Senate
26 May 1926

10^th Parliament · 1^st Session

ABSENCE OF THE PRESIDENT
OIL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT
PAPERS
QUESTION
- LAND VALUES TAXATION
QUESTION
- SMALL-POX CONTACTS
ALIENS REGISTRATION ACT SUSPENSION BILL
NORTHERN AUSTRALIA BILL
OIL AGREEMENT BILL
- Third Reading
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT

page 2254

ABSENCE OF THE PRESIDENT

The Clerk:

– I have to inform the Senate that 1 have received an intimation from the President that, owing to illness, he will be unable to attend to-day. Under the Standing Orders of the Senate, the Chairman of Committees will take the chair as Deputy President.

The Deputy President (Senator Newlands) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2254

OIL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

SenatorFOLL brought up the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts relating to the expenditure on oil exploration, development, refining, &c, in the Commonwealth and Papua - Part III. (Conclusion), comprising the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited.

page 2254

PAPERS

The following papers were presented i -

Nauru - Report to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration during the year 1925.

Naval Defence Act- Regulations - Statutory Rules 1926, No. 61.

Northern Territory - Ordinance No. 8 of 1926 - Workmen’s Compensation.

Public Service Act - Appointment - Department of Works and Railways - G. Franklyn.

page 2254

QUESTION

LAND VALUES TAXATION

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Homeand Territories if, in view of the magnificent success following’ the adoption of the land values taxation system at Canberra, as set out in Henry George’s immortal work - Progress and Poverty-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Newlands). - The honorable senator will not be in order in making a statement under cover of asking a question.

Senator GRANT:

– Is it the intention of the Government to erect a statue to the late Henry George between the provisional and the site of the proposed permanent Houses of Parliament in the Federal Capital ?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The Government’ has no present intention of doing what is suggested by the honorablesenator.

page 2254

QUESTION

SMALL-POX CONTACTS

Senator ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs -

Whether the Minister is aware that. ‘allegations of serious neglect of duty have been made in a newspaper against quarantine officials in regard to the improper admission of small-pox contacts into Australia?
Is such report correct?
If so, what action is it proposed to take to prevent a recurrence of such neglect of duty?

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– This question should have been addressed to the Minister for Health, who replies as follows: -

The statements in question refer ‘to the quarantine of the steamer Barrabool. In this instance the procedure adopted was uniform at nil Australian ports at which the vessel called, and was that adopted all over the world. The precautions taken to prevent the spread of infection were those universally recognized to be in accord with modern preventive medicine and to be adequate for the purpose.

page 2255

ALIENS REGISTRATION ACT SUSPENSION BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 2255

NORTHERN AUSTRALIA BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments.

page 2255

OIL AGREEMENT BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

– I should not have spoken on the third reading of this bill but for certain statements made in the debate on Friday last concerning the quality of the product supplied by the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited in Australia, and for the purpose of directing attention to certain comments made in the Australian Motorist on the 1st April last. That publication, I understand, has a fairly large circulation in at least one of the States, and its rather scathing comments on the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited motor spirit, although they may be part of the propaganda of rival companies, call for an answer. The Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited has been doing business in Australia for some time in the face of the most hostile opposition, and, despite that opposition, is making headway. In the Australian Motorist on the date mentioned, there appeared analyses of the following motor spirits: - Plume, Mercury2 Shell, Powerin, C.O.R. (yellow label), C.O.R. (white label), and

C.O.R. (red label). The editorial comments on the analyses suggest deductions which, I am informed, are not justified by the figures, and I shall be glad if the Minister can give any further information on the subject. I am advised that’ the comments were not made by the analysts, and, further, that they are not a fair deduction from the figures submitted.

Senator McLachlan:

– Were the analyses official?

Senator FOLL:

-They were made by a certain firm from samples supplied, but the comments were not made by the analysts. I understand that, immediately upon the publication of the article, the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited endeavoured to ascertain how the deductions were arrived at.

Senator McLachlan:

– Did the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited make check analyses ?

Senator FOLL:

– I am asking for that information now. The analyses. to which I am referring were not made by the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, but by a private firm of analysts at the request, I understand, of certain persons connected with the journal in question. After obtaining those particulars this journal published, with big sub-headings, an article headed “ Is the Commonwealth Oil Refineries playing fair with the public?” The statement was made that spirit was being sold by the refinery under three different labels, although it was all one grade of petrol. I desire to know exactly what investigations were made by the department at the time, because this article, which is very damaging, will do much harm if allowed to go unchallenged. Can the Minister throw any additional light on the matter ?

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

– This matter first came under the notice of the Government as a result of a letter received by the honorable member forPerth, Mr. Mann, who forwarded it to the Prime Minister. The letter is as follows: -

Chamber of Automotive Industries, McEwan House, 343 Little Collins-street,

Melbourne, 25th March, 1926.

Dear Mr. Mann,

Re Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited’s application for more capital.

The attached will interest you, because it shows that the Commonwealth Oil Refineries

Limited, whilst claiming to be selling petrol cheaper than the importers, is supplying a brand equal to the importers’ third grade; therefore the importers are selling petrol equal to Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited at lid. lower.

I do not think additional capital should be granted until the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited’s balance-sheet is produced. It should have been lodged last June, but the company has not yet done so. If that concern, which has established an already heavy expense for taxpayers, is to be further subsidized, would not it be better to close them up altogether?

Youneed not return the attached papers. These figures have been obtained for the Chamber of Automotive Industries, and I think that you should give publicity to them from the House in the interests of the community.

Yours faithfully, (Signed) H. W. Harrison,

Secretary.

Honorable senators will notice that the letter, by its beading, its last paragraph, and the signature purports to come from the Chamber of Automotive Industries, and is signed by its secretary. Upon receiving it the Prime Minister referred it to the Board of Directors of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, from whom he received the following reply, dated 9th April, 1926: -

Sir,

It is hardly necessary forme to say that the letter from Mr. Harrison, as secretary of the Chamber of Automotive Industries, which, however, is repudiated ‘by the chamber (see copy of the president’s letter), is full of inaccuracies, so presented as to support the contention in regard to Commonwealth Oil Refineries products -

It may be as well to state that Mr. Harrison was formerly the advertising manager of the Vacuum Oil Company. He, for some time, acted as editor of the Australian Motorist, and we understand that he was enabled to acquire the proprietorship through the financial assistance of importing interests.

Its policy has been consistently antiCommonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, In the April number there is an article written by the editor, headed, “ Is the Commonwealth Oil Refineries playing fair with the public ?” in which he makes the same accusations as those contained in his letter to Mr. Mann.

In regard to the statement that the Commonwealth Oil Refineries are selling the same grade ofmotor spirit under three separate brands, charging three different prices, and thus defrauding the public, this is disproved by the letter received from Messrs.

Avery and Anderson, copy of which is attached hereto.

It must here be said that there is no recognized definition of a first grade spirit as such. Each crude produces a different class of motor spirit, and, subject to the way it is distilled, gives different grades.

The first grade obtained from on; crude may be inferior to the second grade of another.

As a statement of fact, practically all the brands marketed in Australia are first grade spirit.
5 ) At the Laverton refinery two “ cuts “ of spirit are made, which constitute the brands marketed as “ Yellow Label,” the first cut (first grade) and “ Power Benzine,” or “ Red Label,” marketed as third grade.

The grade marketed as “ White Label” (second grade) is a blend of the two cuts, and was put on the market to meet the Vacuum Oil Company’s second grade “ Kalif “ brand (which, by the way, is pro- bably a better all-round spirit than their first grade, “Plume”), and the British Imperial Oil Company’s second grade brand “ Anchor.”

The outside companies such as the Neptune’s, “ Waratah,” and the “ Gold Crown,” sold their brands at11/2d. per gallon less than “Shell” and “Plume,” and for that reason came to be looked upon as second grade, though, in reality, they were both marketing spirit equal to “Shell” and “Plume.”
In regard to the statement that the Commonwealth Oil Refineries’ three grades are one and the same thing, the refineries’ analysis attached hereto refutes this accusation, and any one knowing anything about refining or motor spirits, will readily realize this is the case; but, unfortunately, the public have little if any knowledge.
The letter to Mr. Mann and the article are very cleverly written, as they are only giving the opinion of Mr. Harrison.
The refineries’ analysis differs from that of Messrs. Avery and Anderson in what will appear to the public very small fractions, but which make all the difference. Messrs. Avery and Anderson are a reputable firm, and their fraction ization is no doubt genuine; but, as they were not responsible for the collection of the samples, reliability as to the genuineness of the samples may be open to question, nor is the fractionization alone a standard of good or bad spirit, but the aromatic and other’ contents must be taken into account. In “ aromatics” the Commonwealth Oil Refineries’ is the best.
The only real test is practical use. Any one putting “ Yellow Label “ and “ Power Benzine “ into their cars can soon find out for themselves whether “ they are all one and the same grade.”
“White Label” being a blend of the two would be more difficult to detect in actual test, and might even suit some makes of cars better than “Yellow Label.”
Whether Commonwealth Oil Refineries is a first, second, or third grade spirit, there is no getting away from the fact that “ Yellow Label “ gives results comparable with the best spirit obtainable on the market.

If Mr. Mann could find time to visit the refinery, he would very soon be convinced of the company’s bona fides. It might even be advisable to ask him to raise the question in the House, when the true facts could be given. It would certainly be a cheap and sure method of refuting the inferences suggested in the letter, and would give wide publicity.

Now I shall read a letter from the president of the Chamber of Automotive Industries, dated the 9th April, and addressed to Major Bird, Managing Director of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. It is as follows: -

L. W. Bird, Esq., Managing Director, Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, 313 Flinders-lane, Melbourne.

Dear Sir,

In reply to your letter of the 9th April, forwarded by hand this morning, the following are the facts as the writer knows them.

On the 10th March ( approximately ), we were asked to obtain tins of the three different grades of motor fuel marketed by the British Imperial Oil Company, the Vacuum Oil Company, and yourselves. This we did, and on the 1 1 th March samples were drawn by a representative of the analyst from each tin, and these samples were then, removed from our premises. We heard nothing further of tills until the writer . saw the article published in the Australian Motorist of this month’s issue. Mr. Harrison had no authority whatsoever from either the committee or a general meeting of the Chamber of Automotive Industries to make the . tests made, and at no time have cither the committee or a general meeting of the chamber ever discussed the question of the merits or demerits of the various fuels or of the action of any of the oil companies as a body. To be perfectly clear on this matter, I have not the slightest doubt that the committee would instantly authorize me to show you the whole of our . minutes covering all business discussed at cither committee or general meetings, and I will further distinctly state that we have not approved or authorized the letter signed by Mr. Harrison.

Yours faithfully.

Chamber of Automotive Industries, (Signed) Ernest A. Bell,

President.

There is another letter which has an interesting bearing upon this matter. It is from the Commercial Vehicles Proprietary Limited, Lonsdale-street, Melbourne, dated 9th. April, and is as follows : -

J. Larking, Esq., Distribution Manager, Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, 313 Flinders-lane, Melbourne.

Dear Sir,

In reply to your inquiry as to our experience with the different grades of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited motor fuel, we would state that, during last’ winter, we were using solely the Red Label spirit, but found that, for demonstration purposes, starting heavy lorries by hand was a little difficult, and we therefore changed over to Yellow Label, a marked difference being noticeable, and we could trace no difference between Yellow Label spirit and the first quality spirits of the Vacuum Oil Company and the ‘ British Imperial Oil Company, i.e., “Plume” and “Shell” motor spirits.. We would like to point out that, when using the Red Label spirit, no difficulty was experienced in starting the machines when warm. You will readily appreciate, from a demonstration point of view, quick starting was an important factor, hence our change to Yellow Label spirit, which we are still using.

Yours faithfully,

Commercial Vehicles Proprietary Limited, (Signed) E. A. Bell,

Manager.

Now comes the letter from the firm which made the analysis on which the article is alleged to be based. It is as follows: -

Avery and Anderson, Industrial Research and Analytical Chemists, Collins House, 360 Collins-street, Melbourne, 9th April, 1926.

J. Larking Esq.,

The Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, 313 Flinders-lane, Melbourne.

Dear Sir,

Our replies to the questions asked in your letter of even date referring to an article appearing in the April issue of The Australian Motorist, are as follow : -

1 ) The deductions contained in the article are not ours. We carried out distillation tests asked for by Mr. H. W. Harrison, and reported the results of the tests without any comment.
In our opinion the deductions are not justified by the figures.
. The figures as set out do not justify any conclusion regarding the relative merits of the various motor spirits. They indicate only the relative volatility at the given temperatures; a much more exhaustive examination is necessary to enable a comparison to be made of their values as motor fuels.

The figures at the top of the columns in the results of the distillation tests indicating “ 1st grade,” “3rd grade,” &c., are not ours. Our only description of the samples is the name of the spirit, and in some cases the colour of the label as given in the report.

Yours truly,

Avery & Anderson. - (Sgd.) D. A vest.

What can only be regarded as a contemptible attempt, by the misuse of an analysis obtained from Messrs. Avery and Anderson, to damage the reputation of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited spirit is absolutely disproved by the correspondence I have read.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2258

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21st May (vide page 2227), on motion by Senator CRAW.ford-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

– I am sorry that Senator Guthrie is not present to-day. All honorable senators are well aware of the challenge the honorable senator threw out on Friday with reference to the use of Australianmade matches, and the wearing of Australian-made clothing. I think I dealt pretty exhaustively in my remarks on Friday with the composition of the honorable senator’s own suit of clothes, and in his absence I do not wish to proceed further with that aspect of the question. The challenge the honorable senator threw out was accepted by me, as I think it will be accepted by other honorable senators of the Opposition when they speak on this bill.

Senator Findley:

– Surely the honorable senator does not take seriously what Senator Guthrie says.

Senator GRAHAM:

– In order to show the inconsistency of Senator Guthrie, I shall quote from his speech on the Customs Tariff Bill in 1921. To-day he claims to be an all-wool Australian and to favour absolute protection for all Australian industries against the outside world regardless of cost, yet in 1921 he said : -

On principle I shall support every proposed reduction of duty on tools of trade and agri-cultural machinery.

I am prepared to go the whole hog with the honorable senator when he says that he is prepared to protect right up to the hilt everything made in -Australia; but

I cannot understand him saying that today wheal in 1921 he said -

I cannot understand the attitude taken up by the Government. It seems to me that they have- made up their minds to be as stubborn as a mule. They are not prepared to accept any advice from their own supporters, but, on the contrary, seem to antagonize them. They have not even the courtesy to reply to the arguments that have been advanced in favour of a reduction of the duty on British imports under this sub-item.

Apparently when it suits the honorable senator to import things from the Old Country he is prepared to be a freetrader.

Senator Elliott:

– That statement cannot be justified by the extract the honorable member has just read.

Senator GRAHAM:

– I shall go a little further. The honorable senator also said -

The Minister in charge of the bill stands stubbornly to the duties proposed by the Government, because he knows that he has here some supporters who will vote as the Government please at any hour of the day or night.

Apparently the honorable senator was then prepared to throw his Government overboard when it suited him to do so. His attitude in 1921 does not coincide with his attitude on Friday last. Reading between the lines, I can only say that he is neither a protectionist nor a freetrader.

Senator Findley:

– He is a freetraderevenuetariffprotectionist.

Senator GRAHAM:

– As we know that Senator Guthrie is one of the heads of the woollen industry in Australia, we can only remark that he is taking up a peculiar stand.

Senator Findley:

– Not at all. He was a freetrader before he became interested in the woollen industry.

Senator GRAHAM:

– Apparently he is prepared to shift his ground at will. He also said, in 1921 -

If they think they can pull the strings, and induce a majority of honorable senators to vote as they please, without debate, and without offering any defence of a tariff which is absolutely ridiculous, they are making a mistake. . . . They talk of being Britishers, 3’et when they have a chance of giving a little preference to British imports, they are practically anti-British.

He was alluding to honorable senators of his own party. The same thoughts are in his mind to-day, but he is swallowing holus bolus the tariff pro- posals of the present Government. I said at the outset of my remarks on Friday that I was prepared to accept the tariff proposals of the present Government, but that is because I am a protectionist. There are some honorable senators of the Labour party who are not protectionists - members of the Labour party have a free hand on fiscal matters - but I have always held that Australian industries should be protected. My investigations of various industries have led me to realize that they have attained a . position which is not equalled in any other part of the world. The honorable senator went on to say -

The Government want to penalize our own kith and kin. They want to penalize the manufacturers of the Motherland by imposing a tariff which is almost prohibitive.

Such statements do not coincide with the remarks uttered by the honorable senator on Friday last. Senator Guthrie also stated that -

The Government appointed a commission, which recommended the payment of the basic wage of £5 16s. a week, and the cost of living, owing to this policy of protection run mad, will soon become so high that we shall have to pay that basic wage.

That is the opinion of an honorable senator who has said that he is always anxious to see the conditions of the workers improved, but on that occasion he was afraid that the recommendation of the commission would be adopted, and that wages would be increased. Senator Guthrie challenged honorable senators on this side of the chamber to produce the matches in their possession so that he could see if they were of Australian manufacture. He did not ask honorable senators opposite to produce their matches, but in their desire to foster Australian industries, I feel sure that they, like honorable senators on this side, would use only those manufactured in Australia. I proved conclusively on Friday that a good deal of the material in the suit of clothes which Senator Guthrie said was of Australian manufacture was made in other parts of the world. Senator Guthrie’s argument reminds me of a story concerning the manager of a rabbit canning factory, who when there was shortage in the supply of rabbits, substituted horse-flesh. Later, when complaints were made by consumers concerning the coarse nature of the tinned product, the manager was approached by one of the directors concerning the complaint. The manager explained that, as there had been a shortage of rabbits, he had used some horseflesh. He said, “ I have used it on a fifty-fifty basis - one horse, one rabbit.” An examination of Senator Guthrie’s Australian suit would show that 50 per cent, of the material was manufactured in Australia, and the balance in other parts of the world.

SenatorCrawford. - It was as Australian as any suit could be.

Senator GRAHAM:

– The honorable senator told us that it was absolutely Australian. This is not the first occasion on which I have discovered inconsistencies in the honorable senator’s utterances. Under a protective policy many of our industries have been firmly established, and the working conditions and wages of the employees are much better than they would be under a freetrade policy. “ Certain commodities which have to be imported, because they cannot be manufactured here, should be admitted almost duty free. There are other manufacturing establishments in Australia which I have visited, to which I have not referred, but as I do not wish to unnecessarily delay the Senate I shall refrain from making any further comment at this stage.

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

– It is generally admitted that a certain amount of protection is necessary in order to ensure the progress of Australia, and that if we are to . obtain goods at a reasonable price, a fair proportion of our requirements must be manufactured in the Commonwealth. In visiting the capital cities of the Commonwealth, particularly Melbourne and Sydney, one realizes the extent to which our manufactories are developing. On one occasion, when it was asked what were all the people doing, the answer was, “ They are at least making something.” Without fair protection, it is impossible for our factories to continue making something. I realize to the fullest degree that one of the benefits obtained under a protective policy is that we provide a home market for our primary products, which is the best market they could have. When we recognize, however, that duties are being increased, and higher wages, which increase the cost of living, paid, and when we see still higher duties proposed, we wonder whether it is not time to call a halt and consider whether we should nob start rounding off the edges of the tariff instead of increasing rates. I must confess that the schedule is framed in such a way that it can be understood only by experts. Doubtless many of the higher duties can be justified; but there are others that should be reduced. I particularly wish to direct attention to the fact that, -while some industries can get practically whatever duties they ask for, there are others which are unable to prosper because they cannot obtain a little extra protection. In instituting comparisons, I wish to refer particularly to the timber industry in Tasmania, which has for some time been seeking additional protection. I understand that, although the Tariff Board has inquired into this industry it is going to Tasmania again to make further inquiries ; but as the newspaper announcement to that effect, which is the only one that I have had, stated that the Board would only take fresh evidence, I wish to place some facts before honorable senators, to show the ‘ Value of the industry. Tasmania is . the smallest of the States, and these figures will show how relatively important to it the timber industry is. The following is taken from a report by the Tasmanian Director of Forests : -

There are at present under leases and permits some 300.000 acres of forest land, of which it is assumed some 100,000 acres are cut out. By assessing the balance of 200,000 acres at a yield of 20,000 feet to the acre - a total stand of commercial timber on leased areas of 4,000,000,000 super, feet in the round is reached. Suppose 50 per cent, of this is lost in conversion, a net balance of 2,000,000,000 feet super, of sawn timber would be produced. Of the balance of timbered land in Tasmania, 700,000 acres should be a conservative estimate. As the bulk of this is unexplored, let us consider 10,000 feet to the acre as the yield. This gives 7,000,000,000 feet super, in the round, which with a ‘50 per cent, reduction for conversion, works out at 3,500.000,000 feet of sawn timber. Therefore, on those figures, the total yield of sawn timber on leased and unleased areas would be 5,500,000,000 feet super. As Tasmania produces approximately 60,000,000 feet of sawn timber per annum, the forests would last at the present rate of cutting about 00 years.

Evidence submitted to the Tariff Board in some of the States indicated that there was a fear that our timber supplies would become exhausted ; but the people interested in the industry in Tasmania contend that there is practically an inexhaustible supply in that State. If the available timber should be cut at the present rate, it would last for 90 years, and in half that time forests already cut out would be grown again and the timber in them would be ready for use. The quality of our Tasmanian timber cannot be assailed. During the war years, Tasmanian timbers were put to every possible use, and they met every requirement. Tasmanian hardwood is used for the roughest of work, as well as for the finestof furniture. Our local market is limited. The great bulk of our timber must be sent to Melbourne and Adelaide, where it must compete with timber from the Baltic, as well as from Canadian and United States ports. The timber merchants in these oversea countries enjoy many natural advantages which our own people do not; and the wages of timber-getters there are much lower than they are here. We cannot nullify the natural oversea advantages, and I do not think that we have any desire to reduce the wages of our timber workers to the oversea rates. In that circumstance, it is necessary that we should impose higher duties on imported timbers. The Tasmanian timber industry is handicapped because it is subject to the conditions of the Navigation Act, and also because the timber is somewhat scattered, and hard to get to the mills. In fact, only small mills can operate profitably. I do not know anybody who has started saw-milling in a big way in Tasmania who has made any money at it. Conditions are quite different in the Baltic, and in Canada and the United States, where the forests are thick, and, generally speaking, the timber is floated down the rivers to the seaboard. The oversea timber there is softer to work, and only an inconsiderable percentage is lost in conversion, whereas if we get 60 per cent, of marketable timber from the round, we consider ourselves fortunate. We lose a great deal more from heart and sap than the Americans do. Most of the oversea timber is sound from bark to bark. One of the timbers that our Tasmanian timber has to compete against is what is known as Manchurian oak, which is got under probably the lowest wages in the world. The following figures show the wages of bush workers in Tasmania and countries that are competing with us for the Australian timber trade: -

Tasmania - £4 6s. a week of 48 hours.

America - £3 14s. a week of 57 hours.

Canada - £3 14s. a week of 48 to 54 hours.

Sweden- £2 8s. a week of 48 hours.

Senator Thompson:

– Does the Tasmanian Government impose heavy royalties on timber areas ?

Senator J B HAYES:

The “ added value “ figure that we have reached, with 1.4 horse-power per employee, much exceeds that realized in America with the same horse-power….. Our “ added value” at 4 horse-power per employee should, when it arrives, exceed that realized to-day in America.

– Has the honorable senator become a protectionist? I am not in a position to contradict his suggestion; but I know that the seven or eight high-powered turbines used in Tasmania have all been imported.

Senator Thompson:

– They are all of British manufacture.

Senator OGDEN:

– Yes. Let us consider whether it is worth while protecting such an industry. Here, again, Mr. Julius gives some interesting facts -

In the manufacture of electric light and power, the total investment is very neaTly £21,000,000, with approximately £4,000,000 in land and buildings, and nearly £17,000,000 in plant and machinery. In 1923-4, Australia paid nearly £S59,00’6 in duty on electrical apparatus, nominally to protect electrical manufacturers in this country, and this amount in 1921 was nearly £933,000. Three thousand six hundred and forty-one persons were employed in the electrical factories, with an average wage of £174 per annum, but the total cost to Australia - that is, wages and ‘ duty added together - was £521 per employee; whereas the value added per employee by the manufacturing process in this industry was only £243.

The figures I have just given, carefully selected and compiled by a most capable man, furnish a complete answer to the question whether it is worth while protecting an industry such as this.

Senator Findley:

– He is evidently not a protectionist.

Senator OGDEN:

– Let me finish the extract. It proceeds -

Taxation to support this industry is therefore far in excess of the entire wealth produced by the industry. This, in itself, is bad enough, but the taxation undoubtedly retards the introduction of power into other industries, and so “ slows up “ our progress in all those industries. An analysis of the Customs revenue figures goes to show that, since 1907, an amount of £6,500,000 has been paid as duty on electrical work exclusive of any duty paid on wires and cables. Interest and sinking fund on this amount must be provided, which can be assumed at 10 per cent., and this means that those who generate and those who use power are carrying an overhead burden of £650,000 per annum, in respect of duties which have been paid, and this burden is now increasing at the rate of £85,000 per annum.

That is what Mr. Julius says in regard to an industry we are protecting with a ‘ 60 per cent. duty. We are not only bolstering up an artificial industry, but also penalizing industry in general, by raising the cost of electric power, when our object should be to make it as cheap as possible, and induce its use in every home. For every ten locally made domestic electrical appliances, a hundred must be imported. It seems to me that we are pursuing an entirely wrong policy. It is certainly not a scientific policy. We are supposed to have a scientific protective tariff, and I should be prepared to accept such a policy, but, when I find that we are penalizing one of our most important industries, and retarding production generally, I think it is time we called a halt.

Senator Reid:

– I could understand a tariff of this sort if the Minister would be honest enough to tell us that it is being imposed for the sake of obtaining revenue, but, at the outset of his remarks, he said that there was in this schedule no proposal for revenue duties, and that every duty it imposed was in pursuance of the protection policy. I could pick out dozens of items which are not protective, and can never protect or encourage an industry, but can only result in the raising of an exorbitantly high revenue, giving the Commonwealth Government more money. Already it has difficulty in disposing of the revenue it receives, and is obliged to indulge in a policy of giving large sums of money to the States for work which could be provided for by the States themselves if the Federal Government allowed them a wider field of taxation. I should like to see our expenditure and revenue balance, so that there would be no surplus. Commonwealth Ministers will have to come down to bedrock, financing the commonwealth economically instead of extravagantly as they sometimes appear to be doing. The duty on electrical appliances is the one phase of the tariff I intend to deal with on the second reading. There are many other items in the schedule to which I shall refer in committee. In my opinion, we are pursuing a most vicious and foolish policy in attempting to encourage exotic industries at a tremendously high cost to the consumer. The cost of production goes up, hours of labour are reduced, and wages go up. The manufacturer then comes along and asks for an increased duty, and he gets it. The worker thereupon asks for still higher wages. And so we are following a vicious circle. I doubt whether we are living in such prosperous times as the optimism of some of our Ministers and honorable senators would indicate. I think we are living largely on borrowed money and a fictitious revenue derived from a high tariff. It is time we got to bedrock. The only sound basis for industrial development is efficiency and quality. If an Australian manufacturer can produce an article which compares more than favorably with an imported product, he should not need any protection, because the Australian people will purchase that made in Australia. There is no such thing as prejudice against local manufactures. It is all moonshine. In the other dominions, particularly in New

Zealand, as Mr. Julius pointed out, they have adopted a policy under which electrical appliances and tools of trade and production are admitted duty free. The result is that there is greater prosperity in New Zealand to-day than in any of the other dominions.

Senator Crawford:

– That is questionable.

Senator OGDEN:

– In New Zealand they have devoted their energies to the development of their primary industries, and are not endeavouring to build up back-yard manufactories. We are not doing that in Australia. One does not purchase English goods because of a prejudice against Australian products. Why do we buy English tweeds ? Merely because tweed of similar quality is not manufactured in Australia. There is no doubt about that. We cannot get the value. Why do some use Swedish matches? I have a box of Swedish matches in my pocket, and I am not afraid to admit it. Notwithstanding all the nice things said concerning the local match industry, the quality of its product is not equal to the imported. When Australian manufacturers get control of the market there is a tendency on the part of some to say, “Now we have a monopoly, anything is good enough for Australians.” That will not do at all. If the Australian manufacturers wish to compete with importations, and build up sound manufacturing industries in this country they must “ produce the goods.” A very high tariff is only subsidizing inefficiency. High duties have been imposed upon woollen goods for the last 30 or 40 years. What is the result? In many of the woollen mills the machinery is inefficient, and the organization unsatisfactory, merely because they are sheltering behind the high fence of prohibition. If the Australian manufacturers of woollen goods had to compete in the markets of the world on a fair basis they would be compelled to produce a better article. I trust that there will be a measure of sanity in the debate, and that honorable senators will not blindly follow the advice of Ministers or the Tariff Board. The Tariff Board is not a thoroughly representative body. Country interests are not represented upon it.

Senator Findley:

– Neither are the workers.

Senator OGDEN:

– The Tariff Board is representative only of city interests. I am strongly in favour of the development of our primary industries, and I trust that, in dealing with the schedule, honorable senators will not depend upon the advice of the Tariff Board, but will use their own judgment. 1 intend to support a reduction of duties on many of the items, and I trust that in considering the schedule honorable senators will not be blinded by prejudice, and influenced by the fiscal madness that has come over Australia, but will use discretion, and support a sane policy.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL (South Australia) [4.40]. - I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the speech of Senator Ogden, which was full of good, sound common sense. It was in striking contrast to the speech delivered by Senator Grant on the first reading of the bill and that of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham). After listening to the latter, I had not the faintest idea of what his fiscal faith really is. I do not know whether he is a prohibitionist, a high protectionist, a moderate protectionist, or a freetrader.

Senator Sir Victor Wilson:

– Then it was a very successful speech.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– It would be if it were not analysed. The fiscal faith, of Senator Needham would be determined by the portion of the speech which one heard. The remarks of Senator Ogden were in striking contrast to those of the other two honorable senators to whom I have referred. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce), in his policy speech delivered at the Dandenong Town Hall on the 5th October last, said -

The tariff policy of the Government is based upon the principle of sane and reasonable protection to efficient Australian industries.

With that policy I entirely agree, but, at the same time, I desire to say that the Bruce-Page Government has already gone far beyond the policy then laid down by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government. The Prime Minister also said -

The Government stands for this principle, hut recognizes that the incidence of a protective tariff, based upon the determination of the Australian people to maintain a high standard of living for our workers, places our primary industries with an exportable surplus at a disadvantage when selling abroad in competition with the cheaper labour production of other countries. This fact renders it necessary that the fullest consideration should be given to the. effect upon our exporting industries of the standard of wages and conditions existing in Australia, with a view to rendering an equivalent measure of assistance to producers selling in external markets as is afforded to those who find a market within our own borders. Only in this way can justice be done to the different sections of our people and a well-balanced development assured.

The question naturally arises as to what the Prime Minister meant by an “ equivalent measure of assistance to producers selling in external markets as is afforded to those who find a market within our own borders.” So far as I can see, the only reasonable way in which to assist producers, and primary producers in particular, selling in external markets, is to lighten some of the heavy burdens at present imposed upon them by the existing tariff. I approach this subject in much the same way as did Senator Ogden. Australia is essentially a primary producing country, and to ensure full and proper protection of Australian industries our greatest efforts should surely be directed towards the development of our primary industries. A vast agricultural country, such as Australia, ought to produce more than 3 per cent, of the world’s wheat. That is all we are doing at present.

Senator Ogden:

– We have to depend largely upon our primary production.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– Yes, and we should, therefore, not place any undue burden upon our primary industries. The Prime Minister said “ that the Government recognizes that the incidence of a protective tariff . . . places our primary industries with an exportable surplus at a disadvantage . . . “ What, then, ought the Government to do ? Surely some steps should be taken to minimize, as far as possible, the disadvantages which the Prime Minister says the primary producers are labouring under.

Senator Grant:

– Why not remove the duties which are harassing primary producers ?

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.The Government does not believe in doing that. I have said that the Government may lighten the burdens which fall upon the primary producers by reason of the tariff. They cannot entirely dispose of these disadvantages. A high tariff necessarily means a high cost of living.

The Government could do something towards minimizing the disadvantages of the primary producers, by giving some relief from the duties imposed at present on agricultural machinery and farming implements generally. It could remove or reduce the duty on engines used in connexion with farming operations. I have not the slightest doubt that the reply of the Government to such a suggestion will be that the existing duties are necessary to protect the secondary industries at present engaged in the production of agricultural implements. If adequate protection to our secondary industries necessarily means serious detriment to a primary industry, the question naturally arises as to which is the more important to Australia - the primary industry of agriculture, . or secondary industries which supply implements used in agriculture? There can be only one answer. The primary industries are infinitely more important than the secondary industries.

Senator Findley:

– The primary industries could not carry on successfully without secondary industries.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.I am not arguing against Australia encouraging secondary industries. I realize that, if this or any other country is to progress, it must, so far as is possible, build up its secondary industries. I am, however, arguing in favour of a proper discrimination. Our primary industries are capable of almost limitless expansion. If we do not cripple them by placing upon them an intolerable burden, we can successfully export our surplus primary products. What is the position in regard to secondary industries? The possible expansion of our secondary industries is limited, because we cannot export our manufactures to any appreciable extent. I agree with Senator Ogden that it is sheer madness to bolster up secondary industries to such an extent as to jeopardize our primary industries. Even Senator Grant does not question such a statement.

Senator Grant:

– I do.

Senator McLachlan:

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.I think not. Some people in Australia think that a limitation of production is a blessing rather than otherwise. I should not be surprised if Senator Findley were among the number.

Senator Findley:

Senator H Hays:

– The folly is just as pronounced with regard to mining machinery.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.That is so; and so it is with regard to oil refining. It is economic suicide for us to destroy our natural industries in order to build up artificial industries. We should not place hampering burdens upon industries, which under reasonable conditions could develop markets outside as well as inside Australia. By a fostering system of tariff protection you may build up a home market, but by a fostering system which is unreasonable or illconsidered, you may deprive an important industry of all chance of competition in an outside market. We may build our tariff wall so high that we shall force our people to be content with trading among themselves, and make it impossible to trade with any other country. It must be remembered that a tariff wall that is effective in keeping out the surplus products of other countries is just as effective in keeping in the surplus products of our own country. That danger does not seem to be recognized by some of our so-called economists. While we have so many artificial restrictions hampering our Australian trade and commerce, we cannot hope for that development and expansion which the great resources of the Commonwealth would otherwise render possible. Senator Ogden pointed out that we are living under a more highly artificial system than the people of any other country in the world. We have a high standard of living in Australia, which no one is more anxious than I to maintain, and even improve, but how can we expect to even maintain it by purely artificial means ? Our everincreasing protective duties render necessary an ever-increasing rate of wage. That constantly ever-increasing rate of wage makes inevitable a constantly increasing cost of living. This means that naturally there will be further claims for increases of wages. Nothing else can be expected. On the ground that wages have to be increased still higher protective duties are applied for and granted.

Senator Duncan:

– That is the vicious circle.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.Yes, indeed, it is vicious with a vengeance. Such a system might work all right for a time, but, in my opinion, the breaking point must be reached sooner or later. One result of the system in Australia is that we are unable to export our surplus manufactures to any appreciable extent; and the other is that our fruit industry is being killed. The system has already partly killed mining ; it has hampered our wine industry, and it is seriously affecting our pastoral and agricultural developments. .

Senator Ogden:

– It is a sort of living on doles.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– That is so, and that cannot go on for ever.

Senator Foll:

– Wages axe high, and hours of work are reasonable, in America, where a protective policy operates, and yet a cheap article is produced.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– The honorable senator was not here a little while ago when Senator Ogden showed that that result was achieved largely by the application of science to industry.

Senator McLachlan:

– There are other reasons.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.Yes, but that is the great contributing factor. The undeniable fact is that Australia is not progressing as she should, having regard to her wonderful and illimitable resources. I have no doubt that the statement will be made here as elsewhere, that during the last 23 or 24 years the population of Australia has increased under our protective policy to the extent of about 2,000,000 people, and that production has also increased to a very great extent. But these increases are not what I think they should have been, and these facts are no argument against the contention I am putting forward. I am not arguing against tariff duties or against the tariffs of 23 or even 13 years ago. I am questioning certain unreasonable increases that have taken place within the last few years, and which are still taking place.

Senator Grant:

– At what point does the vicious circle start ?

Senator SIR HENRY BARWELL:

– I thought I had completed the circle. If, however, the honorable senator is in doubt, I advise him to secure a copy of my remarks to-morrow and read them carefully. I am not saying that all increases in the tariff are wrong. My point is that proper discrimination is not being observed in the imposition of these duties, and that the readiness to impose unreasonable duties is placing an undue burden upon the people of Australia generally and upon our primary producers in particular. Something has been said in the course of this debate about prohibition. I believe there are one or two prohibitionists in this chamber. I regret that Senator Graham is not present, because I understand that in tariff matters he is a prohibitionist. I invite these tariff prohibitionists to consider what the effect would be if we completely shut out all imports of commodities which could, in any circumstances, be produced in Australia. The merest tyro in economics must realize the dependence of imports upon exports, or vice versa, the dependence of exports upon imports. Australia is receiving approximately £140,000,000- last year I think the amount was £136,000,000- in payment for herexports. Is it not clear that if our tariff prohibited imports we should lose that amount which at present we receive in payment for our exports? It is manifest that, if we export goods, we must take goods of some kind in payment. This simple fact seems to be lost sight of by many people who set themselves up as economists. If sometimes we do not buy from those countries to which we ship our products it is clear that they cannot continue to buy from us. No country can buy always without selling to the country from which it buys. I am convinced that before long the people of Australia will wake up to the fact that these increases in tariff duties are placing a heavy burden upon the community generally by hampering industry, restricting trade, and rendering impossible the full development of the natural resources of Australia. I believe the time is not far distant when tariff revision will be the all-important issue at Commonwealth elections and then the party to be returned to power will be that party which promises to re- lieve the people of some of the burdens which are being imposed upon them by the present high tariff. I am convinced that if the duties were reduced to reasonable limits, whilst some few secondary industries might go to the wall, agriculture would be encouraged, primary production generally would be assisted, commerce would be strengthened, and the welfare of all classes would be very considerably augmented. The point I wish to emphasize is that in the imposition of tariff duties we should discriminate between those secondary industries which ought to be assisted and those which may be regarded as economically wasteful. I referred just now to the matchmaking industry as one. Senator Ogden dealt fully, and very ably, with the industry engaged in the manufacture of electrical appliances, and showed how the imposition of high duties on electrical equipment had considerably retarded the expansion of other secondary industries in the Commonwealth. I wish to make it clear that I am not arguing against a protective tariff, because I am a protectionist myself. I believe that, in a young country like Australia, it is necessary to protect certain necessary industries, but not those industries that are wasteful from an economic stand-point.

Senator Elliott:

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

– I am entirely in accord generally with the principles of this measure. The Government has declared that it favours sane and efficient protection, and I follow it in that policy. It is very difficult to draw a line of demarcation between industries which need protection and those which do not, but I have no doubt as to the attitude I shall’ adopt towards those in which there is a tendency to reduce the hours of labour. An industry that can afford to depart from the generally accepted view of what is a fair day’s work plainly indicates that it is no longer struggling and securing only a bare existence. Honorable senators are supposed to represent all sections of the community, and it is necessary in the general interests that no further protection be given to industries in which the employees are not prepared to work ordinary hours. I shall object to supporting any further protection to those industries that artificially attempt to shorten the hours of labour. We should not penalize the primary producers, who work long and arduously in order to confer benefits upon those who are not prepared to do their fair share of labour. When the items of the tariff are considered in detail, I shall endeavour to elicit the conditions of work in the respective industries, and I shall limit the measure of protection that I shall support accordingly

– Yes. I was going to say that Queenslanders. take an entirely different view from that of Senator J. B. Hayes on the question of timber duties. In my State we have a great industry that uses a vast quantity of timber, and I have been requested to oppose any increase in the duties upon it. I am sorry to find myself at variance with the honorable senator from Tasmania. The Queensland Government, I am informed, has directly taxed the timber industry of that State to the extent of £1,137,128 since 1918, and has expended less than £520,000 in re-afforestation. My informant goes on to say: -

As we are very large users of timber in normal times, and pay about £8,000 per annum in timber royalty, we feel entitled to protest against any proposals, which so far as Queensland is concerned at any rate, will add greatly to the burden of the builder and consumer, without providing any necessary relief to those engaged in the industry….. It should be noted that in 1020, royalties on mining timber in Queensland were increased by 400 per cent., the increase varying according to the distance of timber from mills or railways, and it was only after a united protest by consumers and timber getters, who made it clear that a large number of men would be thrown out of employment if payment of the new royalties were insisted on, that the old rates wore restored. . . . An addition to the duty on timber will only add to the public burden, for the benefit of owners of standing timber, without conferring any benefit worth mentioning on those who fell and mill it.

Senator Grant:

– What is the royalty on Queensland timber?

Senator Crawford:

– Up to £1 per 100 super, feet.

Senator McLachlan:

– How do people build houses there?

Senator THOMPSON:

– They continue to do so, although the cost has increased tremendously. A cottage that could be built for £400 a few years ago now costs £800. This is a tremendous tax on the user of timber.

Senator Foll:

– It . is all due to the State Labour Government.

Senator THOMPSON:

Senator Hoare:

– Which item is that?

Senator Ogden:

– Is it whisky?

Senator PAYNE:

– No; it concerns textiles that are really necessary to the well-being of the community. The alteration occurred in this way: Soon after the introduction of the previous schedule, the workers in the textile industry determined to submit a new log of wages and conditions to their employers. I propose to show how this action enlarges the vicious circle and, if persisted in, must eventually make the whole position absolutely impossible. I may introduce the matter best, perhaps, by reading the following report which appeared in the press : -

A new log of wages and conditions lias been served on the employers in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, and Western Australia by the Textile Workers’ Union. A rate of £7 a week has been claimed for adult men and women workers. Other claims are: - Apprentices aged Ki years, £1 15s. a week; aged 17 years, £2 10s.; aged 18 years, £3 10s.; aged 10 years, £4 10s.; aged 20 years, £5 10s.; aged 21 years and thereafter, £7 a week. The log fixed the maximum number of hours to be worked as 44 a week, and overtime has been claimed at the rate of time and a half for the first hour and double time thereafter. Should an employee be required to work overtime without having been notified on the previous day an extra rate of 2s. 6d. on the overtime charges has been demanded.

Special provision has been made in the log for the training of apprentices in the industry, the responsibility for which was placed on the employers. The maximum proportion of apprentices was fixed as one male apprentice to every five or fraction of five male persons who were in receipt of at least the minimum rate of wages. It is demanded that employers should permit apprentices to attend a suitable technical school for at least eight hours a week in working hours without deduction of pay, employers to pay whatever school fees be otherwise paid by apprentices. Where there was no technical school convenient, it was stipulated that employers should provide apprentices with a technical course to cover the trade he was learning at an approved correspondence school.

– A suggestion has been made that every importer should have the right to declare and pass his entries through the Customs on the day of the arrival of the vessel at the first Australian port. If this could be arranged all traders would be on the same basis. I propose now to refer to a subject which was dealt with by my colleague, Senator J. B. Hayes, namely, the omission from the tariff schedule of pro,tection for the timber industry. I do not believe in high protective duties, but I am bound to say that the timber industry has not received anything like the measure of protection that has been given to several primary industries.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Senator PAYNE:

– Before making reference to the absence of adequate protection for the timber industry, I desire to point out that it is possible for the Government, probably on the recommendation of the Tariff Board, to propose duties that are in excess of the requirements of certain industries. As a case in point, I may mention that, when the tariff was under discussion in 1921, I entered a strong protest against what I considered an exceptionally heavy impost on corsets. On account of representations made by me I obtained a reduction of the proposed duties of 50 per cent., 45 per cent., and 40 per cent, to 45 per cent., 40 per cent., and 30 per cent., and under the reduced rates the local industry has prospered exceedingly since 1921. Another feature of the schedule is the fact that the full effect of all the items cannot be easily appreciated. I might mention the proposed alteration with respect to window glass. Under the existing tariff it is provided that the duty shall be charged per square foot; but under the new proposal the duty is to be charged at so much a pound. The proposed alteration in the British rate is from 2s. to 12s. 6d. a hundred square feet, which is an increase of over 500 per cent. I mention this fact in order to show the necessity for honorable senators to consider each item carefully. Now I come to the timber industry, and I desire to point out the necessity to utilize every part of our primary product. A largs proportion of the timber cut in our forests, although not suitable for ordinary purposes, is eminently adapted for casemaking, and I desire to have a sufficient duty imposed to assist the saw-milling industry by enabling Australian-made cases to be used wherever possible. It has been proved beyond doubt that these cases can be put on the market at reasonable prices. The proposal for additional protection on case timber has the endorsement, not only of the representatives of case-making firms and the saw-millers, but also the representatives of the fruit-growers. Therefore, it cannot be said that I lay myself open to a charge of handicapping any primary industry by reason of my suggestion. This matter was considered by the Tariff Board as long ago as 1924, and its report on case timber, at page 46, contained the following: -

Tasmania has met with greater success in the manufacture of cases and boxes from their local hardwood than any other State up to the present. The timber principally used for this purpose is the stringybark, and the swamp gum, which correspond with the Victorian mountain ash. For some considerable time now in the export of Tasmanian apples, by far the largest in Australia, the hardwood case has proved an unqualified success when the timber has been carefully seasoned on The spot. The Tariff Board is of opinion that there should bc found a considerable demand for such hardwood cases for the interstate trade in Australia should proper care be given to the seasoning, which would be encouraged if Parliament adopts the recommendation for an increase suggested by the board. The Tariff Board has now set out in an impartial manner the position as it exists in each separate State of the Commonwealth, both as to its essential requirements and its supplies from local sources, from other States, or from overseas. Examining this evidence with the object of determining how the requests submitted for an increase in duties would affect the different States, the Tariff Board can come to no other conclusion than that the effect of such duties would be deleterious and cannot recommend that the requests should be granted, save with one exception, and that in regard to timber (case). In this connexion the Tariff Board desires to express its appreciation of the fairminded manner in which the applicants for an increased duty on case timber acquiesced in the desirability of the granting of a drawback on cases exported made from imported timber, in a general desire to assist in the disposal of Commonwealth primary products packed in containers.

Whilst the board makes a recommendation for certain increases, these fall short of being of any material assistance to the industry. The position of this section of the industry is so grave that it is practically threatened with extinction. Today hundreds of mills are closed down, and week by week more men are being thrown out of employment to further swell the ranks of the thousands of timber workers who are losing their means of livelihood, whilst millions of pounds sterling are annually being sent overseas to keep foreign workers employed. The imports of case timber into the Commonwealth showed an increase of no less than 5,500,000 super, feet during the year 1924-25, as compared with the year 1920-21, and compared with the year 1923-24, the imports last year increased by 10,250,000 super, feet. To show how keen the competition in price is I might mention that, under the item “ Undressed n.e.i. for the manufacture of boxes as prescribed,” the imports were -

Whilst under this item, the imports in 1924-25 increased by 5,500,000 super, feet, the 33£ million feet cost over £27,000 less than the 27 7-10 million feet imported in 1923-24. This is conclusive evidence that the cost of production overseas has been reduced considerably. The freight has been reduced, and whilst the cost of production under Australian arbitration awards has considerably increased, those employed in the industry overseas are either Europeans or Asiatics, whose wages are not comparable with those paid in Australia. It seems that the Government might reasonably be asked to go into this matter almost immediately, in order to prevent timber suitable for cases from being wasted. In conclusion, I desire to impress upon honorable senators my wish that the schedule shall be so framed as to place no undue burden on the people, and, at the same time, give reasonable and effective protection to those industries that are worth protecting. I quite agree with those honorable senators who hold that we can go too far in penalizing the users and consumers of our secondary products by protecting industries that are not of very much importance to the country. When the opportunity presents itself in committee, I hope to be able to corroborate my statements by presenting facts that will induce the Senate to adopt the alterations that I submit are necessary to the schedule.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

Senator Grant:

– Why not prohibit its importation.?

Senator H HAYS:

– I do not suggest that. We are imposing heavy duties to support secondary industries, and if we are consistent we should also protect the timber industry. When the validating Customs Tariff Bill was before the Senate some months ago I intimated that although I was supporting the measure, I reserved the right when the schedule was before the Senate to vote on the different items as I thought fit. I do not desire my action in supporting the second reading of this bill to be taken as an indication that I shall support every item in the schedule.

Debate (on motion, by Senator Hoars) adjourned.

page 2295

ADJOURNMENT

Opening of Parliament at Canberra.

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

.- I move-

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I wish to take this opportunity of making a statement in regard to the opening of Parliament at Canberra. There are two dates which, because of their historical significance, at once suggest themselves as suitable, namely, the 26th January, Foundation Day, and the 9th May, anniversary of the opening of the first Federal Parliament. Representations have been made to the Government that Parliament should open on the 26th January, 1927. It is pointed out, however, that once Parliament has been opened at Canberra it cannot resume its sittings in Melbourne. It may become necessary to hold sittings of Parliament for the transaction of business in the early part of 1927, and the Federal Capital Commission has advised that it cannot provide accommodation for departments or housing for the Public ‘Service by the 26th January, 1927, in sufficient quantity to enable any of the departments to function there. It would, of course, be possible to hold merely the ceremonial opening of the Parliament, but, as already pointed out, that would preclude the transaction of parliamentary business in Melbourne subsequently. On the other hand, by the 9th May, accommodation can be provided, not merely to enable a ceremonial function for such an occasion to be arranged for, but the necessary accommodation for the departments essential for the functioning of parliamentary business can also be provided. As regards the historical significance of the 9 th May, it may be pointed out that the first 25 years of the parliamentary history of the Commonwealth was completed on the 9th May of this year, and that date in 1927 will be the completion of the first year of the second quarter of a century of our parliamentary history. That gives that date a significance particularly appropriate to the occasion. After full consideration of all the issues involved and after collaboration with the Federal Capital Commission, the Government has come to the conclusion that it would be both more appropriate and more convenient, and would secure the more efficientconduct of public business, if the new Parliament House at Canberra were officially opened on the 9th May, 1927. The Government has been carefully considering the question of the stages in which the transfer of the officers of the Commonwealth Public Service should be effected. It was realized that, in order that buildings should not remain unoccupied for a lengthy period after the completion of their construction, the transfer should take place as soon as office and housing accommodation could be provided for the officers of those departments whose presence at Canberra would be essential to enable the functions of government to be carried on permanently after the first meeting of Parlia- ment. It has accordingly been decided that, immediately after the first meeting of Parliament at Canberra, the undermentioned numbers of officers shall be transferred, the departments being moved, . as far as possible, in the order shown: -

In addition, there will he the staff of. the Government Printing Office, which has not yet been selected. As further housing and office accommodation becomes available, the departments which, in the first transfer, will be represented by secretariats and other offices, the permanent location of which is to be at Canberra, will be transferred. The order of the transfer of those departments and offices will be determined at a later date.

Honorable senators will realize that the work of transference of departmental papers, furniture, and equipment, and the furniture and effects of officers, is a task of great magnitude, demanding the exclusive attention of a capable organizer. Colonel W. P. Farr has been appointed as Director of Transportation, and is already concentrating on the preliminary work.

The Government has made an arrangement with the Commonwealth Bank by which the bank has undertaken to make advances to public servants and the general public who desire to purchase homes from the commission, or to make arrangements for the construction of homes independently of the commission. For the construction of business premises it is possible to arrange terms with the Commonwealth Bank similar to those operating in other parts of the Commonwealth.

It is natural that public servants should be somewhat disturbed at the approaching severance of Melbourne ties and associations, but the Government is gratified at the spirit with which the service is facing the situation, and is confident that, after the initial dislocation of personal affairs has been survived, public servants will settle down contentedly in their new surroundings. In order that officers of the service may have an opportunity of selecting sites for their future homes, those who desire to visit Canberra before the dato of the transfer, for the express purpose of choosing residential blocks, will receive a concession of 50 per cent. of the return railway fare for themselves and their wives.

Realizing that the unorganized offer for sale of the homes owned by public servants in Melbourne would result in a temporary glut in the market, the Government is completing a scheme by which officers, who are prepared to accept the assessment of the valuator to beappointed, can hand over their Melbourne homes to the Government for realization on the basis of a fair valuation. The amount of the valuation in each case will be placed to the officer’s credit, and will be made available towards the cost of providing a home for him at Canberra.

The Federal Capital Commission is at present engaged in the preparation of a pamphlet containing plans of various typos of homes, with particulars of the cost for outright purchase, hire purchase, or rental. Each officer of the Service will be given an opportunity of choosing the type of house he will require, and any officer who desires to do so may submit his own design. The commission will then, as far as possible, arrange for the construction of a home for each officer according to the plan chosen or submitted by him.

I can assure honorable senators that no effort will be spared to ensure an efficient and expeditious transfer, andI sincerely hope that the establishment of the Capital at Canberra will go far towards intensifying that national spirit which is so strong a feature of Australia’s nationhood.

Senator Grant:

– Can Senator Pearce inform me whether it is a fact that the

Duke of York, Killarney and Inverness has been invited to declare the Parliament open at Canberra on 9th May, or is it intended to invite him to do so ?

Senator PEARCE:

– A statementwill be made on thatsubject at the proper time by the Prime Minister, and I am sure that honorable senators will not expect me now to answer a casual question with respect to it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.9 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 May 1926, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1926/19260526_senate_10_113/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate26 May 1926

ABSENCE OF THE PRESIDENT

The Clerk:

OIL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

PAPERS

QUESTION

LAND VALUES TAXATION

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator GRANT:

Senator PEARCE:Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

SMALL-POX CONTACTS

Senator ELLIOTT:VICTORIA

Senator CRAWFORD:Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

ALIENS REGISTRATION ACT SUSPENSION BILL

NORTHERN AUSTRALIA BILL

OIL AGREEMENT BILL

Third Reading

Senator FOLL:Queensland

Senator McLachlan:

Senator FOLL:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator FOLL:

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

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Second Reading

Senator GRAHAM:Western Australia

Senator Findley:

Senator GRAHAM:

Senator Elliott:

Senator GRAHAM:

Senator Findley:

Senator GRAHAM:

Senator Findley:

Senator GRAHAM:

Senator GRAHAM:

Senator J B HAYES:Tasmania

Senator Grant:

Senator J B HAYES:

Senator Grant:

Senator J B HAYES:

Senator Thompson:

Senator J B HAYES:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator J B HAYES:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator J B HAYES:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator J B HAYES:

Senator Findley:

Senator J B HAYES:

Senator Findley:

Senator J B HAYES:

Senator Thompson:

Senator J B HAYES:

Senator OGDEN:Tasmania

Senator McLachlan:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator Payne:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator Findley:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator CRAWFORD:NAT

Senator OGDEN:

Senator Crawford:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator Crawford:

Senator Thompson:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator Reid:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator Thompson:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator Findley:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator Grant:

Senator OGDEN:

Senate
26 May 1926

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

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

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia