Tax Act than by means of a reduction of this special amusements taxation. It was expected that the Government would at the earliest opportunity make an addition to those exemptions, but they have failed to observe the wish then expressed by the Senate, and they now practically say that they cannot do so. They ask the Senate again to remit some of the taxation levied under the Entertainments Tax Act. If that is the position, I am not going to say that the people should be forced to continue to pay taxation when the Government have declared that that taxation is unnecessary. I realize that the Senate was in a somewhat invidious position on the last occasion, but it had every justification for taking the stand that it did, and if the Government could be induced to follow the other course of action, I would be prepared to vote against this Bill. The Government, however, are not proposing to go as far as I would like.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– We are doing a lot more than is represented by this reduction of £100,000.

Senator DUNCAN:

– Yes, I admit that; but the Government do not propose to remit as much as is derived from the whole of the Entertainments Tax Act.

Senator Earle:

– The increase in the exemption under the Income Tax Act to £200 represents a reduction in taxation of £600,000.

Senator DUNCAN:

– The Government have had for twelve months the additional taxation from amusements, and they have not given anything in return for it. I realize that in many respects the picture shows are not all that might be desired. Some of them doubtless are of a vicious nature, but that is not a matter that can be regulated by means of a taxation measure. I object to any taxation measure being used for that purpose. Unquestionably there is need for greater regulation of picture shows. A more stringent censorship is required, and the censorship throughout the Commonwealth should be coordinated. A certain picture may be permitted to be shown in one State, while in another part of Australia it is prohibited. I object to any attempt being made to use this Billin the way suggested by certain honorable senators. I hope the second reading will be carried, and that the small measure of relief represented by it will be afforded to the people of the Commonwealth.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– In my opinion the wholequestion of the taxation of amusements should be reviewed. Representations were made to me recently by the Institutes Association of South Australia, a body which does an immense amount of educational work throughout the State, and it has pointed out what a lot of bother has been occasioned by the entertainments tax. I am at a loss to understand why the Bill has been introduced. I suppose it is intended to benefit the poorer sections of the community, but the proposed increased exemption under the Income Tax Act from £156 to £200 will benefit those classes very considerably. Everybody should realize that it is a duty to contribute towards the cost of the government of the country. One hundred thousand pounds is a comparatively small amount, but it is one-half the total deficiency of last year, and it represents only 4¾ d. per head of the population of the Commonwealth. In the circumstances, I shall vote against the Bill.

Senator GARLING (New South Wales) [4.151. - Judging by the attacks made on the Government by a number of honorable senators, one would assume that all Parliament is to be asked to do is to remit £100,000 in taxation. This is really the smallest amount of relief to be given to any section, because the measures we are about to consider involve about £3,000,000. The talk as to why measures have not been brought in to deal with the primary producers, and the household expenses of the people, is all beside the mark. These sections are being dealt with in other measures to be brought forward. We are now considering the particular matter of the entertainments tax only. This taxation was imposed as a war-time measure. That Act was of a most unusual nature, and the tax was imposed under most unusual circumstances. In my opinion, those unusual circumstances have disappeared, and I regard the present Bill as a step in the direction of returning to the natural order of things, because I believe that the amusements of the people should not be taxed. It is important to have a contented population in our inland towns. I have lived almost all my life in inland towns, and when I hear an honorable senator saying that in the small -country town,s picture shows are not to be found-

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– You are talking about inland cities. You cannot have been outback.

Senator GARLING:

– Would the honorable senator call Wentworth, Tocumwal, Finley, Berrigan, Whitton, Yanko, or Ganmain inland cities? I have been among the people of such towns, and I know that a picture show is not a luxury, but an urgent necessity. People should be induced to settle in country districts, and they should have an opportunity of experiencing some of the pleasures of life. There is always talk about the drift to the cities, and it is largely due to the fact that the cities can attract the people by means of the variety of entertainment. In the eighteen months ended 31st December last, the population of Sydney and suburbs increased by no less than 186,000 at the expense of the small country towns. The present reduction in taxation, although small, represents a step in the direction of the entire disappearance of the tax. I have always urged that we can best secure decentralization by increasing the attractiveness of country life. The fact that the pictures sometimes shown are not of the class that we should like to see has nothing to do with the case. I sometimes think that the increase in taxation in the shape of the entertainments tax has had the effect of reducing the quality of the pictures shown in Australia. Judging by the remarks of some honorable senators, their attitude towards picture shows should take the form of supporting a campaign against these pictures. I say, however, that the moving picture, in its essence, is something that we should harness in for greater good. It is capable of almost endless good in this community. I would suggest that we- might, if it could be done,0 meet the objections of some honorable senators to the type of picture that is shown by providing in this Bill that picture shows shall not be entitled to the remission of taxation allowed in the Bill unless they exhibit not less than a certain number . of feet of an educational picture, preferably an Australian one, at every exhibition. That would be a step in the right direction. I doubt very much whether it would be competent for us to add such a request to the Bill. I shall vote in favour of the Bill because the Treasurer, in seeking where he can make remissions of taxation,’ has in this instance provided relief for a very large body of people. Smallthough the relief is, it is spread over probably a larger section of the community than any other form of taxation reaches. My other reason for supporting the Bill is that this taxation is one of the extraordinary war-time provisions which I hope to see gradually removed from the statute-book. Several honorable senators have spoken in favour of a remission of some of the taxation imposed upon the primary producer. We know, although no such proposal is before us at the present time, that the primary producer is being considered in connexion with the general remission of taxation. When these proposals come forward it will be for those honorable senators to join with me in seeing whether we cannot get even a greater measure of relief for the primary producer than that proposed.

Senator RUSSELL:
Victoria

.- I am entirely opposed to the entertainments tax. Although the tax was put on to tickets of admission to picture shows and other amusements, the proprietors of those shows pass it on. We do not reach the people who ought to be taxed. About £50000,000 is invested in picture shows in Victoria, and if we could reach the proprietors, instead of taxing the people who patronize the shows, I would be in favour of a tax of 20 per cent. We ought to get more, instead of less, revenue from this source. The Bill proposes to exempt from taxation tickets costing up to 11½d., but the Government is rather contemptible in this matter, because it will not allow a man to go to a picture show and pay a shilling without charging him a tax. In my opinion we ought to tax the buildings and the wealth of those who own the houses of entertainment, instead of the general community. We say that we are taxing the picture industry, but we are not. Some honorable senators have complained about the type of picture that is being shown. My opinion is that the pictures are very fine, and I think Senator Guthrie was unfair to them-. I can remember that in the early days of the picture theatre I used to get a “ wobbly “ feeling, and could not sit them out. To-day the pictures are quite different. Owing to the increased speed at which they are taken they do not flicker on the screen.. Many educational pictures can be seen, such as those depicting; Australian, industries, and scenery in this and. other parts of. the world. There is a theatre in my town, and children are not admitted to it at night, but a special entertainment is provided for them on Wednesday and Saturday afternoons. Thus the children, see only those pictures which are specially chosen for them.. Instead of taxing the punter we should tax the race-course, and instead of taxing the person who pays for a shilling seat at a picture show, we should tax the picture palaces and the theatres. I have paid a 3s.; 6d. tax in order to get a seat in the stalls of a theatre: We ought to get ten times as much by way of taxation out of the race-courses and theatres as we get- at present, and it would be< quite possible to take £1,000,000 out of the £50,000,000 invested in the picture shows of Victoria. Over the whole of Australia at least £250,000,000 is invested in the picture show business. It is foolish to tax the kiddie who wants, to see a picture show that may be educational. The picture show proprietors are becoming millionaires, and they ought to be heavily taxed. We could make the ,tax fairer, and get ten times as much from it. On one occasion when I was going to the races at Rosehill, I saw a notice that the State tax on a ticket for the stand was 8s. 4d., and the Commonwealth tax ls.. 8d. The ticket cost me 16s. 6d. I believe itv taxing race-courses, picture palaces, theatres, and ether places’ of amusement, including, per-‘ naps, cricket and football grounds, but

would make sure that the tax was confined to the proprietors or promoters. In Bourke-street there is the Victoria Club, which boasts of assets amounting, to about £60,000, and has 150 members who pay £3 a year each. Such places ought to be taxed heavily. They own some of the best blocks of land in our cities. The incidence of tha entertainments tax, which is paid by the poorest section of the community, is wrong. I would support the Bill if it contained a clause to prevent the picture show and theatre proprietors from passing the tax on.

Senator REID:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Rowell:

– Some picture show proprietors might, for business purposes, issue11½d. tickets, and so save the tax of one penny.

Senator Reid:

– Then the public would save 1½d. on each ticket.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Senator Rowell’s interjection is an answer to Senator Keating. Senator Keating fears that picture show proprietors may increase the price of their tickets, and Senator Rowell says that in order to deprive the revenue of one penny on each ticket, picture show proprietors will give up one halfpenny. If they do so the citizen who goes to buy a ticket now priced at one shilling will save 1½d. - > one halfpenny provided by the picture show proprietor, and one penny lost to the revenue. I do not think that we need break our hearts over that.

This brings me to a matter mentioned by Senator Russell. He thinks that we might raise a revenue of £10,000,000 from the amusements of Australia, but he does not think that we should do so by taxing the patrons of amusements. Somehow or other he would get the revenue out of the proprietors of picture theatres, race-courses and others controlling forms of amusements. He would levy the tax on them; but the honorable senator does not seem to. see that if we did so, it would not be. the proprietors who would pay. Does the licensee of a hotel pay his licence-fee? No, it is paid by those of my fellow senators who patronize him.

Senator Duncan:

– He does not pay the Excise on beer.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Of course he’ does not. It is paid by the consumers of the beer. Senator Russell’s proposal to extract such an enormous sum out of a limited section of the community would defeat itself, and there would soon be no proprietors to tax.

– It amounts bo £600,000. There is relief given to the extent, of £1,300,000 by the general reduction of 10 per cent.; £200,000 by the reduction of the company rate; and £400,000 by the removal of the surcharge on land .tax. Let me also mention that a reduction is proposed on the duties on farmers’ implements, about which Senator Wilson has said so much, to the extent of £350,000, and, in addition to that, the Government are proposing to pay £250,000 as bonus in order to enable the farmer to obtain many of his implements more cheaply than he does to-day. Can any one logically contend that to take £100,000 off the £600,000 now paid by way of entertainment tax is an unfair distribution of the relief from taxation which the Government now happily can promise? I believe my views will meet with the approval of a majority of honorable senators, and I hope they will support this measure.

Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 8

Majority … … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Entertainments Tax).

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

– I have considerable doubt as to whether the amendment I desire to propose would be in order. I wish to move that section 2 of the Entertainments Tax Assessment Act be amended by adding after “ sport,” in the definition of “entertainment,” the words “ except in relation to swimming.” The important art of swimming should be encouraged in every possible way, and there should be no taxation levied in connexion with swimming exhibitions.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator Buzacott). -Such an amendment would be out of order, because it would not be applicable to the Bill before the Committee. Section 55 of the Constitution provides -

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

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without request; report adopted.

page 2515

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Second Reading

Senator EARLE:
Vice-Pre sident of the Executive Council · Tasmania · NAT

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Anticipating the pleasure that the introduction of this Bill will give to some honorable senators, and anticipating also that there may be an erroneous idea in the minds of some of them as to the object of the Government in introducing the measure, it may be wise for me to make a short explanatory speech - although it is unnecessary to those honorable senators who have studied the Budget speech - relating to the genesis of this Bill, and one or two other measures referred to in connexion therewith. I shall take honorable senators into my confidence, even to the extent of giving away some Cabinet secrets, which, I am sure, will be appreciated, and will certainly cause honorable senators to discuss the measure with considerable sympathy, and pass it into law with commendable alacrity. The Government, through frugal administration and strict economy, found themselves in possession of an accumulated surplus amounting to ?6,408,000. The Treasurer (Mr. Bruce), who, I maysay in passing, is a genius in finance - for I have not met any one with greater experience and greater ability to place financial questions before a body of men - at once explained that it was a bad policy for the Government to withdraw from the community the use of such an enormous amount of wealth.

Senator Senior:

– That money is not held in inactivity.

Senator EARLE:

– Yes, it is, if it remains in the hands of the Government in the form of an accumulated surplus. The Treasurer said that it was unwise to keep such a large sum from being devoted to general purposes. Then the Government took into serious consideration the question of to what extent, and how best, this amount of wealth could be put into use for the benefit of the nation. It decided - and here I am giving away Cabinet secrets - to release, practically for the benefit of the whole people, half this accumulated surplus, amounting to ?3,200,000. It then became a question of deciding how we could most equitably disperse this amount of money. As the Minister for Repatriation (Senator E. D. Millen), in a previous discussion, has already explained, the general exemption from income tax was increased. That caused an absorption of ?600,000, and other relief decided upon was: Ten per cent. reduction all round in the income tax, ?1,300,000; reduction in companies’ rates of income tax, ?200,000; removal of the surcharge on land tax, which was the super-charge initiated during the war, ?400,000; and remission of entertainments tax, ?100,000. Recognising that it is desirable to assist to the greatest possible extent the land-workers of Australia; that the principles of Protection have not yet succeeded in building up those industries by which all the requirements of Australia can be met; that the lack of sufficient development of those industries has caused inflated prices to be charged for articles which have to be im- ported; that the land-workers particularly are beset with one well-known pest of Australia, to cope with which money has to be spent that is not reproductive; and that it is desirable to encourage the exploitation of the potentialities of the land of Australia, the Government decided to allow a remission of duties on goods used in this direction to the extent of £350,000. It is admitted that the best method by which farmers and landowners can cope with the rabbit pest is by wire-netting their holdings, and it is imperative upon the land-worker to expend very large sums of money for the purchase of netting in order, not to increase his income, but to preserve what he has. ^ I hope my Protectionist friends - particularly those from New South Wales - will not imagine that industries will now be neglected, or that the Government is in any way relaxing its policy of Protection for the promotion of Australian industries. The remission of duties under this BiH will probably amount to about £300,000, but the Government proposes that, following the Bill, there shall be. a Bounties Bill which will provide for bounties to be paid upon those articles produced in Australia which are in competition with the articles which will be imported at a reduced duty under this Bill.

To show the necessity for giving some consideration to this particular class of importation, I would make a comparison between the prices charged for these different articles in 1913 and 1920-21. We Protectionists always look forward to the day when, by the policy of Protection, industries will be established so firmly in the country that local industries will compete without protection with the products of other countries. I admit that while the standard of living is higher in one country than in another, if the manufactured goods of the country with the lower standard are allowed to be imported into the other country, the standard of living there must come down. Common sense prompts that view. The only protection which local industries have, apart from the Tariff, is the cost of freight and handling between the country of manufacture and the country of entry.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Does not the Minister think that the standard of living in England is as high as in Italy ?

Senator EARLE:

– The standard of living in England has very much improved since the war. In the years before the war there were very few countries where the standard of life was lower than in England ‘. It is a disgrace to our race that such was the fact.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– In what country in Europe was the standard of living higher than in England?

Senator EARLE:

– I would not like to make any comparisons. I doubt whether there was very much difference. In 1913 we imported 65,785 tons of wire, at a cost of £9 16s. 4d. per ton. In 1921-22, we imported only 12,525 tons, but we had to pay £23 14s. per ton for it, which was a very considerable increase. Of corrugated iron we imported, in 1913, 54,610 tons, at a cost- of £17 3s. per ton; while in 1921-22 we imported 42,551 tons, at £28 12s. per ton. Of plain galvanized sheet iron we imported, in 1913, 55,233 tons, at £18 4s. per ton, and in 1921-22 we imported only 10,615 tons, at £29 4s. per ton. These, figures show that the prices of these articles are abnormally high. The object of the Bill is to reduce the duties now charged on wire netting from 68s. British preferential, 85s. intermediate, and 105s. per ton general, to free, 5 per cent., and 10 per cent, respectively. The duty on wire for fencing at present is 52s. British preferential, 72s. 6d. intermediate, and 90s. general per ton, and it will be reduced under the Bill to free British preferential, 5 per cent, intermediate, and 10 per cent, general. The duty on galvanized iron stands at present at 72s., 90s., and 110s., and it will be reduced to 20s., 27s. 6d., and 30s. respectively.

There is also a provision relating to traction engines, which are another very important implement in the agricultural life of Australia. The duty on traction engines at present is 274, per cent., 35 per cent., and ‘40 per cent, ad valorem, which will be reduced under the Bill to free, 5 per cent., and 10 per cent.

Senator Senior:

– Cannot traction engines be made in this country?

Senator EARLE:

– They are not made to the extent which would be necessary to meet the requirements of the land-workers of Australia. Some are made here, but unfortunately the industry has not progressed as I would like towards a condition where we would .be able to manufacture all our own requirements in Australia. The bounty will be paid on the same conditions as are set out in the Bounties Act 1918.

The Bill further contains a proposal for imposing duties on electrical meters. In this connexion I do not think I can do better than read the report of the Tariff Board upon this matter. Honorable senators will remember that when the Tariff was being discussed in this Chamber it was represented’ by the strongest advocates of Protection that, if there was any instance where it .appeared wise to remove a duty or impose a duty, the proper course would be to have a report made by the Tariff Board, which was then about to come into existence, for the guidance of honorable senators in dealing with such propositions. .The report of the Tariff Board is as follows: -

An urgent request has been received from the Electricity Meter Manufacturing Company, Sydney, for a duty to be imposed on electric meters as manufactured by them.’

When in Sydney recently, the Tariff Board visited the factory where the meters are being manufactured, and were particularly impressed with the excellent work being turned out by the company, and which, in the opinion of the Board, fully justified protection being given by Parliament.

It was ascertained that when Parliament was considering the Tariff, the question of duty being imposed on these instruments was considered, but in view of the fact that the industry had not developed, the request for duty was not persevered with.

The Department, however, gave the manufacturers a note, stating that should their manufacture continue and increase, consideration would be given to the imposition of a duty on similar imported meters. With this the company have been able to obtain the business of the * Sydney City ‘Council, and have materially increased their output.

Owing to changes and the great reduction in the price of imported goods, the company now finds that they have to compete on even terms, that is, without any protection, with importing firms.

The Sydney City Council has informed the firm that unless a duty is to be imposed on foreign meters, no more orders can be placed with Australian manufacturers. As the City Council is now calling for orders for ‘33,-000 meters, the company requests that immediate action be taken to impose a duty, so that they may be successful in .obtaining this large contract, which will keep them going with a full staff for some time.

Further, the company states that owing to the want of a duty, their business has considerably decreased, and, in addition to losing a considerable sum of money on last year’s operations, they have also, at present, a large overdraft at their bank in Sydney. They further point out that they have been forced to reduce their employees in the last three months from sixty-six to forty-four, and that they are being undersold at a few shillings by importers.

The Tariff Board has checked the information given, and finds that the statement as to loss, overdraft, and reduction of employees is correct. The Board has also ascertained that the bank will not advance any further amount, and in fact, they are pressing the company to reduce the present overdraft.

From the evidence available, there is no doubt that, owing to wages, hours, and absence of protective duty, the local company is unable to compete with English and foreign manufacturers.

The Board has no hesitation in recommending that this industry deserves protection, in the same manner as Parliament has granted protection to other industries, and it would recommend that these instruments should receive a duty of 35 per cent. (British preferential Tariff), 40 per cent, (intermediate Tariff), and 45 per cent, (general Tariff). This is in keeping with the rate imposed on the more intricate electrical appliances. Meters .are a complicated and technical manufacture with much labour involved, and the rate stated, which is slightly higher than electrical and gas appliances n.e.i. rate of- 27£ per cent., 35 per cent., and 40 per cent., seems fully justified.

The Board also desires to stress the urgency involved in this application. From the inquiries made, there seems little doubt, unless some action is immediately taken, that this industry will receive serious damage.

When asked why application had not been made for a deferred duty, the reply was made that it was understood when the Tariff Board was appointed, matters of this kind could be readily adjusted.

While the Tariff Board has under consideration several matters which it proposes to recommend as early as possible, it believes that the withholding of this item until the others are ready, will very seriously prejudice the firm, lose this very large order now under consideration, and probably lead to the firm giving up business for the present.

In view of the fact that electricity is making such inroads into our business control, it seems essential to encourage in every possible way such an industry as that under consideration, and, in view of the urgency involved, the Board would suggest for favorable consideration’ that a resolution be laid on the table of the House, which would have the effect of bringing the duty at once into operation. This would not involve any delay in the business of the House, and, perhaps, it would be approved that this resolution stand until the other resolution is brought forward, dealing with the other items of the Tariff.

– If we are to encourage Australian industries by imposing a duty of 15 per cent. on wirenetting, I am sure it would be equally good business to pay farmers at least £3 per mile for the netting they use in protecting their properties. The duty would assist the manufacturer, and the bounty would be of immense advantage to the farmer in successfully combating pests, and developing his property to the fullest extent. When the Tariff was before the Senate I drew special attention to the necessity of primary producers using traction engines. I take it that tractors are going to play a mare important part in farming operations throughout Australia in the near future, and the sooner they are brought into more general use the better.

Coming back again to the Tariff Board, I do not know under what conditions it will wark, and so I have given notice of questions to be placed on the businesspaper for the purpose of obtaining this information. Having been vested with authority to deal with applications from interested firms asking for increased duties or a restriction of imports - because the Board is empowered to recommend the Minister to restrict imports - it is materially usurping the functions of Parliament. It would be well, therefore, if the Minister provided by regulation that all applications should, be made in open court, and all sittings of the Tariff Board open to the general public.

Senator Earle:

– There would be very grave difficulties then in getting the necessary, information.

– I am glad to know that the Tariff Board is satisfied. I would like to be as easily satisfied myself. I should like to know the evidence upon which the Tariff Board has acted. It would not injure the company concerned any more if this information were given, because it must have been injured to a certain extent by the bald statement already made as to its position. I realize, of course, that the new duties become operative from the moment this Tariff schedule was laid upon the table in another place, and in order to expedite its passage through this Chamber, I spoke following the Minister. I welcome the proposed reductions of duty in the interests of the primary producers, who are most concerned.

Debate (on motion by Senator Drake- brockman) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6.20 to 8 p.m.

page 2521

COMMONWEALTH AND STATES

Rural Development: Taxation

Debate resumed from 7th September (vide page 1985), on motion by Senator Lynch -

That the Senate is of opinion that in order to insure the more active development of the rural areas of the Commonwealth, prevent double banking in the function of collecting taxes, and properly delimit revenue-raising spheres as between the Commonwealth and the States, the Commonwealth Government, except in case of national emergency, should leave the field of land taxation to be exclusively exploited by the State Governments.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– I seconded this motion when it was moved by Senator Lynch out of courtesy to the honorable senator. Having looked into it and given it some consideration, it appears to me that it involves a great principle. It is an abstract principle certainly, but one which, I think, can probably be better dealt with in the atmosphere of this Chamber than in another place. We all know that the land tax is bringing into the Commonwealth revenue at the present time something like £2,000,000 annually. If this motion were directed to the sudden cessation of that taxation, thereby embarrassing the Treasurer and the Government, I should not support it. But believing as I do that it is intended by the motion to submit for consideration a principle which we, as representatives of the States, are better qualified than are others to deal with, and which, in fact, it is our duty to deal with, I am supporting the motion. We have to look back tq 1910 to ascertain what was the object of Parliament in passing a measure imposing taxation on the lands of the various States. It has been said that the object was to raise revenue.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– That was not given as the main reason for it.

Senator GARLING:

– I stated that that has been said, not that I said it. I have heard it said myself in this chamber by honorable senators who were members of this Parliament when the Land’ Tax Bill was passed, that one of its principal objects was to raise revenue. I have looked up the records of the past, as I was not in the enviable position of honorable senators who spoke for and against the Land Tax Bill at the time it was introduced, and I find that it had one chief object, though the raising of revenue was certainly mentioned.

Senator de Largie:

– It was never mentioned so far as I can remember.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Does the honorable senator not think that immigration is primarily a State matter.?

Senator GARLING:

– I wish to say, in reply to the charge to which I have referred, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), when in conference with the Premiers of the States, had it’ made clear to him by the Premiers that he could not expect to be given the slightest control over their lands. They would not budge an inch. They would not permit anything in the nature of joint control. They said that the lands were theirs, and they were the persons to arrange how money should be borrowed, and the terms and conditions on which their lands should be settled. They will find themselves saddled with heavy responsibilities soon, in view of the fact that they will have to negotiate large Joans if . they are going to make immigrant settlement a success. My suggestion will, at least, afford them a sinking fund for the purpose of gradually reducing loan liabilities. I have endeavoured to show that the motion is one that the Senate should readily pass. It is not directed to some immediate action that would plunge the Government into financial difficulties because of the withdrawal of a large amount of revenue, but it concerns a principle that will have to be decided sooner or later, and this Chamber is one in which that principle ought to be discussed, representing, as it does, the several States as such.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

[8. 17f. - I move -

That the debate be’ now adjourned.

I ask Senator Lynch if he will agree to the adjournment?

Senator Lynch:

– I would prefer to have a vote taken on the motion to-night. An adjournment means shelving the question.

Motion agreed to ; debate adjourned.

page 2524

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2521).

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– Like Senator Gardiner, I cannot let this opportunity pass without, to a certain extent, gloating over the changed attitude of the Commonwealth with respect to the few items in the schedule of this Bill. It pleases me exceedingly to realize that the Government of Australia are so amenable to reason on this occasion that they have listened to the claims put forward on behalf of the primary producers of Australia, and are now giving to them, a measure of relief, at all events. It is moTe significant, perhaps, of the conversion of the Government that the Minister who introduced the Bill (Senator Earle) was described, during the course of the Tariff debates, as the “high priest of Protection.” As a matter of fact, he went even further than that. According to his own utterances in this Chamber he was virtually a prohibitionist, and now, in common with the other members of the Government,” who have responded to the logical appeals of those honorable senators who have advocated the claims of the primary producers, he urges us to put this Bill through without undue delay. I congratulate him upon his conversion from prohibition to Free Trade in a few months - truly a wonderful conversion - and it says a great deal for the broadmindedness of that honorable gentleman that he is capable of such a complete somersault with regard to these particular items. I shall not be unkind enough to recall to him his utterances when he opposed my point of view on a previous occasion, but I shall be generous enough to concede that he has been converted, that he has responded to reason, and that the description ‘ ‘ the high priest of Protection “ is no longer applicable to him. I hope that this Bill is indicative of repentance by the Government with regard to many more items in the Tariff, and that it is an earnest of their intention to give further relief, as soon as the finances of the country will permit, to the primary producers’ of the Commonwealth.

Senator Elliott:

– What about the pledges given to the manufacturers for the re-establishment of’ their works ?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I ami not dealing with them at present. The manufacturers have had a very big “ cut “ from the Parliament. I am pleased to say that the Government are broad-minded enough to see that they made a mistake in giving so much to the manufacturers, and are now handing back to the primary producers a little of their own.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– Casting our minds back to the attitude of the Western Australian senators when the Tariff was before us, it is not difficult to foresee that those of us who come from the western State, at all events, will enthusiastically support, the Bill. I re-echo the remark of Senator Drake-Brockrnan in expressing the’ hope that, as soon as the finances will allow it, more relief should be extended to the primary producers. Unless we can make profitable use of our land, so as to permit of a decent living to the producers, Australia cannot be prosperous for any great length of time. We could create a fictitious prosperity by forcing our secondary industries to such an extent that it would practically mean living by taking in one another’s washing. When it comes to a matter of export, however, we must look to our primary producers, if we are to be in a position to pay our annual interest bill.

I recognise, of course, that neither Australia, nor any other country, can be prosperous unless its industries are of a varied nature. A people cannot devote themselves exclusively to agriculture and at the same time have a large and prosperous population. So far as I know, history furnishes few, if any, instances where that has happened. Agriculture is an essential industry, in that it results in the production of the food necessary to a country’s existence, and at the same time it is the least remunerative industry to those engaged in it. In such countries’ as Egypt, Russia, and Ireland, where agriculture is practically the sole industry, the amount of poverty, with its attendant evils, is notorious. The manufacturing countries, Britain, France, Germany, and the United States of America, are striking proofs of prosperity. It is only from secondary industries that prosperity comes. Australia, therefore, must do something to create and encourage those industries, and we must ask ourselves by what methods we can best do what is necessary. The number of people who could obtain profitable employment on the land in Australia is far below the population necessary to hold this country, and, consequently, diverse industries are essential. We should ask ourselves whether the sys-tern of Protection, which has been given a good trial in Australia, achieves the desired result. Personally, I think we should give the bounty system a trial, because I believe it would produce that result without placing an undue load upon the primary producer. If it is recognised as a national necessity that secondary industries should be encouraged, it is only common sense to strive to distribute the burden over the whole of the community, instead of placing it upon a section of the people. I hold that the bounty system would do that in a fairer and better way than Protection does. Under our system of Protection one section of the community had to pay for bringing these secondary industries into existence and keeping them going. Many of them are very admirable industries, and one of them in particular I would be very loath to injure. I feel sure that the Free Traders would think twice before they would take action to sweep away every means of encouraging our secondary industries, if they believed that the men engaged in those industries would thereby become unemployed. If we did such a thing an outcry would go up from every city and from all the States. Free Trade is a totally impossible policy in a country like this. I think it is impossible anywhere in the world, and even in England the people seem to be abandoning their Free Trade ideas and have anti-dumping laws in operation. Recognising that the one Free Trade country in the world is not so enamoured of Free Trade as it was in the past, we may be quite sure that it would be unwise, in a high-wage country like Australia, even to think of Free Trade. I am in favour of establishing and supporting secondary industries, and I am endeavouring to face the problem of the best way to bring them into existence. The whole of the people, as far as I can judge, would pay the bounties, and the burden of creating and fostering secondary industries, such as wire-making, netmaking, the building of tractors, and so forth, would not fall entirely upon the farmers and other users of those commodities, but upon the whole community.

Senator Elliott:

– The community would not have to contribute anything, because there would be nothing to contribute to. The industries would be dead.

-I am glad to hear that ; but we have proof here in Victoria of the quality of the work of the Australian engineer.. It cannot be said in. this connexion that I am actuated by a desire to “boost” my own particular State, because I am referring to Victoria. Engineers in Victoria have demonstrated their ability to build this complicated machine, and have proved, beyond doubt, in open competition, that they are second to none in this business! Some years ago I made inquiries regarding the making of tractors. Six years ago I went to Europe, and, while in France,where tractors were much in use in connexion with the war, I took every opportunity available to gather information. I had in my mind the purchase of a tractor, and I was anxious to get the best possible make. Knowing how much older the engineering industry and engine building were in other countries than inAustralia, I was anxious to see all that was to be seen at the battle front. I knew that France was well advanced in the motor industry. I saw a number of different makes of tractors both in France and England. Later I continued my investigations in America. I went to various manufactories, and I again had a good opportunity of seeing what engineering firms in that country could do in the way of building tractors. When I came back to Australia I saw the various makers of tractors here, and I want to say that right in the State of Victoria we have builders of tractors who are second to none. At Burnley a man named MacDonald makes a splendid machine which, in open competition, did itself great credit when pitted against engines from other countries, including Great Britain and America. The Jelbart tractor, which is manufactured at Ballarat, was successful when competing against American and British machines at Werribee in a test conducted under very strict conditions, and supervised by Government officials. Everything was done in an open manner, and every opportunity “was given for the competing machines to demonstrate their general utility. The Australian machine undoubtedly proved its superiority over those manufactured in. other countries, and I am glad to know that the Government have recognised the necessity of doing everything possible to encourage the industry by removing the duty and paying a bounty in order that Australian machines may be placed on the market at a reasonable price. When in Western Australia recently, in company with the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), a visit was paid to soldier settlements, and we found that American, and not Australian, machines were employed in cultivating the land. It is difficult to understand why preference should have been given to imported tractors when the Australian machines clearly demonstrated their superi ority at the Werribee test. The American machine on that occasion was so unsatisfactory that it did not complete the work which it was supposed to do.

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Machines are usedin tree-pulling in the south-western portion of Western Australia.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I am not dealing with tree-pulling machines, but with those used in cultivating the soil. Treepulling machines are different in construction, and I am speaking of agricultural implements with internal combustion engines which are used in place of horse teams. The proper and patrictio course for us to pursue is to encourage our secondary industries, as is proposedunder this Bill, which provides that, instead of making one section of the community bear the whole burden, the cost shall be shared by the community., When the test of tractors was made at Werribee, Mr. Darbyshire, who was the resident engineer at Kalgoorlie in connexionwith the Trans-Australian railway, was asked to report on the test. His report, which is dated 2nd October, 1918, was submitted to the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner, and reads -

Trial of Tractors : State Experimental Farm, Werribee, 19th and 20th September, 1918.

In accordance with your instructions I attended at these trials, and have to advise as fol lows: -

Nine tractors were entered for competition : -

Out of the nine types of tractors only two, viz., Bates Steel Mule and the Cleveland tractor, were new varieties, all the others being various adaptations of those previously seen.

The only one that I consider suitable for useon railway construction is that made by Jelbart Company, Ballarat; this, I am certain, could be made of great use on a job large enough to justify the initial cost. (Signed) John Darbysiiire,

Resident Engineer.

Five Australian, three American, and one British machine competed. Two of the Australian machines were made by Mr. McDonald, of Burnley, Victoria, two by the Sunshine Harvester Company, also of Victoria, and one by Jelbart Limited, of Ballarat. The competing machines were of different weight, and mightbe termed light tractors suitable for cultivation. The full particulars of the test are as follow: -

– The whole of the people of the country, whereas under a protective Tariff the duty is passed on to the unfortunate consumer or user of a particular commodity. The Minister in charge recognises that any system of Protection must increase the price to the consumer. It is because of this that the

Government now propose to reduce the duties upon the items mentioned in the schedule to this Bill; otherwise there would be no reason .for this measure at all. The fact is that the farmers want to obtain these particular articles at a lower cost than is possible under the present protective’ Tariff, and the Government are anxious, and properly so, to meet their wishes. And that the manufacturers may not be called upon to meet unfair competition from overseas they are now to be helped by means of a bounty. The proposal has my undivided support. I congratulate the Government upon the step which they are now taking. I believe that our. primary producers will be able to get some of their requirements a,t a much cheapen rate than has been possible hitherto. I believe also that the Australian manufacturers will not suffer in any way, because they will be adequately protected by the bounties. Even at this late season I congratulate the Ministry and those who stood so manfully by the Government when others of us were attempting to secure a reduction of these duties in accordance with the prayer of the petition which I had the honour to present, and I congratulate particularly the Minister in charge, who then was the most bitter opponent of those unfortunate petitioners. In the circumstances, like Senator Drake-Brook - man, I cannot refrain from gloating a little over the change that has come over the situation, brought about, no doubt, by the necessities of the times.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I was turning over in my mind’ just now whether I would waste the time* of the Senate for a single moment,,, while this Bill is being dealt with, because.I have a very vivid recollection that while the Tariff schedule was going through the; Senate, when the honorable senator who used to sit in the seat lower than yours, Mr. President, used to say, “The ‘Ayes’ will pass to the right and the ‘Noes’ to the left,” supporter’s of the Government would always cross over to the left, and I am a little bit fearful that if I delay the Bill by speaking now honorable senators will rush across and defeat this’ Bill through’ sheer habit of mind. So I am in fear and trembling as to what may happen ; yet I am tempted to speak. It is a real and genuine pleasure to think that, at last, we have got into the position of being able to say, “I told you so.”

Some people are wise after the event. We who in those days spoke for the unfortunate primary producers were in the position of being- wise both before and after the event. We are glad to think that the Government have come to the conclusion that, after all, our statement of the case was right. The position of the consumers to-day is the same as it was last year. There is no difference. Why, then, this change on the part of the Government? Is it because there is the phantom of the ballot-box in sight? Is it because that, in the case of some honorable senators, there is the vision of their own political funeral procession ? Is. that the reason? There must be some reason, because, ‘as I have stated, the case for the producers to-day is no stronger than it was last year. I do not know really what has happened., but I am thankful, even at this late hour, to be able to lick up the crumbs that fall from Dives’ table. That is all. I will not say anything about the change that has come over Senator Earle. Nor shall I speak of the remorse of a stricken conscience. I have been struck by that kind of thing myself. A tender conscience is always a good sign. There is always hope for the man who is genuinely sorry for his past shortcomings. It is only for the braggart who knows he is wrong, but will not confess, that there is no hope. But, of course, I have no desire to “ rub it in.” There is light coming. At last the consumers are going to get a chance. This Bill is going to help the man with the hoe; the man who, last session, was burdened so heavily under the tariff which my friend, Senator E. D. Millen, felt obliged to refer to in the third person singular as “ It is said,” not “ I say so.” Even Senator Pearce adopted the same attitude:’ “ It has been suggested,” not “ I said so” or “What I said in 1907.” If they did that, they would put the show away. I am pleased and glad to see bur vindication in this measure, even if only in part. I am afraid that the Government have been induced to introduce it chiefly because the phantom of the ballot-box has appeared before them. They have seen that they must come to heel at last. They have seen that there is some reason in the contention put up by a small but sturdy section in the Senate. It has had to be listened to, but J believe it has been listened to by the Government with the ballot-box illuminating their imagination.

I do not know that I would be in order, except, perhaps, in a very indirect way, in pointing out who is primarily responsible for this proposal. It may be said that the Tariff Board is responsible for it. Its recommendation is only what it should be, but it does not go far enough. I consider that the Tariff Board is wrongly constituted. There is a representative of the Government on it, a representative of the manufacturers, and lo and behold, a representative of the commercial community or commercial activities. Where is the consumer represented on the Board ? Yet this Bill is brought down to help;- what? The commercial activities of the country? Not much! The Government would not introduce a Bill with that avowed object. They bring down this Bill, and they tell us plainly and pride themselves on the fact that it is to help the consumers of these articles. But the consumers and producers of the country are not represented on the Tariff Board. Why? Their interests, apparently, are not considered worth while. Speaking comparatively we could count the people representing the commercial activities of the country on our fingers and toes, yet the consumers, who are the overwhelming majority of the people, did not get a look in when the Tariff Board was being constituted. That is why I say that this proposal coming from the Government is one for which we should be thankful, even in the attenuated shape in which it appears. I accept it as an indication and warrant of the beginning o£ better things. I do not hope for very much from the Tariff Board, because there are two avowed Protectionists on it to-day. If honorable senators will look at the Tariff schedule they will find that there are duties of 40 and 50 per cent, on articles which, as Senator DrakeBrockman has pointed out, are just as necessary for the expansion of the internal industries of the country, as are wire, wire netting, and tractors. The Government have not a word to say about the reduction of duties on those articles. Why? Because the Tariff Board stands in the way.

I welcome this measure as an evidence of something better to come. When we were considering the Tariff, I was informed by the Census Department that the number of persons engaged in primary production, in the Commonwealth was 235,000, and of that number the wheatgrowers represent 80 per cent. These are the men who are trying to wring a living out of the lighter and drier soils of the country. It is proposed to help them to the extent of three items. The proposal with respect to wire netting and wire will help them a little, but the men engaged in a large way will be helped most. Who, amongst the small men, can buy a tractor ? How many returned soldiers can buy a tractor? The Government have recognised for the first time the necessity of giving the rural industries of the country a chance. There are 200,000 people in this country engaged in the production of wheat alone. This is the largest section, bar none, engaged in any one industry in Australia. I have been hammering for years in this Chamber to secure succour and support for them, because I know something of the game, at least- I think I do, considering I have lost so much over it. Let these people step up to the ballot-box, and let us hear what they will have to say to the present Government. It is no wonder that the Country party is strong in the Parliament of this country. There would be no room for such a party if only the Government did the fair thing to the men who are hard up against it. I do not refer to those who are living in established centres on good land, but to those who are hard up against it on the vast areas on the frontiers of civilization in this country; the men who are living in lean-to shanties, and have to face the difficulties of the pioneer. The only relief they will get under this measure will be in connexion with wire and wire netting. They will not buy any tractors. Let the Government go a step further, and say that duties on farm implements coming from America and Canada shall be revised, and they will do some good. Take, for instance, harvesters. The 5-ft. harvester is the lowest in price. It cost £75 twelve or fourteen years ago. Its price to-day is £130. The price of an 8-ft. or 10-ft. harvester to-day is about £250 - the price of a farm itself. On that machine, the producer has to pay nearly £100 in duty. What is the Government going to do about that? We can never hold our own in the production of when i unless the cost of production is reduced to such a point as will enable our wheatfarmers to live and thrive, and, above all, to be contented. The essence of the success of an industry is content. When we find grumbling and murmuring in any industry, there is always something wrong, and especially if the workers are industrious. Who will dare to say that the farmers of the country are not industrious? They are the only people who are working without clocks or watches. The farmer’s only clock is, the time it takes him to rest sufficiently to turn out and have another go at his work. There are some fortunate ones amongst the farmers, but the men who are making this country, and particularly in the areas to which I have referred, are men for whom clocks and watches were never made nor intended. I have said that it is not to be wondered at that there “is a Country party in this Parliament. Things do not happen in this country by accident. The Government will say to the farmers, “We have done this for you,” and the reply will be, “It was scarcely worth your while. Do something decent.”

My proposition is that a trade arrangement should be entered into at once with Canada and with America to allow farming machines made in those countries to come in here, Canada and America at the same time permitting the entry of our staple products, such as wool, hides, &c. What is wrong with our directors of industry if they cannot stand up against Canadian and American competition? Our manufactures are protected to the extent of from 40 to 70 and 80 per cent, effective protection. I say that the man who claims that he must have an effective rate of duty of 70 or 80 per cent, is fooling the people, or he does not know what he is talking about. He is fooling the people when he says that the Australian workman is the equal or the superior of any other and at the same time thathis industry must be protected to the. extent of 70 per cent, against competitors in- Canada or America. The two statements contradict each other. The time has come when the Government - and they have no time to lose - should do something substantial in this matter. They have shown that they have relented. The Senate has had many knocks in its time, and many allegations levelled against it, but it appears that we may begin to enjoy the pleasurable sensation of having some regard paid to the views of this Chamber. The Government have been brought to their knees, and show a desire to modify the Tariff. Let them go a bit further. They will be asked, having done -.so much, to do what remains to be done. “The farmers are the men who stand be- hind the ballot-box, and one of them will say, “ I got a bit of black wire ; you will gee it in the shed, there.” He will then point to one machine and another, and so on, and will ask, “What have the Government done in connexion with these machines, where a saving worth while could be effected?” The Government must be ready with an answer. The farmer will say, “You are not going to get my vote until you have done something substantial. I have to stand up against the American, Canadian, and even Chinese, competition in the production of wheat for sale in the markets of the world, and smooth words and palaver will suit me no longer. Why should you want to shield these men in Sydney, Melbourne, and other cities?” That is a question which will loudly demand an answer. I ask why the Government should do this. I saw Mr. McKay and others come here when the Tariff was under consideration, but no farmer came here. He had too much to do. He had no time to come here; but the well-to-do men to whom I have referred had plenty of time

This proposal indicates that the Government are relenting, and see that they were wrong in passing our extortionately high Tariff. It will afford a little relief ; but it will provoke the question from those who have votes, “ Why not go further and give us something substantial?” I welcome the Bill, and hope it will be carried. I have no reason to doubt that it will . be the forerunner of something more substantial to come. Without hazarding or injuring the prospects or destiny of any individual workman or director of industry in this country, I want to see a lower Tariff, because I wish to put these men on their mettle. We are not going to bear their burden for ever. If they choose to be lazy and shiftless, and shelter themselves behind an unnecessarily high Tariff wall, and grow flabby at the expense of the people on the frontier, they will not do so with my vote. I shall put them on their mettle as I have been put on my mettle.- I want the Government to take the hint, because if they do not they will know where I stand in this regard. The Government will have the chance of sizing up the popularity of the move they have made. But it will open wider the eyes of people in the country, and the ballot-boxes will have their effect on any party in this country that will not treat the workers on the land, sympathetically. If Mr. McKay were in America or in Canada he would get no protection, or only a trifling amount of protection-. Those countries have practically abolished the forms of protection that we are keeping up here. I say that at is time we reviewed our policy. The time has come for us to resolve in our minds whether on not we should adhere to the old maxims. As a political neophyte in this country, I put a certain faith in that chapter in Genesis, “ Let industry be protected, and let the country prosper.” But I never went mad over it. The time has gone by for us to say to ourselves, “ Put on a high duty, and let the country prosper.” What unadulterated hog-wash! How can the people on the land employ men and pay decent wages when they have to give £100 for an agricultural machine? The Bill indicates a death-bed repentance on the Government’s part. I was pleased to see the beaming smile on the face of Senator Gardiner when he looked across the chamber at Senator de Largie, realizing that the good old cause for which he has fought was being revived. I welcome the Bill, and I hope that the Government regard it as only one instalment of the relief that they must give to the people whose interests they set out in this Bill to serve.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I cannot resist the temptation to remind Senator Lynch that it would not ‘be the first occasion on which he has made converts. He has taken a part in the framing of several Tariffs, and I well remember the honorable senator and his attitude in the debate on the 1907 Tariff. Let us see what he said on that occasion. I turn to Hansard of the 5th July, 1907, and I notice that in the course of the

Address-in-Reply debate, Senator Lynch said -

The Tariff we have had in the past has not satisfied the adherents of either shade of fiscal belief. It has not been a decent sample either of fish, flesh, or good red herring. I therefore welcome the announcement of the intention of the Government to introduce a Tariff which will give real protection to the Australian people in their industrial enterprises, which will be the means of providing much employment, and will, at the same time, secure an increased rate of wages to those engaged in carrying on the industries of the Commonwealth.

I was heretic enough to interject, “ The Tariff alone would not do that,” and Senator Lynch went on -

I am aware of that. …I am indifferent as to where new industriesare started as a result of an improved Tariff. For my part, they may be started at Cunnamulla, Port Darwin, Sydney, or Melbourne, so long as they are started on Australian soil. I want to see a start made in this direction without further delay, though I recognise that Western Australia cannot gain, and may lose to some extent by their establishment in other States.

Senator Lynch:

– Then you do not want an expression of independent opinion.

Senator EARLE:

– We do not want unfair condemnation of legitimate acts by the Administration. I submit the Bill with every confidence, and I hope it will be speedily carried into law.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported without request ; report adopted.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 September 1922, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1922/19220921_senate_8_100/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate21 September 1922

QUESTION

SITUATIONINTHENEAR-EAST

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES

POLITICAL ASPECT

Empire’s Safety First

Melbourne, Sunday

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

QUESTION

COCKATOO ISLAND DOCKYARD

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator Foll:

QUESTION

TRADE BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE EAST

Senator BAKHAP:TASMANIA

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

PAPERS

SENATE ELECTIONS BILL

PRESENTATION OF ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Senator E D MILLEN:Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

TELEGRAPHY AND TELEPHONY

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator EARLE:Vice-President of the Executive Council · TASMANIA · NAT

TASMANIA GRANT BILL

WAR PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL

ELECTORAL BILL

ENTERTAINMENTS TAX BILL

Second Reading

Senator E D MILLEN:Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator GARDINER:New South Wales

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator GARDINER:

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator WILSON:South Australia

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator WILSON:

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator WILSON:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator WILSON:

Senator GUTHRIE:VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator WILSON:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator WILSON:

Senator Garling:

Senator WILSON:

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:Western Australia

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Crawford:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Wilson:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator BENNY:South Australia

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator BENNY:

Senator GUTHRIE:VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator GUTHRIE:VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator Gardiner:

Senator GUTHRIE:VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senate
21 September 1922

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator EARLE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · TASMANIA · NAT

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator BENNY:
South Australia

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator RUSSELL:
Victoria

Senator REID:
Queensland

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917