Senate
19 March 1929

11^th Parliament · 1^st Session

BEAM WIRELESS CHARGES
- Select Committee
QUESTION
- GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
PRINTING COMMITTEE’S REPORT
PAPERS
COTTON INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- STOCK ROUTES
AVIATION GROUNDS - CANBERRA
ASSENT TO BILLS
SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1929-30
- First Reading
WINE GRAPES CHARGES BILL
WINE OVERSEAS MARKETING BILL
- Second Reading
SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1929-30
- First Reading

The President (Senator the Hon. Sir John Newlands) took the chair at 8 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1378

BEAM WIRELESS CHARGES

Select Committee

Motion (by Senator Thomas) - By leave - agreed to -

That the Select Committee appointed to inquire into and report upon the desirability and commercial possibility of sending messages from Australia to England over the Beam wireless at1d. a word have leave to sit with a quorum of three.

page 1378

QUESTION

GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY

Senator CARROLL:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Pearce) able to Bay when the Government will be able to make a pronouncement regarding the recommendations of the Development and Migration Commission in relation to the gold-mining industry of Australia?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– It is hoped to be able to make a statement in both Houses to-morrow.

page 1378

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Institute of Anatomy at Canberra.

Senator REID presented the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, together with minutes of evidence relating to the proposed construction of buildings for the Institute of Anatomy at Canberra.

page 1378

PRINTING COMMITTEE’S REPORT

Senator ELLIOTT presented the first report of the Printing Committee, and moved, by leave -

That the report of the Printing Committee, presented to the Senate on 19th March, be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

page 1379

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Child Endowment or Family Allowances - Report of the Royal Commission.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired at Woodside, South Australia, for Defence purposes.

Defence Act, Naval Defence. Act, and Air Force Act - Defence Committee Regulations - Statutory Rules, 1929, No. 26.

page 1379

COTTON INDUSTRY

SenatorFOLL. - Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Pearce) state when the report of the Tariff Board on the cotton industry will be presented, and when the action which the Government proposes to take in connexion with that industry will be announced?

page 1379

QUESTION

STOCK ROUTES

North Australia - Queensland

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice -

Is it correct that stock routes from North Australia into Queensland have been closed; if so, how many, by whom, and for what purpose?
If it is correct that stock routes have been closed, and that cattle-owners in North Australia will, consequently, be prevented from marketing their stock through Queensland, will the Minister state what action the Government proposes to take to overcome this difficulty?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– Inquiries are being made and the honorable senator will be advised as soon as possible.

page 1379

AVIATION GROUNDS - CANBERRA

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.On the 15th March Senator Guthrie asked the following questions : -

Who owns or controls the aviation ground at Canberra?

Is it a fact that the aerodrome is not provided with telephonic facilities?

Do telephone or telegraph lines cross the aerodrome?

Are adequate facilities for the provision of water for aeroplanes afforded, or has water to be secured from some miles distant?

Is it a fact that, whilst an aeroplane has taken one hour twenty minutes to come from Sydney, owing to lack of telephonic facilities, it sometimes takes one hour for visitors to reach Canberra from the aviation grounds?

Is there an air vane on the aerodrome; if not, why not?

Are live stock of any kind allowed to graze near the aerodrome?

I am now in a position to inform the honorable senator as follow: -

The aerodrome area at Canberra is under the control of the Federal Capital Commission, but negotiations are now proceeding between the Defence Department and the Commission for a suitable lease of this area.

Yes.

Yes, but telegraph lines do not interfere with the landing of aircraft, owing to the size of the aerodrome area.

Water is laid on to the aerodrome area and the supply is adequate.

The aerodrome area is five (5) miles from Canberra and it may take one hour to reach Canberra from the landing ground.

A pole has been erected at the aerodrome for the purpose of carrying a wind vane and a wind vane has been fitted. If there is not one there at present, it has been destroyed by the wind and will be replaced immediately.

Live stock do graze on the aerodrome area.

page 1379

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported : -

Transport Workers Bill.

Financial Agreement Validation Bill.

Tariff Board Bill.

page 1379

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1929-30

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Sir George Pearce) proposed -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Senator DALY:
South Australia

– The inauguration of the discussion on this side of the chamber by me has been rendered necessary by the unfortunate indisposition of the Leader of the Opposition (“Senator Needham). I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later stage of the sitting.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1379

WINE GRAPES CHARGES BILL

(No 2).

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

page 1380

WINE OVERSEAS MARKETING BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15th March (vide page 1270),on motion by Senator Ogden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– The wine industry, which this bill is to assist, is of great importance, not only to South Australia, but to certain other States, and any action which this Parliament can take to assist it should receive the support of honorable senators. Prior to the war, approximately 50,000 acres of land in Australia were planted with vines, the product of which was used in the manufacture of wine and kindred beverages, but owing to the activities of State Governments in placing returned soldiers upon land suitable for the cultivation of wine grapes, that area has now been more than doubled. According to the latest and most reliable figures that I can procure, there is now an area of approximately 112,000 acres under wine-grape cultivation in Australia. The increase in the acreage, with its consequent increase in the volume of wine and spirit produced, is the chief reason for the introduction of this bill, which is brought down in the endeavour to overcome existing marketing difficulties.

The following figures indicate how our wine production has increased in recent years : -

The production hadstill further increased in 1924, and it continued to do so until it reached its peak, in 1927, when the vintage for the season was 20,433,410 gallons. Due to the adverse climatic conditions which existed last year in some of the best viticultural districts of South Australia, the volume of production was reduced to 17,321,796 gallons. It is probable that this year, despite the dryness of last season, the vintage will be almost as great as that produced in the record year 1927. The Commonwealth Government secures a very substantial revenue from the wine industry, as is shown by the following figures as to the revenue derived from fortified spirit used for winemaking purposes, and from the excise on brandy for the period 1922- 23-1927-28.

That, of course, was not all net revenue, as there was a drawback on the spirit used for fortifying wines exported under the provisions of the Bounty Bill passed in 1924. Of all our primary industries, the wine-grape growing industry affords one of the most prolific sources of employment. This is apparent to one who travels through the various viticultural districts of Australia and observes the towns that have sprung up, the large number of homesteads that are concentrated in a small territory, and the number of people employed. The value of the industry must be appreciated, and we must be seized with the necessity to do all that is possible to assist it over the crisis through which it is at present passing, and to place it on a more stable footing.

It is my opinion that this bill is overdue. I regret that it was not introduced simultaneously with the original Wine Bounty Bill, in 1924. Had that been done a measure of control would have been exercised over the wine exported, to the great benefit of the industry. The application of the bounty principle brought about a great increase in the quantity of wine exported by Australia. For the year previous to the introduction of the bounty Australia exported over 800,000 gallons. That quantity has increased yearly as the result of the application of the bounty until in 1928 it reached a total of 3,770,000 gallons. A number of weaknesses existed in the original bounty provisions and the system of export that was then countenanced, one of the greatest of which was the absence of control over the quality of the article exported. We are told by those engaged in the industry, both in this country and abroad, that considerable harm was done to the Australian industry, and that the fair name of our product was blackened in no inconsiderable degree by the rapacity of some exporters, who sent out of Australia liquid masquerading as wine merely to secure the benefits of the bounty and the provisions of the legislation passed in 1924. Had a bill similar to that which we are now considering then been passed, and a measure of control exercised such as is proposed in this measure, those reprehensible practices would have been prevented, as it would have been the duty of the hoard to control the export of wine and to see that the proper standard wa3 maintained.

Another weakness shown to exist in the provisions of the bounty, is that growers do not in all cases reap the full benefit which the Government of the day sought to confer upon them. On the 4th January last, a conference was held in Adelaide of wine grape growers representative of all the districts of South Australia. The report of that conference, which appeared in -the Adelaide Register of the 5th January, discloses some startling facts as to the position of wine grape growers under the bounty system. Here is an extract: -

A delegate created surprise by saying that when the bounty rate had been 4s. a gallon, he knew of an instance where the maker received 3s. lOd. and the grower 2d. out of it. Another delegate remarked, in the presence of legislators, that he had heard of a company exporting 40,000 gallons of sweet wine. They received 4s. bounty, amounting to £8,000. The wine came back from London at a cost in freight of about Cd. a gallon, leaving over £7,000 in pocket. Then they undersold the other makers on the Australian market.

So far as J. know those statements have not been contradicted. One may therefore assume that they are substantially correct. They certainly bear out the contention that control is necessary in order to safeguard the interests of those engaged in the industry. The bounty principle has been subjected to very considerable criticism. Some aver that the Government was not sufficiently generous, and others that it was too generous. I venture to say that if the Government erred it was not on the side of generosity. That opinion is borne out by the fact that the Government has derived an ever increasing revenue from the industry, since it has been stimulated by the payment of a bounty. From the commencement of the bounty to the end of the last financial year, the net amount of bounty paid was £843,850. The drawback of excise on spirit used to fortify wine exported amounted to £415,955, so that the total amount returned to the industry by the Government in that period was £1,259,805. During the same period, as a result of the increase in production in Australia, the revenue derived from excise duties increased by £875,176, leaving a net debit balance of £3S4,629. That was the amount lost to the Government in respect of payment of bounty and the drawback of excise, as against the amount which it received from increased revenue, in the form of excise. As a set off against that expenditure we must consider the immense benefits that have been derived by the community as a whole. The payment of the bounty not only averted a crisis in the wine-making industry in 1924, but it increased the price per ton of Doradillo grapes, the class of grapes grown on ‘the repatriation areas, by as much as 120 per cent.

During the war, as honorable senators will remember the industry was in a floushing state, and this gave the established viticultural districts an opportunity to build up reserves against the slump which took place in 1923. The returned soldier settlers, the most deserving section of the industry, and others in the newer districts were not in this fortunate position. Their land was placed under vines at considerable expenditure in the boom period of land settlement following the war, and when their grapes came into bearing a few years later there was a slump in prices. Then came the wine bounty legislation of 1924, to relieve the position of those growers who had little or no market for their production. It has been stated authoritatively that taking the whole period from the inception of the bounty to 1928, the growers have benefited to the extent of £1,000,000, and in addition the bounty has benefited substantially the dried fruits industry. Because of the improved prices ruling for wine grapes the bounty diverted to the vats fruit which otherwise would have been processed and sold as dried fruits.

Senator Lynch:

– Did not British preference have something to do with the improvement in the market?

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– British preference came later, and as we know, it resulted in a reduction of the bounty paid by the Commonwealth Government with, I venture to say, rather disastrous results up to the present.

Consequent on the reduction in the bounty last year the viticultural industry is now in a serious state. This is borne out by information which I have received from growers in many districts in South Australia. At the conference to which I have referred Mr. Wakefield, a grower in one of the southern districts, stated that the wine makers were now ignoring the bounty, and were fixing their own prices for grapes in the open market.

Senator Ogden:

– If they do that they cannot claim the bounty.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– That is so. Growers in districts north of Adelaide have advised me of the correctness of Mr. Wakefield’s statement, so that the winemakers in South Australia, at least, are ignoring the prices fixed by the Government under the Bounty Act. Apparently they do not propose to claim the bounty. They prefer to purchase grapes at their own price, which, of course, will be very much below the price necessary to put the industry on a profitable basis. I have received a number of circulars dealing with this matter, but as they are all couched in similar terms I shall quote only one, which was issued by one of the largest firms of wine-makers in South Australia to its customers. It is as follows : - 1st February, 1929.

Dear Sir,

A serious position has developed in the viticultural industry which makes it difficult to arrange the necessary finances to purchase the coming crop, but we have decided to protect those growers who have regularly delivered their grapes ito us.

We therefore enclose a form which please fill out and return to us immediately. It is essential, however_ to at once advise us of the quantity you have to offer, as no guarantee can be given to take delivery of any grapes not. included in the estimate.

Arrangements for payment of grapes pur. chased will have to be made at a later date.

Accompanying the circular is the usual form setting out, as in other years, the various types of grapes which the firm is prepared to purchase. It is a fac simile of the circular usually issued, with the exception that no price is quoted for the various types of grapes.

It will be seen, therefore, that the growers in South Australia and, I presume, in the wine-growing districts of other States also, will this year be at the tender mercy of the wine-makers. This is causing the growers in South Australia considerable concern. It is obvious that the Government has made up its mind not to increase the bounty, or to do anything that would overcome this temporary difficulty. It prefers to rely upon this measure. I suggest that the Government should increase the bounty by at least 9d. a gallon, the amount by which it was reduced last year, to cover the output of this season’s vintage. This would tide the growers over their present difficulties and give this measure an opportunity to function. Possibly, if that is done, the industry will be on a sound basis before the next season’s vintage is ready to be harvested. I hope that the Government will accede to this request, which I know has been made by the various growers’ organizations throughout Australia and by those with whom I have been in contact in South Australia.

Another serious effect of the reduction in the bounty is seen in the prices received by those engaged in the dried fruits section of the industry. Last year the price paid for currants was £35 or £36 a ton, according to quality. About a week ago I received information that the price this year will be about £11 a ton less than was realized for the same quality of currants last year. It will be seen, therefore, that the reduction in the bounty has affected, not only those growers who rely entirely on the processing of their grapes for wine purposes, but also those who turn their product into dried fruit. I trust that the requests of the growers for an increase in the bounty will receive sympathetic consideration at an early date.

I agree with the general principles of the bill. Honorable members of the party to which I belong may, I think, be regarded as pioneers in the advocacy of legislation along these lines. I remember the time, twelve or fifteen years ago, when Labour members first advocated pooling arrangements and co-operative schemes for our primary producers. The suggestions made then did not receive the measure of support and sympathy now accorded to them. I venture to say that as time goes on the efficacy of the principle which we are seeking to incorporate in this measure will be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and instead of restricting its operations, steps will be taken to extend them.

One of the weaknesses of the bill, in my opinion, is that it seeks to control only the product to be exported. One has only to consider the potentialities of the home market to realize that the local field might profitably be brought under control in the interests of the producer. I do not agree with those who declare that wine should not be drunk by our people. I contend that, in a climate such as we enjoy in Australia, there should be a greater consumption by our people of certain types of wine as a beverage, in preference to imported spirits and other concoctions. As one travels around Australia and partakes of hospitality in those places that cater for travellers, commercial and otherwise, one is forced to conclude, from the beverages that are available, that there is very little inducement to patronize the Australian viticultural industry. A person who goes into the average licensed house and asks for a glass of wine is generally offered the cheapest product obtainable, for which he has to pay the highest price the vendor dares to ask. That is an aspect of the industry with which this measure might well deal. There are great opportunities to increase the home market for wines and dried fruits. We should aim at reducing the margin between what the producer receives and the price paid by the consumer. How great that margin is “ will be seen from the following quotation from a speech made by Colonel Francis, a well-known vigneron of South Australia, who has taken a great interest in the wine industry, at a conference held in Adelaide on the 4th January last -

Tn the past it had been a great thought to exalt the position in respect to the export trade in comparison with the amount consumed in the home trade. The export trade was a mere fraction of what was produced and consumed in Australia, and wine makers had consistently drawn a red herring across the trail of export in relation to the bounty, covering up very systematically and successfully the huge profits they had made on the wines consumed by the “Dinkum Aussie.” A grower received approximately £7 10s. for a ton of grapes. The Government received £50 in excise. The maker got £20 for the same ton, while the poor consumer had to pay at the rate of £90. An industry that could support that was on the wrong lines.

There is something wrong when the producer receives only £7 10s. for a commodity for which the consumer is asked to pay £96.

The bill seeks to set up a marketing organization to deal with our exportable surplus of wine. It proposes the establishment of a board of eight - one to be representative of the Government, two representatives of South Australia, one representative each of the States of Western Australia and Victoria, one representative for New South Wales and Queensland, and two representatives of the co-operative processing organizations. The growers are entitled to more direct representation on a board which is to exercise such a vital influence upon the industry in which they are engaged. In his second-reading speech the Minister pointed out that the cooperative organizations had been given two representatives so that the growers would indirectly have some control. According to the best information I can obtain, the five recognized co-operative organizations in the Commonwealth represent approximately 1,000 grower members. There are, however, over 7,000 growers’ engaged in the industry in different parts of Australia. Assuming that the two representatives of the co-operative distilleries will effectively represent the growers connected with them, there will still be 6,000 growers not affiliated with co-operative distilleries who will be without representation on the board. It may be said that the interests of all growers are substantially the same, but it is not always so.

Senator Lynch:

– Will this not be an incentive for them to join the cooperative organizations?

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– This measure will apply particularly to South Australia, where it would be difficult for the growers to organize a system of cooperative processing in face of the opposition which would be forthcoming from old established concerns. South Australia lias some of the oldest, as well as the largest, wineries and distilleries in the Southern Hemisphere. The owners of those establishments are not only processors; they are also very large growers; and because of the long period during which they have been in business they are now firmly established. Any co-operative organization seeking to compete with them would be faced with strong opposition. Indeed, the two cooperative distilleries at Renmark and Berri - the latter of which was established during the war period to deal principally with the doradillo grapes grown by returned soldiers - are in a much worse position because of the slump in the industry than are the older distilleries in South Australia, because they did not participate in the profits made during boom periods. While there may be difficulties in the way of amending the measure, some direct representation should be given to the growers, to ensure that they will receive fair treatment. The bill really provides for pooling the exportable surplus of wine. The whole of the wine to be exported, subject to certain provisions relating to existing contracts, and to meet contingencies, will be under the control of the board, which, I assume, will act as a selling agent on behalf of. those wine-makers who will export their wine through it, in much the same way that our wheat, wool and dried fruit pools have operated.

We have heard a good deal recently about licences. Under this bill the board will issue licences to exporters of wine. Those who operate without a licence will be liable to certain penalties. While I do not agree with the licensing system as applied to certain workers in a measure which was recently before us, I am in full accord with the system of licensing proposed in this measure, because it will establish an effective control and prevent the abuses which during recent years have crept into the wine export business and damaged, in the eyes of the world, the reputation of our excellent products. I emphasize that the power proposed to be vested in a board controlled by wine-makers is altogether too great. Even if we admit that the two representatives of the co-operative distilleries will effectively represent all the growers, the growers will still not have a- fair share of representation. I take it that the Government nominee will be strictly neutral, his duty being to maintain contact between the Government and the organization, and to see that the desire of Parliament in passing this legislation is carried out. The growers should have direct representation on the board, although there is something to be said in favour of the makers of wine having a preponderance of the representation. The industry has been built up as a result of years of experimenting and organizing on their part, and the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds of their capital. They have more at stake as individuals than have the growers. I think that the makers are entitled to control the board, because Ave are taking from them the responsibility they have hitherto exercised, that of marketing the product. We think that it will be in the best interests of all to have the control of marketing vested in an export control board representative of every interest concerned; but I repeat that the growers should have direct representation on that board. I support the bill because I believe it will prove beneficial to the viticultural industry of Australia, and make possible the proper organized marketing of our surplus product of wine. If the control board functions as I think it will, it will do away with the crisis through which the wine industry is now passing, enable the industry to expand, give more and more employment to the people of Australia, and add to the wealth of the Commonwealth.

Senator CHAPMAN:
South Australia

– I support this bill because I recognize in it an effort on the part of the Government to stabilize the wine industry, which must have a beneficial effect on the wine-makers and winegrowers. Of course, I realize that it places the control of the industry in the hands of the wine-makers, whose first consideration will naturally be the interests of the makers of wine; but if it is found that the growers are not getting a fair deal, this Parliament can, at any time, review the position and take steps to properly safeguard their particular interests. When the Government reduced the bounty by 9d. a gallon, I spoke at length in this chamber, and said that our exportable surplus wines would not be got away. About the same time the Prime Minister told a deputation from South Australia that he had been advised that the surplus could be exported even under the reduced bounty, but events have proved that he was wrongly advised. Some of the largest wine-makers in South Australia tell me that they cannot buy grapes at the fixed price and export the wine made from them except at a loss. Most of the sweet wine that is now going away is being exported because the banks and financial institutions are forcing the wine-makers to dispose of their stocks in order that their overdrafts may be reduced. The reduction of 9d. a gallon in the bounty has made all the difference between success and failure. It will readily be seen that if Australian wine could be offered on the British market at 9d. a gallon less than has to be asked, a great deal more of it could be sold.

I do not altogether blame the Government for the position of the wine industry to-day. On the contrary I give it a great deal of credit for the amount of good it has done to the industry- The bounty -it paid saved the situation. The trouble was originally brought about by the determination of the State Governments to place returned soldiers on the land and force them to plant grape-vines. The effect of this was to so increase the production of wine that a surplus was created. The Federal Government came to the rescue of the growers with a bounty of 4s. a gallon on exported wine. I admit that when that bounty was first paid, exporters made handsome profits, and that when it was reduced by ls. they were still doing fairly well, but it was the last reduction by 9d. a gallon which caused all the trouble.

At this stage I should like to call attention to the fact that duty has to be paid on Australian-made wine casks when they are returned to Australia. A statement has appeared in the Viticultural Journal that this duty has been removed ; other statements have been made to the effect that the Government has promised to remove it. I should like the Minister when he replies to tell us what the exact position is in regard to this particular impost. Personally, I think the removal of the duty, which course I so strongly advocated in the Senate some time ago, would do something towards alleviating the position of the wine industry.

Like other Australian primary industries whose surplus has to be sold on the world’s markets, the wine industry is a affected by the economic position in Australia. The cost of production is so high that there is great difficulty in placing our exportable surplus on the world’s markets. The cost of production has been so increased by arbitration awards, tariff schedules, and other artificial means that our primary industries are in a tangle owing to high costs of production, and if we in turn do not bolster them up, the millions will not come to this country from purchasers of our produce in other parts of the world. Dealing with the high cost of production which is militating against the sale of our wine in London, the British Economic Commission reported : -

But oil measures designed for the increase of Australia’s wealth production and power of absorbing new population tend to be defeated if there are strong forces within her which “operate so to raise her costs of production that she cannot sell her products in the markets of the world, and is restricted within the limitations of her own home market. Here we approach the most vexed, and the most important of all Australian questions, that of the combined effects of the protective customs tariff and of the legislative enactments, both of the Commonwealth and of the States, for the fixing of wages and conditions “of labour, which we will call, for brevity, the Arbitration Acts.
We could not fail to be impressed, throughout our travels in Australia, with the fact of which we were continually reminded, that, notwithstanding the magnitude of the interest on her external debt and of her imports for which payment can only be made in goods or services or, temporarily, by fresh borrowing, Australia exports only an almost negligible quantity of the products of manufacture, unless we include therein minerals such as lead, silver and zinc; while, broadly speaking, the only primary products which she exports in important quantities and which are not directly assisted by tariffs or bounties, though they may be assisted indirectly by Government expenditure from taxation on roads, railways, water schemes, and tho like, are wool, hides and skins, meat and tallow, wheat and timber.

The report proceeds to say that these costs may be raised to a level which will bring disaster in respect to the export of our primary products. That is the position of the Australian wine industry to-day. A serious calamity awaits it unless something practical is done to prevent it. Not long ago I took a trip through the Tanunda district. I saw a vineyard here and an orchard there, where every acre could have been under fruit trees or grape vines. That country should be carrying tens of thousands of people, and the export of the produce grown upon it should be bringing millions of pounds into Australia; but owing to the high cost of production, instead of that valuable land being covered with orchards and vineyards, much of it is given over to bullocks. There should be a family on every 20 acres, and tens of thousands of workers should be employed upon it, while in Adelaide and the country towns tens of thousands of others should be engaged in sending them goods and marketing their produce.

Owing to the high and inflated cost of production it is exceedingly difficult to place Australian wine on the world’s market without Government assistance. The wine industry of Australia is the only industry competing with world’s products which has to pay an excise duty. The wine products of such countries as Spain and Portugal, where cheap labour is available do not have to bear an excise impost. Senator O’Halloran, who referred to the payment of excise did not give the total amounts collected and for the information of the Senate I shall give the figures supplied to me in answer to a question, as I should like them placed on record. They are: 1918-19, £188,634; 1919-20, £182,624, 1920-21, £211,180; 1921-22, £238,125; 1922-23, £255,302; 1923-24, £282,323; 1924-25, £333,729; 1925-26, £428,115; 1926-27, £435,135; 1927-28, £340,800. For the seven months of 1928-29, £83,112 has been collected.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Is that paid on wine exported ?

Senator CHAPMAN:

– No, it is a charge on the whole production and in addition, as Senator O’Halloran said, excise amounting to £2,000,000 is paid on grape brandy. The amount of deferred excise due on the 30th June, 1928, amounted to £230,472. A total of £3,209,551 has been paid by this industry in the form of excise, on fortifying spirit for wine. At present about one-third of the Australian production of wine has to be exported to the London market. If it is not disposed of in that way the industry will be faced with disaster, as large quantities will be thrown upon the local market, where the demand is insufficient to cope with the supply. I have shown that the amount collected in the form of excise is approximately £3,209,551, whilst the amounts paid in bounties to assist the industry, totals only £1,210,188.

Senator HERBERT Hays:

– That is a a very substantial sum.

Senator CHAPMAN:

– Yes, but not when we remember that over £3,200,000, in addition to charges similar to those borne by other industries which also have difficulty in placing their products on the world’s markets, is paid in excise. The amounts paid by way of wine bounty were in 1924-25, £28,417; 1925-26, £217,108; 1926-27, £442,410; 1927-28, £482,843; and to 9th February, 1929, £39,410, a total of £1,210,188.

– I know that. I have told the Minister that I am afraid the assistance offered will not be sufficient. In 1927-28 Australia exported £829,799 worth of wine and in 1928 £1,062,408 worth, so that a large sum annually is brought to Australia by means of this industry. I think I have said sufficient to convince honorable senators that this is a vital industry to Australia, and one of some magnitude. If we allow the industry to get into such a state that it cannot dispose of the exportable surplus the situation will be difficult to overcome. Last year our receipts from wheat sales were considerably lower than in previous years and every one felt the pinch; but if the returns from other industries also diminish, the position will be still more serious. In 1915-16 our total exports were valued at £74,778,321 and in 1926-27 at £144,895,183, practically all of which consisted of primary products. The total exports of manufactures in 1915 were valued at £3,417,021 and in 1927 at £4,026,491, so that during that period our exports of manufactures were practically stationary. If the export of primary produce diminishes it will not be long before the position of Australia will become desperate.

Two factors are largely responsible for the reduction in the sale of Australian wine overseas. Some time ago Great Britain granted a preference of 4s. a gallon on Australian wine. The rates were -

Strength n.e. 42 per cent., p.s. Foreign, 8s. per gallon.

Strength n.e. 42 per cent., p.s. Empire 4s. per gallon.

Strength n.e. 25 per cent., p.s. Foreign 3s. per gallon.

Strength n.e. 27 per cent., p.s. Empire 2s. per gallon.

Strength n.e. 27 per cent., p.s. British ls. per gallon.

This helped the industry, but the effect of that preference has been destroyed by the blending of wines in Great Britain. When the reduction of the bounty was under consideration the Minister in charge of the measure said that the effect of blended wines upon the Australian product would be negligible. The Minister for Markets and Transport (Mr. Paterson) made a similar statement at a meeting of those engaged in the industry, but Mr. Gramp, who recently returned from overseas, said that blending is being undertaken in Great Britain to a large extent. Mr. Gramp states -

The cheap sweet wines from Spain and Portugal are also strong competitors, and they are being sold considerably cheaper than what our Australian sweet wines can he landed at in London. The Tarrogona and Lisbon wines are imported at two different strengths, the duty on foreign wine N.B. 25 per cent, is 3s. per gallon, and that on N.B. 42 per cent. Ss. A very large trade is done by blending three pipes of 25 per cent, together with one pipe of 42 per cent. This gives an average strength of 28-29 per cent., and the duty is only 4s. 3d. per gallon, which is only 3d. more than the duty on Australian, and the cost of these wines is only a few pence more than the cost of our casks and freight alone. Some shippers of Tarragona sweet wines have succeeded in keeping their wines by distributing them at a strength of N.E. 25 per cent., and the duty on same is only 3s. per gallon. The Douro Ports pay the full rate of duty of 8s. per gallon, as these are only shipped at a high strength.

Although the industry is supposed to receive an effective preference of 4s. it is really receiving a preference of only 3d.

Senator Crawford:

– Are those blended wines not inferior and of less strength?

Senator CHAPMAN:

– They are not as good wines, but by blending in this way, traders are able to overcome the duty, to the prejudice of our wines.

The worst phase is that the British preference is being evaded by the sale of so-called British wines which are being made from foreign concentrated grape- juice. The grape-juice is imported from Spain, Portugal, Prance and Greece, An excise duty of only ls. 6d. per gallon is paid upon it as against the 4s. duty paid on Australian wine. The London Times of the 7 th March, 1928, contained the following very significant paragraph upon the operations of one of these British wine companies, taken from the chairman’s half-yearly report to the shareholders -

I hope you will consider that events have justified my optimism, and that our £170,000 profit for 1927 is more than satisfactory, especially if you will take into consideration THAT this profit has been effected with the contribution of a portion only of the profits we anticipated to derive from our Colonial business. …

The increase in stock from £75,G60 as at December 21, 192C, as against £138,993 at the close of the year under review, is caused by our very largely increased turnover, as u result of which it is necessary for us to hold much larger stocks, which may be still larger in the future. This extra trade is also responsible for the increase in our sundry debtors from £79,138 at December 31, 1926, to £143,355 at December, 1927. . . .

Our. trading profit, after charging all expenses, is £172,025, as against £102,850 last year.

Turning to the director’s report, you will observe that of the balance of profit available, after deducting the dividend on the preference shares and the interim dividend on the ordinary shares, there remains £125,174 13s. lid. The directors propose to pay a final dividend on the ordinary shares at a rate of 35 per cent, per annum, making a total dividend of 30 per cent, for the year, which will absorb £61,250.

That will make it clear what tremendous profits those companies are making. Since the report was published a number of other wine companies have been formed in Great Britain to market cheap foreign must under the guise of British wine. Australia grants Great Britain an annual preference of approximately £8,000,000, as against a reciprocal tariff of £1,000,000. It was the intention of Great Britain that our wine industry should benefit to the extent of a 4s. per gallon preference, but that is beingevaded by blending and by the importation of cheap foreign must.

This Government appears to be disinclined to press the British Government for an effective preference upon our wine, and I urge it to reconsider the matter. The Viticultural Council and grapegrowers join with me in making strong representations to the Government to urge the British Government to make the preference an effective one. The position of the growers is very serious indeed, as they are not being paid the fixed price for their grapes. It must be realized that a buyer is not compelled to pay that fixed price if the grapes are intended for wine for local consumption. At present the wine manufacturers are not paying the fixed price for grapes, as it would nor, now pay them to buy grapes at that rate to make wine for export purposes. Consequently, there is practically no export of

Australian wine, and the burden falls principally upon the grower, who has to accept much under the fixed prices for his product. I shall quote several letters and telegrams on the subject, the first of which is from the Adelaide Plains GrapeGrowers Association, as follows: -

After making careful inquiries both in our own district and from the Northern Growers’ Association (Mr. Gursansky) and the Southern Growers (Mr. Bruce), my association feels justified in stating definitely that prices arc being offered for grapes far below those fixed by Government, namely £3 for Doradillas at 12 degreesbeaume with penalty of 10s. per degree under 12 degrees; £4 for Muscatelles with same terms. Also it has been brought to the association’s notice that best varieties of grapes are not being purchased by some makers as such, but growers can deliver them and call them mixed for which they only receive £5 per ton as 12 degrees beaume. The wine-makers terms of purchase being mostly for four equal quarterly payments without interest. There are several growers who have been completely turned down, principally brought about by the fact that only a limited number of wine-makers are operating. Is the Government going to stand by and witness this disaster which some of the best sons of Australia are faced with. Or will the Government devise a scheme to enable the fixed prices to be received.

I am

Yours faithfully,

Keith L. Rainsford,

President.

I wish to point out to honorable senators that these growers are offered £3 for doradillos, whereas the fixed price in 1927 was £6 10s., and in 1928 £5 15s. a ton.

I also have the following letter from the Grape-growers’ Association of South Australia, which represents the northern districts : -

I beg to advise you that the prices being offered for grapes this vintage are on various scales.

To-day I interviewed two wine-makers, who informedme that they intend paying for grapes the prices fixed by the Government. Then when I got to Penfolds’ Wines Limited, a list of which I enclose a copy, is seen posted up on their window. This for regular customers only, others will be obliged to accept loss again, and these are a few figures that were supplied to me - Frontignac, £6; Grenache, £4; Madeira, £4; Sercial, £3; Shiraz, £7; Sweetwater, £3.

The growers are being offered £6 for Frontignac, and the fixed price for 1928 is £9 10s., whilst the fixed price for 1927 was £10 10s. They are offered £4 for

Grenache, although the fixed price for 1928 is £8 5s. The letter continues -

Glancing over the whole list of prices one can see nothing but disaster staring at him, and if we ask who is to- blame for it we are fully convinced that the Government is not moving in order to assist the grower. After discussing the matter at length with several makers we are convinced that the only solution is the re-instatement of the bounty. We are fully aware of the fact that this request has time and again been refused us and the last time by the Minister of Markets at the Melbourne conference on9th January last. Notwithstanding all these rebuffs we again - both makers and growers - respectfully ask you ‘ to press the matter in the House. We have the definite promise from the Prime Minister himself that he would not let the grower go under, and we urge the Government to move in that direction if they are at all concerned about saving the industry.

I am also sending a copy of Penfolds’ price list to each the Prime Minister, the Minister for Markets and the Minister for Trade and Customs.

Yours faithfully,

Gersch,

Secretary.

All of the prices mentioned are below those fixed by the Government. I have with me Penfold’s price list for the whole range of grapes, and not one quotation in the list comes up to the fixed price. The following telegram was received from the Southern growers: -

Sales have been made here as follow: - Grenache, four pounds; doradillo, three pounds; currants, six pounds five.

Bruce, Southern Grapegrowers.

The price fixed last year was Grenache £8 5s., and for the previous year £9 10s. a ton. Those fixed prices were regarded as being the lowest upon which the growers could exist. Consequently those growers, whose number includes some 2,000 to 3,000 returned soldiers, are in a deplorable plight, and it is imperative that something should be done to assist the industry. From the Clare district, an important area which has hundreds of vineyards, I received a communication indicating that the Stanley “Wine Company, in that district, was crushing only its own grapes for the present. It adds “ Whether they will take grapes from growers later, at the prices, is something for the future.” Lastly, I have a’ private letter, extracts from which read -

I hereby wish to draw your very urgent attention “to the position of the grape industry and to ask you to do your utmost to get the Government to help the growers. . . . One class is buying at the fixed price, but they are only buying about two-thirds of the estimate sent in by the growers, and one firm is only buying the white, or cheaper grape in particular. The other class are buying all they can get hold of at a reduction of £2 and over per ton, to customers, and a further reduction of £2 for all other grapes that are not taken by other wineries. The third class is not buying at all, as this is, in our area, a new establishment that could cope with a great portion of the crop, but owing to what I can understand, the reduction of the bounty and the unsatisfactory position of the export trade, they are crippled to such an extent that they cannot operate. The question is where is it going to end. We do not know yet if all our grapes will be taken. Who is going to help the growers meet their liabilities if this should be the case on top of the reduced price which is not in any way covering the cost of production.

– That, too, is the view of the Government, if one may judge by the provisions of this bill, which goes * much further than any similar measure submitted to this chamber. The Government, realizing the seriousness of the position of the wine industry, and also its importance to Australia, has embodied in this measure certain provisions, which, in its opinion, will help the industry. I agree that it is of the greatest importance, not only to South Australia, but the Commonwealth as a whole. In 1926-27 we exported 3,077,588 gallons of wine, valued at £829,799. As we all know, the industry gives employment to a large number of persons apart altogether from the number of growers engaged in it, and to help the industry, the Government proposes to appoint a wine overseas marketing board. Speaking generally, I am reluctant to support proposals for the appointment of more boards. The Government has appointed many boards in recent years, and I think there is growing up among the people a feeling that the constitution of so many of these bodies is a negation of the principle of responsible government - of a government responsible to the people through its Ministers and heads of departments. It is true that the Minister in charge of the department under which the bill will be administered, will be responsible to Parliament; but the board will be vested Avith such wide powers that it will be almost impossible to fix responsibility on the Minister for its actions. It should be possible to attain the desired end without the appointment of a board. I suggest that what the board is to do might well be entrusted to a Government department already in existence, and, in England, to the High Commissioner’s office. Surely it should be possible to do through existing agencies, what is sought to be done by the appointment of this board, namely, to evolve a reasonable marketing scheme for Australian wine, both in Australia and in England. The Government, however, has decided upon the creation of a board. Let us consider what it will be called upon to do.

The particular powers to be vested in it are set out in clause 20 -

The board shall, with respect to any wine placed under its control, have full authority to make such arrangements and give such directions as it thinks fit for the following matters : -
1. the handling, marketing and storage of the wine;
2. the shipment of the wine on such terms and in such quantities as it thinks fit:
3. ) the sale and disposal of wine on such terms as it thinks fit:
4. the insurance against loss of any such wine, either in the Commonwealth or in transit from the Commonwealth, and until disposed of: and
5. all such matters as are necessary for the duo discharge of its functions in handling, distributing and disposing of the wine

Not only the wine to be placed under the control of the board, but the whole of the wine produced in Australia will be affected, because a board which controls the export of winewill also control the local market.

Senator Ogden:

– No.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The manner in which the board exercises its powers to sell the wine or to withhold it from sale, will determine the quantity to be placed on the Australian market, and, consequently, the price to be paid for grapes. That clause refers only to wine placed under the control of the board, but clause 28 goes further. It provides that -

Nothing in this act shall be construed to limit the power of the board to exercise, without the authority of the owner of any wine, any power with respect to such wine, which is expressly or by implication conferred on the board by or under this act.

Honorable senators will see how wide is the control which the board will exercise. I agree with the honorable senator opposite who described this measure as an instalment of socialism. If not actually socialism, it is as near to socialism as it is possible to get.

Senator Lynch:

– The only thing which would make it socialism would be for its operations to be conducted at a loss.

SenatorDUNCAN. - That will probably be the result. It will not even be necessary for the board to have the authority of the owner of the wine to dispose of it. The board may take the wine at any time, and sell it to whom it pleases, and for whatever price it chooses to accept, without first obtaining the consent of the owner. It may be that that power is necessary. I take it that the Government has made inquiries, and that, on the information obtained, it has deemed it wise to vest in some body the authority to deal with the wine as it thinks best to meet the exigencies of the market and to obtain the best results. I do not say that the bill should not contain a provision giving the board these powers; I have referred to them merely to show the far-reaching nature of the measure and that it embodies a new principle. When it becomes law the growers of the grapes and the owners of the wine will no longer retain control of their own industry. Should the board consist of men of the best type, and function properly, no harm may come to the industry; but we have had experience of boards which have not functioned as Parliament expected they would. Should the board to be constituted under this measure not fulfil our expectations, the wine industry may be placed in an even worse position than it is in to-day. Nevertheless, I feel that some good may result from the establishment of the board, and that this measure will assist an industry which sadly needs assistance. In the hope that the bill will fulfil the Government’s expectations, I shall vote for the second reading.

Senator HOARE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– With most of the provisions of this measure I agree. The Government might have gone a step further and made it a. little more democratic by giving the grape-growers direct representation onthe board. It has been contended that the two members to represent the co-operative wineries and distilleries will, in fact, represent all the grape-growers. There are, however, not a great number of cooperative wineries and distilleries in Australia, so that there will be a great number of growers of grapes not represented on the board. Should the measure cause growers to organize to form cooperative distilleries it will accomplish some good, for then the growers, as in the case of the distillery at Berri, would export their own product, but until they so organize they should have some direct representation on the board. Those growers who are, as yet, unassociated with any co-operative wineries or distilleries can scarcely be other than disappointed with this measure. It is not too late for the Government, even now,, to rectify what I consider to be its chief defect and give them representation.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Have they made representation in that direction?

Senator O’Halloran:

– At a conference held in January last the growers asked for representation.

Senator HOARE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– It would appear cither that the Government has not heeded their representations or that it has not yet fully considered them. The large quantity of wine exported last year caused a glut of Australian wine on the London market. For that glut succeeding governments in South Australia have been largely responsible, for they forced returned soldier settlers to plant doradillo grapes on their holdings. The result was that whereas in 1919 grapes brought £19 a ton, in 1920 they were sold at £8 a ton; in 1921 at £5 a ton; with a further reduction to £3 in 1922. That, however, was not nearly as low as the price of grapes in 1904, when they were sold for as little as 30s. a ton. These low prices have meant that many growers have received less than the basic wage.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– There was a time when it was a profitable industry.

Senator HOARE:

– That may be so, but the policy of forcing returned soldiers to plant doradillo vines inevitably led to overproduction, with the result that the price of grapes was so reduced as to make the industry unprofitable. When the Government decided to grant a bounty on wine exported many growers of grapes suitable for drying took them to the wineries and distilleries and had them made into wine, thus defeating the Government’s object. If in addition to a bounty on exported wine the Government had given a bounty of £10 a ton on exported dried fruits, that quantity of grapes which brought the present surplus of 3,000,000 gallons of Australian wine on the London market would not have gone to the distilleries.

Senator Kingsmill:

– Is there any chance of the wine industry ever succeeding on its own basis?

Senator HOARE:

– The grape growers recognize, as everyone does in Australia, that no government can continue paying a bounty for all time, and that there must come a time when it should stand on its own feet or be blotted out. Some of the growers I have questioned say, unhesitatingly, that they will be able to stand on their own feet in a few years.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Under what circumstances do they say that they will be able to do so ?

Senator HOARE:

– When they get a grip on the London market. They hope that within a few years they will be able to hold their own on that market. The immense good that has been done to the industry by the payment of the bounty is shown by some figures I shall quote as to our exports. Before the bounty was paid our export of wine was approximately 800,000 gallons a year, but thereafter the export for the respective years was -

There has been a decreased export since the bounty has been reduced. I think it would be a good policy to restore the 9d. a gallon for three years. If at the end of that time the industry was found to be unable to hold its own in the markets of the world, the Government would be justified in making a reduction of the bounty. Sooner or later there must come a time when a bounty has to be reduced. The idea of giving one is to help an industry for a few years until it has gained a footing.

I was speaking of the thousands of tons of grapes that were diverted from the dried fruits industry to the distilleries. In two years the quantity was 46,000 tons, which produced 3,680,000 gallons of fortified wine on which the bounty payable at the rate of 4s. a gallon was £736,000. If we deduct the excise collected which amounted to £230,000, it leaves a net Government payment of £506,000 on the product of that 46,000 tons of grapes. If the Government had given a bounty of £10 on the export of dried fruits, and if this 46,000 tons of grapes had not been diverted to the distilleries, it would have meant a saving of £130,000 to the taxpayers of Australia ; the grape growers would have continued producing grapes for dried fruits instead of taking this portion of their produce to the distilleries, and the enormous surplus of 3,000,000 gallons of Australian wine we have on the London market to-day would not exist.

We should continue to give encouragement to the grape-growers and winemakers until we can see clearly whether they are likely to succeed without the payment of a bounty. Of course, if they cannot do so, other means of helping them must be devised, or the industry must cease. It seems hard that people who have put their life’s work and all their savings into an industry, should be deprived of their means of existence. I do not know how long they expect the Commonwealth Government to continue paying a bounty. From what I can gather, many of them are under the impression that in three or four years’ time they will be able to get along without assistance. If they are correct in their forecast, I think the Government should put forth every effort to help them in the meantime.

Any one who wants to get an idea of what the grape-growing industry means to Australia, should take a trip through South Australia, which, I suppose, produces more grapes than all the other States put together. The people of South Australia anticipate a considerable development in the dried fruits industry. The late Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. H. E. Pratten) frequently told us that there was a market in Great Britain for all our dried fruits, but, in my opinion, we must advertise. I do not think we are doing sufficient in that direction. As a result of an advertising campaign the Victorian Railways Commissioners have succeeded in increasing the sale of fresh fruit by about £1,000,000 a year. The slogan “ Eat more fruit “ is seen everywhere in Victoria,. I think we should do something on the same lines to promote the sale of our wines and dried fruits in Great Britain. Until

Senator O’Halloran mentioned the fact, I did not know that unscrupulous exporters had sent inferior wines from Australia so that they might collect bounty on them. People who do that kind of thing ought to be prosecuted and compelled to pay the penalty of their dishonesty. The proposed control board should bring about more honesty in the export trade. I think the idea of having a control board is an excellent one. Senator Duncan has described it as a socialistic step. Whether it is or not I do not know, but it is certainly a democratic step which I commend. I hope the Government will make the control board more democratic by giving the well-deserving growers direct representation on it.

Senator OGDEN:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · NAT

– I can inform Senator Chapman that the duty on returned casks has been removed. I thank honorable senators for the way in which they have received the measure. Most of the criticism of the bill has hinged upon the payment of the bounty on exported wine, but as that matter is not dealt with in this bill, I do not propose to refer to it. Senator O’Halloran says that the wine-makers are refusing to pay the fixed price for grapes bought under the bounty. When I was moving the second reading, I said, in reply to an interjection, that the levy imposed under clause 21 would be paid by the grape-growers. I should have said that the makers will be responsible’ for payment of it. If the makers do not wish to collect the bounty, the growers will have to take the best price offered for their grapes, and consequently cannot be protected; but if the wine-maker wishes to take advantage of the bounty he must pay the fixed price for grapes. I remind Senator O’Halloran, Senator Hoare, and some other honorable senators, who said that the growers should be represented on the board of control that the Government is giving them considerable representation through the co-operative wineries and distilleries, with which a good many of the growers are already associated.

Senator Hoare:

– Some of the distilleries are over 100 miles away from their holdings.

Senator OGDEN:

– In any case it appears to me that the grape-grower is not interested to the same extent as the wine-maker, because after he has sold his grapes his responsibility ceases. The Government has gone as far as it should by giving representation to the growers through the co-operative wineries and distilleries.

The bill provides for the appointment of a board of control consisting of eight representatives and not seven, as I mentioned in my second-reading speech. The first draft of the bill provided that South Australia and Western Australia should share a representation of two but it has since been thought desirable to give Western Australia a special representative on the board, thus increasing the personnel to eight. Senator O’Halloran suggested that the board should control local sales, but that involves a constitutional question on which I am not prepared to express an opinion. The organization of the local market is a matter for the State governments to consider. The federal effort in the direction of controlling primary products has always been confined to exports; that is as far as the federal authority can go.

Senator Duncan rather deprecated the appointment of further boards and inferred that the appointment of this body would involve the Government in additional financial responsibility. That is not so. The board will be appointed by those directly concerned in the industry and the Government will not be involved in any expense. Senator Duncan also referred to clause 20 of the bill which provides that the board shall, with respect to any wine placed under its control, have full authority to make such arrangements and give such directions as it thinks fit in connexion with the matters set out in the clause. That clause merely gives the board control of wine voluntarily placed in its hands. If honorable senators refer to clause 17, they will see that the board may accept control of any wine placed in its hands for the purposes of this act. It is to deal with the organization of the overseas market and have power to appoint a London agency to conduct an advertising and sales campaign. Clause 17 gives it the power to become a marketing board. If a grower places a quantity of wine directly under the control of the board, it must have full power and authority to handle it.

This measure is an honest attempt to assist the industry. As the Minister for Markets and Transport (Mr. Paterson) said in another place, we believe that if such a board had been brought into operation some years ago, when it was offered, the wine industry would be in a better position than it is to-day. If by such an effort as this it is possible to establish the industry on a firm and satisfactory basis, it is much better than granting some form of artificial assistance. I trust that, as a result of this bill, which I hope the Senate will unanimously support, the grape-growing and wine-making industries will be placed on a more satisfactory basis, and that those concerned will experience a greater era of prosperity.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 -

The board shall consist of . . .

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– This clause provides for the constitution of a board of control. During my second-reading speech I said that there should not be any great difficulty in allowing the grape-growers to have at least one direct representative on the board. I, therefore, move -

That at the end of sub-clause 2 the following new paragraph be added: -

One member, appointed by the Governor-

– As a member of a co-operative institution the grower is interested in following the wine to its destination, but the man who simply sells his produce to a winery disposes of his interest, and it is then the business of the maker to market the product. Senator Barnes seems to think that if growers had direct representation on the board they would have some control over the price to be paid for the grapes. That would not be the effect. The bill is designed to assist the growers, and I hope that the amendment will not be accepted.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted (Senator O’Halloran’s amendment) - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 14

Majority . . 6

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to8 p.m.

AYES

NOES

page 1399

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1929-30

First Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1379).

Senator DALY:
South Australia

– All honorable senators must agree that the Government’s legislative programme is indeed disappointing. What do we find on a perusal of the GovernorGeneral’s speech? First, there is a reference to the Financial Agreement Validation Bill, a measure which, unfortunately, has been placed on the statute-book of the Commonwealth. I suggest that that measure should never have been passed by this Parliament, because in a few years it will result in serious financial embarrassment to the States. It will accentuate whatever financial difficulties the States now have to face; it will increase unemployment and render more complex the problems of development resulting in the Commonwealth being faced with greater problems because of the necessity of assisting the States. The Premier of South Australia now realizes that when he affixed his signature to the agreement he made a mistake.

Senator Payne:

– Is not that a reflection on a vote of the Senate?

Senator DALY:

– No. The Senate was asked to ratify an agreement which had been entered into between the Commonwealth and the States. It merely purported to give effect to the voice of the people expressed at the recent referendum. No blame is attachable to the Senate in the matter of the signing of the agreement. The fault, so far as South Australia is concerned, lies entirely with the Premier of that State in having consented to the terms of the agreement. In the Melbourne Age. of 18th March, the following appeared -

Surprise! was expressed by Mr. Butler, Premier, at the statement made by Senator Pearce that no provision had been made in the Federal Budget this year for a grant to South Australia, and that the Government would consider the matter in the Budget for 1930-31.

The Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) has explained that he meant the year 1929-30. The statement in the Age continues -

The Premier said he was surprised in view of the fact that the special grant asked for was for this financial year, and was referred to in his budget. The statement made by Senator Pearce was extraordinary, in view of the fact that the report of the commission and its recommendations had not yet been received. Although no provision was made on the federal estimates for the payment of a special grant, he said, that did not prevent the Commonwealth Parliament by legislation making the payment retrospective, and if the commission recommended that a grant should be paid, that should certainly be done.

With those sentiments I agree. The commission was appointed to deal with the financial position of South Australia and to enable the Government to decide whether that State should receive assistance. If provision for some assistance has not been made on this year’s estimates, I suggest that attention be given to it next year and that it be made retrospective. The statement continues -

It should not be overlooked that no provision had been made for the payment of a bounty on coal, yet Mr. Bruce had agreed, subject to certain conditions, that money would be available to meet that liability.

South Australia was told that one of the reasons why financial assistance could not be given to that State was that provision had not been made in the estimates. Yet here we have the Premier of South Australia directing attention to a proposal of Mr. Bruce to grant a bounty on coal for which no provision had been made. The report continues -

The Premier added that it was no fault of the South Australian Government that the inquiries of the commission were not completed earlier. The report of the South Australian committee on the disabilities arising out of federation was completed on 12th December, .1927, and forwarded to the Prime Minister on 14th ‘December, 1927. It was not until approximately .six months later that the Commonwealth Government appointed a royal commission to inquire into the matter. That commission began its work in South Australia in August, 1928, and completed taking evidence at the end of November, 1928.

– I would suggest a general election if it were practicable. I remind honorable senators that the day of reckoning is coming when we shall all have to give an account of our stewardship.

The people outside are getting tired of the present Government. For some years it has had substantial majorities in both chambers. Three years ago it was returned on a false cry of law and order and made all sorts of promises ; and when it came before the people on the last occasion to give an account of its stewardship it raised the same cry. When the election was over we had the Treasurer saying that he was pleased that the people had “ so unmistakably endorsed again their confidence in the present Government. “ Let us see if it is an occasion for gratification or alarm on the part of honorable senators opposite. In 1925, on the Senate figures, the Labour forces were defeated by a majority of 279,000. In 1928 that majority was reduced to 27,000. There were 100,000 more formal votes cast in 1928 than in 1925, yet Labour reduced the anti-Labour majority by a quarter of a million votes in a poll of 2,905,000 formal votes. It increased its votes in 1928 by 181,000 over its 1925 poll, and at the same time the anti-Labour votes decreased by approximately 70,000. In New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia the Labour votes increased considerably. Furthermore, Labour gained eight seats in another place. It is true that after the 30th June next its ranks in this chamber will be depleted, but the seven honorable senators who will be in opposition will represent 49 per cent, of the electors of the Commonwealth.

For some considerable time past, we have read statements in the press, financial and otherwise, that the financial position of the Commonwealth is far from satisfactory. I shall have another opportunity of discussing this, but I propose now to refer briefly to the deficit, which was £2,628,743 last year, and this year promises to be augmented by another £1,000.000. The Treasurer was quite unperturbed by last year’s deficit and he stated that he would make it up out of the following year’s surplus. But so far this year we have the huge deficit of £1,000,000. The Treasurer has hopes of this being wiped out by increased customs revenue towards the end of the financial year and in the meantime makes no effort to curtail expenditure.

Senator Thompson:

– Yet the honorable senator is suggesting that South Australia should have a special grant.

Senator DALY:

– I was expecting that interjection. Instead of treating a special grant to South Australia as Commonwealth expenditure, it should be regarded as a good investment. I do not complain about any expenditure which is incurred on productive work. My complaint is that the greater part of the deficit has been brought about by careless expenditure. The money has been poured down a sink. I contend that it is the Treasurer’s duty to endeavour to balance the ledger by the end of the financial year instead of trusting to luck and expecting it to automatically adjust itself. There are certain honorable senators opposite who regard themselves as capable business men; and who, if they had a man controlling their private affairs in the manner in which those of the Commonwealth are being controlled to-day, would sack him. Notwithstanding the way in which our finances are being handled we are asked to retain the services of a person who controls the finances of the Commonwealth as the Treasurer does.

Senator Ogden:

– Labour governments have been budgeting for deficits for years.

Senator DALY:

– Yes, some of them have been compelled to do that in consequence of the muddled condition in which the States’ finances have been left by their predecessors. Labour was placed in power in Tasmania to right the affairs of that little island, and it did it most effectively.

Senator Payne:

– It did not.

Senator DALY:

– The anti-Labour forces in that State handed over the reins of government because they realized that there were only two means of salvation, one of which was the election of Senator Ogden to this Parliament and the other was to place a Labour government in power in that State.

The criticism of the policy of the present Treasurer is not confined to members of the Opposition, in both chambers. One supporter of the Government, in another place, was so outspoken in his denunciation of the way in which the Commonwealth finances had been controlled that the Prime Minister muzzled him by giving him a portfolio. The position is serious and the Treasurer must cease his extravagance. During the period he has been in office expenditure has increased by £16,500,000 and our overseas borrowing by over £80,000,000 sterling. If the Treasurer continues at that rate what will our position be in a few years ? For some years past we have enjoyed prosperity, due chiefly to our exports of wool, wheat and meat, and as a result of this the Government has gone on squandering millions without giving any thought to reverses which must eventually come. If, by any misfortune, our wool clip should decrease, or the prices of that commodity should decline to any considerable extent, our predicament would be too serious to contemplate. Prior to the Treasurer taking office he was a great advocate of economy, and time and again told the then Treasurer that he should cut his garment according to his cloth. That is the advice which we are tendering to the Treasurer to-day.

In 1928, the right honorable gentleman made a similar statement, as follows: -

Any one who endeavoured to mislead the people to obtain a political or party advantage would be recreant to the great responsibilities of his position, and would be justly condemned as one who had failed in a great and sacred trust.

Senator Crawford:

Senator Hoare:

– What is the reason for the delay in registering the Australian seamen ?

Senator FOLL:

– Towards the end of last year an industrial organization known as the Australian Seamen’s Union, lodged an application for registration with Mr. Stewart, the registrar of the court. In the ordinary course the application should have been dealt with before the end of the year, but immediately it was made another section of seamen formed themselves into an organization and they, too, applied for registration, their object, apparently, being to frustrate the efforts of the seamen who had lodged the first application. 1 have no wish to criticize unduly the action of the Registrar, but for some reasons best known to himself, instead of dealing with the first application with reasonable promptitude, he waited for the expiration of the time allowed for objections in regard to the second application, his intention, probably, being to consider both at the same time. I know of no reason why the applications should be treated in that way. The Australian Seamen’s Union represents the majority, and comprises the very best elements of seamen serving on the Australian coast. They have furnished the court with the rules of their organization and have given an undertaking that, if granted registration, they will loyally abide by the court’s decisions. The delay in dealing with that application is doing serious harm, because opponents of arbitration will use it as an argument why the court should not be availed of to its fullest extent. They will be able to point out that although the Australian Seamen’s Union made application for registration as far back as November last, the application has not yet been dealt with. Some members of the organization have already been victimized by the “ red “ element of the old seamen’s union, who are opposed to arbitration, and whose application for registration was lodged for the purpose of delaying the registration of the bona fide organization. The extreme section of seamen is associated with the Australa sian Council of Trade Unions, which has definitely dissociated itself from all proceedings before the Arbitration Court and which body is also repudiated by the Australian Workers Union. All genuine industrial organizations that seek registration in the Arbitration Court should be encouraged, and in the case of this seamen’s union, the hearing of its application for registration should be expedited. As large numbers of plaints for variations of existing awards or for new awards are lodged with the court, it follows that, in fairness to all concerned, they should be considered in rotation ; but this application by the Austraiian Seamen’s Union for registration is in a different category, and it should not have been delayed. It is difficult for the Senate to inform the Registrar that he should expedite the hearing of the application, but I trust that the publicity which is now being given to the matter will result iu the machinery of the court being set in motion for the hearing of the application without further delay. The seamen belonging to the organization mentioned earnestly desire to carry on their industry in peace, and they are becoming restive at the delay.

There is one other matter to which I desire to direct attention. As honorable senators know, I asked recently a series of questions relating to the application of the Commonwealth housing scheme to Queensland. Almost every day I am in receipt of letters from people in that State inquiring when the Commonwealth scheme, which is being operated in every other State, will be available to the citizens of Queensland. I may add that Mr. McCormack, the State Premier, besides failing to take advantage of the Commonwealth’s scheme, has closed down on the State home building activities, with the result that the people of Queensland are unable to get assistance for home building. It is to be deplored that owing to an oversight, or because of the stupid action taken by the Premier, they should be the only people in Australia who are debarred from the benefits of the Commonwealth housing scheme. The ‘ War Service Homes Commission is working satisfactorily in Queensland and the Commonwealth Bank has branches throughout that State.

Senator Ogden:

– Has the State a housing scheme also?

Senator FOLL:

– Yes, but it has been suspended for want of funds. One would think that, in the circumstances, the Government of Queensland would be glad to take advantage of the Commonwealth housing scheme. I hope that before long the machinery of the War Service Homes Department or of the Commonwealth Bank, will be set in motion to operate the Commonwealth Housing Act so that the people of Queensland who desire homes may be able to get them. Fortunately, a State election will be held on the 11th May, when I predict that the Labour Government will be defeated. It would rake me all night to tell of the many misdeeds of that Government; but I feel that its reign is nearing the end, and that after the election, the new Premier, Mr. Moore, will not be so short-sighted as the present Premier, but will avail himself, on behalf of the people of this State of the generous offer of the Commonwealth to assist the people of Australia to obtain homes. Should the jerrymandering of electorates, or the sniffing of the rolls keep the present Labour Government in office in Queensland, I trust that efforts will nevertheless be made to make the Commonwealth housing scheme applicable to that State.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– A matter which has been discussed on many occasions, both in this chamber and in another place, is the necessity for improved shipping services between Tasmania and the mainland. In his policy speech, the Prime Minister announced the Government’s intention in this connexion. He said that the Government proposed to call for tenders for an improved service along the lines outlined by the Public Accounts Committee. That has been done, but I understand that the Government considers the tender price for the proposed services to be too high. I am unable to say whether or not that is so. I only know that some action should be taken to improve the services between Tasmania and the mainland. Within a few weeks passenger communication between Sydney and Hobart will cease, in which case, the only services will be those between Launceston and Melbourne and between North-

Western Tasmanian ports and Melbourne. There is a difference of opinion in relation to the shipping service between Launceston and Melbourne, because of the desire of the Postmaster-General’s Department that ships shall run to a timetable and that mails shall be delivered when the tide is unsuitable for vessels to negotiate the upper reaches of the river Tamar. The people of Tasmania are becoming impatient regarding the promise of a better shipping service. They appreciate what the Commonwealth Government has done to encourage development, but they realize that all its efforts will avail nothing unless proper communications are provided. It is essential to Tasmanian interests that these services be improved. I should like the Leader of the Senate when replying, to indicate the Government’s intention in this matter. When the vote for the PostmasterGeneral’s Department is before us, I hope to have an opportunity to refer to the proposed mail contract.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- 1 listened with a great deal of attention to the criticisms levelled at the Government by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Daly). One statement he made, if not contradicted, might convey a false impression outside this chamber. The honorable senator said that during the present Treasurer’s term of office, the expenditure of the Commonwealth had increased by £16,500,000 per annum, and he asked what we had to show for that expenditure. I have obtained the financial papers for 1921-22, the first year of the present Treasurer’s term of office, and I find that the total expenditure from revenue in that year was £65,106,949. The estimate for 1927- 2S was £62,725,000, but the actual expenditure was a little over £63,000,000. Even then it was less than it was in 1921-22. I suggest that Senator Daly should be more careful in presenting figures to the Senate. I hold no brief for the Government, but I support it and in many directions it has done well by Australia. It is true that, like every other government, it has made mistakes, but, considering the extent of its operations, no honorable senator can blame himself for supporting it.

We Lave heard from Senator Daly a good deal about the failure of the Government to promote land settlement. I come from Tasmania, the smallest State in the Commonwealth, and I know what has been accomplished there in the way of closer settlement. The people of South Australia should look to their own affairs. If there are lands in that State which are not being put to their best use, it certainly is not to the credit of those in power that steps have not been taken to put them to better use. That is a matter for the State authorities, although I admit that the Commonwealth is indirectly concerned because the Commonwealth is interested in the development of all the States. Yet, if it attempted to interfere in the domestic policy of any State, all political parties would rightly resent its interference. I suggest that during the forthcoming recess Senator Daly and his colleagues should endeavour to awaken public opinion in matters of land settlement. If they do so, they may achieve their desire, and effect the sub-division of estates which are capable of maintaining a much larger population.

The Government has been criticized in connexion with its expenditure on defence. It has been asked what it has to show for the £58,000,000 spent. There is a good deal to show for that expenditure, although it must be remembered that defence equipment often speedily becomes obsolete. Honorable senators in discussing defence expenditure should not lose sight of that fact. Our expenditure on defence has been kept as low as possible consistent with our own security and our obligations to the rest of the Empire. We should be recreant to our trust if we did not do our fair share towards the defence of the Empire of which we form a part.

Senator Daly also criticized the immigration policy of the Government. I believe that an immigration policy is essential to the best interests of any community, provided that it is reasonably administered. I do not agree that the Government’s immigration policy has, to a great extent, been responsible for the present unemployment in Australia. My knowledge of the immigrants who have come to Australia leads me to the conclusion that their coming here has not con- tributed largely to the unemployment problem. Many things have contributed to Australia’s existing unemployment problem; but there are two primary causes. The first is the increased cost of production brought about by the imposition of high rates of duty. I am a protectionist; but I claim to be a sane protectionist. During the last few years we have sought to encourage the establishment of industries by the imposition of duties almost on the prohibitive line; but some of those industries have failed, and their failure has brought in its train a condition of unemployment. The other primary cause of unemployment here is the constant dislocation of trade brought about by the failure of those engaged in industry to observe the arbitration laws of the country. For example, the timber workers’ strike, which directly affects a comparatively few thousand of workers, has, unfortunately, caused loss of employment to a great many others. The ranks of the cabinet-makers, carpenters, polishers, and upholsterers in employment have been seriously depleted. Many of the men engaged in these callings arc walking about the streets anxiously awaits ing the day when they can be re-engaged. Last week-end in Sydney I met many of them in the streets. The staffs of furniture warehouses and retail establishments have been reduced, because supplies of materials cannot be obtained. Quite recently I heard some of the speeches in the Sydney Domain, and noted that an effort was being made to accentuate the present trouble by advocating that other trades which may have some connexion with the timber trade should be declared “black.” Dislocation of trade by industrial disputes has a great effect on our unemployment problem. Some time ago I said that I thought that our present difficulties would prove a lesson to the workers. To-day I express the belief that many of the men are ready to throw off the thraldom to which they have been subjected for so long in Australia.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– There is no hope of that.

Senator PAYNE:

– I trust * that the majority of them will realize the folly of bowing to the dictates of a few, whose chief purpose seems to be to bring about strife and trouble in industry. When we overcome that difficulty, we shall go a long way towards solving our unemployment problem. But, even with its present difficulties, there is no country in the world that gives its people such favor able conditions as Australia. I could understand dissatisfaction among the workers if they were living in a country where the conditions are intolerable; but any one who has visited other countries must know how blessed we Australians are in the comforts we enjoy.

Senator Barnes:

– The trade union movement has made them possible.

Senator PAYNE:

– The trade union movement of years ago may have done so; but it has not the same objectives to-day. It has now abandoned most of its principles - the big things that lifted the workers to a higher level have been discarded and paltry things, calculated to bring the good workman down to the level of the inferior workman, have obtained pre-eminence.

I want to supplement the remarks made by Senator Herbert Hays about the absolute need for at once improving the unsatisfactory means of communication between the mainland and Tasmania. The people of Tasmania have suffered for many years a very unsuitable and inadequate means of communication. Although the State is a small one, it is capable of great development, and, as a matter of fact, is in a far better position to-day than might reasonably have been expected of it, handicapped as it has been during the last fifteen or twenty years. Last year the Public Accounts Committee, after a close and complete investigation of the means of communication with Tasmania, recommended an improved steamship service between the island and Melbourne, and the Government subsequently promised that that improved service would be provided. But many months have elapsed and the service is still the same. I say without hesitation that it is the duty of the Government to see that the improved service recommended by the Public Accounts Committee, and promised by the Prime Minister, is provided at the earliest possible moment. I know that the steamship company has demanded a very much increased subsidy for an improved service, but if in the opinion of the Government the subsidy asked for is too high, I trust that no stone will be left unturned to approach the company with a view to inducing it to accept a reasonable subsidy. Of course I am not in a position to say what the amount should be - that is a matter which rests with the Government - but I claim that Tasmania can no longer be permitted to be as heavily handicapped as it has been by the retention of a service which is inadequate, and particularly so in the case of one port. It is obsolete and unsuited for present day traffic. I am aware that the steamship company is doing the best it can with the vessels at its disposal, but the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee was that a better type of steamer should be secured so that the public might travel between the mainland and the island in real comfort. Tasmania offers an opportunity to avoid the intense heat of the summer months in other parts of the Commonwealth, and if a reasonable service is provided the tourist traffic, which is very important to the people of the State, may easily be quadrupled within a few years.

– No ; but the men cannot be expected to take all the kicks and cuffs. The Government possesses the power, but has not the courage to use it. There is not an honorable senator opposite who can justify the reduction in wages made in the Lukin award. Big business men and capitalists in other countries are endeavouring to influence the authorities in Australia to assist in a reduction of wages and to interfere with the standard of living here, which, they say, are too high, and are affecting the industrial position of other countries. It is interesting to note that in two different Arbitration Court awards made within a month of each other, the basic wage in one instance was fixed at £4 9s. 6d. and in another at £3 14s., or a difference of 15s. 6d. a week. Honorable members opposite are continuously complaining of the industrial unrest in Australia; but they do not consider the cause of all the trouble or endeavour to assist the men who have been unfairly treated. Notwithstanding my objections to the weapon of the strike, which in my opinion is the last weapon that workers should use, I am fully convinced that men should not submit to gross injustice such as many have had to do during recent months. It is the duty of the Government to remove the cause of the trouble and thus enable industry to carry on under peaceful conditions.

There are many troubles for which the Government is responsible. Considerable dissatisfaction has been expressed with the electoral laws of the Commonwealth. It would seem that they are capable of being gravely misused, to the hurt of the people. We have recently had some little trouble which has resulted in a great number of men and women of Australia being disfranchised. It would appear that certain persons in responsible positions have grossly misused their power to the detriment of people who have a right to be represented in this Parliament. A large number of electors clearly indicated the manner in which they desired to record their votes at the last election, but as the result of the decision of an individual, a large number of electors have been most unfairly treated.

Senator Foll:

– Is the honorable senator in favour of “ sacking “ the judge who heard that case, as well as certain Arbitration Court judges?

Senator BARNES:

– I think that the circumstances suggest it. At any rate, I do not think that any lawyer in Australia could be found to agree with him, or that even honorable senators opposite agree with him.

Senator McLachlan:

– In the opinion of the honorable senator, a judge who disagrees with his view is always wrong.

Senator BARNES:

– I do not think that. On one occasion this learned judge gave excellent information to Parliament, upon which it based an amendment of the law.

Senator Payne:

– Does not the honorable senator consider that it would be better to amend the act rather than to blame the judge?

Senator BARNES:

– Some one must have the courage to drag these matters into the limelight. That would never be done if honorable senators on this side went about with their eyes shut, like Senator Payne.

Senator Payne:

I suggest that it is the duty of others to take a like attitude when dealing with the unions of Australia. That would make for a happier condition of affairs. When the timber workers were granted an award which was highly satisfactory to them everything was well, hut when the economic laws of the country necessitated a reduction of their wages, they protested and went out on strike. Many forget that other sections of the community arc entitled to consideration. The wheat-growers of Australia are this year suffering a reduction of 25 per cent, in their wages in the price realized for their product. They have to work, not 44 hours, but 54 hours and more each week, and they get no sympathy from Senator Barnes and his friends in the Labour movement. Let us consider, also, the position of our fruit-growers. Does Senator Barnes know that the grower of peaches in Victoria can get only £5 a ton, and out of that sum he has to pay £4 10s. a ton to the pickers, leaving only 10s. a ton to cover interest on his capital, the reward for his own labour, and the support of his family?

Senator Barnes:

– I know all that. I know, also, that I have to pay 6d. a lb. for peaches in Melbourne.

Senator LYNCH:

– That is another matter altogether. Despite the influence which he wields in the trade union movement, Senator Barnes and his Labour friends should be given to understand that they are not the cream of society. They should be told plainly that their duty is to tighten up the discipline in the industrial movement in the direction of requiring obedience to awards of the Arbitration Court. Is it not about time that trade unionists were made to realize that fellow Australians not in the same political organizations are of the same flesh and blood, have the same feelings, the same common outlook and expect to share the same destiny, and that the industrialists should have some sympathy for less fortunate fellow Australians, particularly our primary producers, who have to labour long hours to wrest a grudging living from the soil? It is high time that the industrial organizations eased their pressure upon the other sections of society, and adopted a reasonable policy by means of which the wheels of industry might be kept going.

What is the position of our wheat-farmers? I say, advisedly, that in order to keep industry going in this country they have to make slaves of themselves. What of the dairyfarmer? We have the evidence of Mr. Mcinnes, an impartial witness in New South Wales, that the dairymen of Australia are broken financially, and, what is worse, broken in spirit. Can they make a living out of that industry on a 44- hour week? Not a bit of it. They are obliged to work 54 hours, or 64 hours a week. Indeed, in many cases they work all the hours that God sends. Clocks and watches were not made for them. Their chief consideration is not how long they must work, but how long their physical strength will stand the strain. Thus we find that fellow Australians, who a*re engaged in the three leading lines of primary production, are in. an infinitely worse position than are the men employed in industrial concerns. Surely it is time that some sympathy was extended to these people who have to battle against extraordinary, almost insuperable, difficulties in production, and have to sell their product in the world’s market, where there is no sympathy, sentiment or consideration of any kind. The buyer operating in that market takes no account of the costs of production, or whether wheat is produced by black, brown or brindle labour. His one concern is to buy in the cheapest market.

Those who give thought to the industrial outlook of Australia must be alarmed at recent happenings, particularly on our waterfront, where, in the last few years, there has been strike after strike. Because of this dislocation of trade, brought about by the tactics of less than 2 per cent, of the trade unionists of Australia no business nian, great or small, in this country knows whore he stands. He does not know what to do or what to expect. This miserable callous-hearted remnant of trade unionists - I refer to those 1S,000 wharf labourers who have been responsible for so much trouble lately - have been the cause of most of our industrial disturbances in the last ten years, and they have been directly responsible for untold privation and suffering on the part of thousands of innocent people. To see, as I have seen, or anybody else could have seen, the perishable products representing the sweat and toil of hard-working people rotting and streaming out of cases on the wharfs is enough to make one’s blood boil. They violate the arbitration laws of this country with impunity because they have behind them the solid support of the latter day Labour leaders. If only these so-called leaders would denounce the malcontents in real earnest they would serve some useful purpose. Why do not they take a definite stand in the interests of 98 pei’ cent, of trade unionists who are mostly law abiding citizens and who have no sympathy with the remnant of law breakers? Senator Barnes and his colleagues should open their eyes to what is happening. The honorable senator must know that there is something radically wrong with the industrial movement in the Commonwealth when these things happen.

Let honorable senators consider the unsatisfactory position of our State railway systems. Statistical returns show that they are going to the bad every year. But side by side with this record we should place the latest figures relating to the Midland Railway Company of Western Australia. That i3 only a small concern, but it is making ends meet. It is observing Arbitration Court awards and in addition it is clearing off some of its capital liabilities. The State-owned railways in the several States, on the other hand, are not by any means in that enviable position. They cannot hold their own against modern motor traffic. It has been demonstrated that an owner of a motor truck, notwithstanding its high price due to customs duties and the high cost of fuel, can transport wool by road up to 200 miles to the nearest port at a cost below the most favorable railway charges in every State of the Commonwealth. There must be something wrong with the management of our railways when it is nor possible to meet this road competition. Industrial leaders should make it plain to the rank and file that they must help to make those State enterprises pay. It stands to reason that the economic position must be adjusted or else an even heavier tribute will have to be levied upon the unlucky primary producer. Something also must be done to improve the relations between employer and employee, and action taken to check the lawlessness of wharf labourers and others rebelliously inclined, who have been the fruitful cause of so many of our troubles.

In the last tcn years, according to the labour report, the loss to trade unionism alone through the industrial disputes has been about £25,000,000. It is difficult to estimate the loss to the community, but it must have been considerably more than £25,000,000. Indeed, it has been estimated that the combined loss is in the neighbourhood of £100,000,000. Now, what country can stand this? There can only be either hopeless stagnation or national bankruptcy. This industrial turmoil, unhappily, is reflected in Australia’s position in the money markets of the world. An examination of the financial situation will show that Commonwealth stocks cannot compare with New Zealand issues, and, indeed, are regarded as inferior even to South African bonds. Our credit on the London marker is not what it should be. Remember how our loans have been left on the underwriters’ hands, when the money market would not touch them even on specially attractive terms. We should, therefore, submit our industrial relations to the searchlight of introspection and endeavour to find out what is wrong. We must get down to bedrock and sternly reprimand that miserable section of our industrialists which has been responsible for so much of our trouble in the past. Credit is governed by conduct. If I neglected my opportunities and otherwise misbehaved, would I have the same financial standing in the eyes of my banker? Would he not consider it to be his first duty to examine my character to see if I were doing my work, minding my own business, and worthy of his confidence? The same principles apply to the community as a whole. Australia for some years has not been behaving itself. It has not been displaying that industrial activity which is expected of every young nation and, as I have shown, its reputation is suffering. Both South Africa and New Zealand can get better terms on the London or other markets than we can. Recent quotations for our stock on Wall-street have been so unsatisfactory that every good Australian must have felt ashamed. Our troubles in the main have been due to the failure of our industrial leaders to tell the lawbreakers definitely that they must stick to work and loyally abide by the awards of the arbitration courts, so that there may be some semblance of amity in the relations of employer and employee. What we want in this country more than anything else is more honest work and less talk.

We hear a great deal about the capitalists and capitalism. We are told that capitalists, in making huge profits, are crushing the life out of the country. Yet what did the Queensland Labour Government do when it entered into the ranks of the “beef barons,” and bought station after station? Unlike the capitalists, it made a loss of about £1,250,000 on them. Again, let us see what happened in the Commonwealth sphere. The ship-owner is generally depicted as a man with a gold watch chain spanning his expansive chest. The Commonwealth Government, seeking to emulate him, made a loss of £8,000,000 on its line of steamers, and the taxpayers of the country had to make good that loss. When we consider the many directions in which governments have failed when they have entered into business, we should regard the capitalist, not as an enemy, but as one of the best friends of the country. If the Government were to enter into every line of business in which the capitalists are now engaged, this country would become insolvent almost immediately, judging by everyday experience.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Western Australia · NAT

[10.33]. - If I failed to reply to some of the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Daly) I might be accused of discourtesy. The honorable senator referred to a remark alleged to have been made a day or two ago by Mr. Butler, the Premier of South Australia, in regard to financial assistance for that State. I am somewhat sceptical regarding the statement alleged to have been made by him, for I can scarcely conceive of Mr. Butler expressing surprise that there was no provision in this year’s federal budget to meet any claim by South Australia for financial assistance, seeing that that budget was presented to Parliament in August last, before the royal commission to inquire into South Australia’s disabilities had been appointed. Mr. Butler is the Treasurer of South Australia as well as its Premier, and he should know that it would be impossible for the Commonwealth Treasurer to see into the future, and to say that a commission would be appointed to inquire into the financial position of South Australia and that it would report along certain lines. In the circumstances, honorable senators will see that it would have been ridiculous to make provision in this year’s budget to meet South Australia’s claims.

Senator Daly:

– What about making the grant retrospective?

Senator Sir GEORGE’ PEARCE.The honorable senator attacked the Government for not having made provision in this year’s budget to meet the claim of South Australia, although the inquiry had not commenced when the budget was framed. I suggest that the honorable senator’s speech to-night is somewhat belated, for some time ago the AddressinReply debate terminated. In connexion with that debate, most of the items to which he has referred to-night were discussed. I have already replied to the questions then raised and I shall therefore not traverse the same ground tonight.

Reference has been made to the problem of unemployment confronting the Commonwealth. Honorable senators opposite know well that strikes are the chief cause of unemployment, but they have not the courage to say so. They remind me of a story that is told of a clergyman who went to a fashionable district in London to relieve a fellow clergyman who was about to go for a holiday. Before commencing his new duties he sought guidance from the departing clergyman as to various subjects to which he should or should not refer. He was informed that it would be just as well not to be too decisive on the temperance question, because there were several large brewers in the congregation who subscribed liberally to the church funds. It was also suggested that it would be somewhat unwise to condemn horse racing, because other prominent members of the congregation were keen racegoers. The advice continued in a similar strain until the relieving clergyman asked what, evils remained for him to denounce. He was told that he would be perfectly safe in denouncing the Turks for their treatment of the Armenians, for there were no Turks in the congregation. Honorable senators opposite are prepared to denounce the Government and every one else except the people, actually responsible for unemployment in Australia - the promoters of strikes, and that in a country in which strikes should not only be impossible, but unthinkable. I suggest that they should leave the “ Turks “ alone for a while and devote their attention to the “ brewers “ and “ racegoers “ in the community.

Since 1916 the Labour party has been opposed to immigration, even during periods when there has been practically no unemployment. In the hope that constant repetition will lead the people to believe the statement, they keep on repeating that the Commonwealth Government brings immigrants to this country. That is not so. Before he proceeds further with his duties as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Daly would do well to study the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States, when he would find that it is therein provided that the Commonwealth shall not bring immigrants into this country without the approval of the States. The only immigrants who may come here are those either nominated by the States, or endorsed by the States if nominated by private persons. lt may also be news to Senator Daly that the only governments now nominating immigrants are the Labour Governments of Western Australia and Queensland. It is to their credit that they are doing so. Practically the only assisted immigrants coming to Australia are domestic servants and boys. Will any honorable senator say where in Australia, there are any domestic servants out of employment?

Senator Daly:

– There are plenty of them in Adelaide.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Or will honorable senators say that the Dreadnought boys or the Little Brothers who are coming here are throwing big men out of employment in the timber industry? I suggest that before Senator Daly speaks again on the immigration question, he takes the trouble to understand it.

Senator Hoare:

– Who is responsible for allowing Southern Europeans to come here?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The present Government has been responsible for checking the immigration of Southern Europeans. If the honorable senator has any doubt as to the accuracy of that statement, let him inquire from Mr. Wickens, the Commonwealth Statistician, who keeps a record of all migrants. Statistics show that the action taken by the present Government has had the effect of reducing by practically twothirds the number of Southern Europeans immigrants.

Senator Foll referred to the delay in hearing the application of the Seamen’s Union to the Arbitration Court for registration. I shall see that his remarks are brought under the notice of the AttorneyGeneral.

The honorable senator’s remarks as to the application of the Commonwealth housing scheme to Queensland is a matter for the people of that State. They will soon have the opportunity, subject to the difficulties caused by the jerrymandering of electorates, to put into office another government which will co-operate with the Commonwealth Government in providing homes for the people.

– Order! The honorable senator must withdraw that remark.

Senator O’Halloran:

– I withdraw it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Senate adjourned at 10.47 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 March 1929, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1929/19290319_senate_11_120/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate19 March 1929

BEAM WIRELESS CHARGES

Select Committee

QUESTION

GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY

Senator CARROLL:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

PRINTING COMMITTEE’S REPORT

PAPERS

COTTON INDUSTRY

QUESTION

STOCK ROUTES

Senator COOPER:QUEENSLAND

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

AVIATION GROUNDS - CANBERRA

ASSENT TO BILLS

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1929-30

First Reading

Senator DALY:South Australia

WINE GRAPES CHARGES BILL

WINE OVERSEAS MARKETING BILL

Second Reading

Senator O’HALLORAN:South Australia

Senator Lynch:

Senator O’HALLORAN:

Senator Ogden:

Senator O’HALLORAN:

Senator Lynch:

Senator O’HALLORAN:

Senator CHAPMAN:South Australia

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator CHAPMAN:

Senator HERBERT Hays:

Senator CHAPMAN:

Senator Herbert Hays:

Senator CHAPMAN:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator CHAPMAN:

Senator Ogden:

Senator CHAPMAN:

Senator Crawford:

Senator CHAPMAN:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator CHAPMAN:

Senator Elliott:

Senator CHAPMAN:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Chapman:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Chapman:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Chapman:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Daly:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Daly:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Ogden:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Lynch:

Senator HOARE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Herbert Hays:

Senator O’Halloran:

Senator HOARE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator Herbert Hays:

Senator HOARE:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator HOARE:

Senator Herbert Hays:

Senator HOARE:

Senator OGDEN:Honorary Minister · Tasmania · NAT

Senator Hoare:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator O’HALLORAN:South Australia

Senator HOARE:South Australia

Senator OGDEN:Honorary Minister · Tasmania · NAT

Senator O’Halloran:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator O’HALLORAN:South Australia

Senate
19 March 1929

Senator CARROLL:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator DALY:
South Australia

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

Senator CHAPMAN:
South Australia

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator HOARE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator HOARE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator OGDEN:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · NAT

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

Senator OGDEN:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · NAT

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

Senator O’HALLORAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

O’HALLORAN, Michael:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

Senator OGDEN:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · NAT

Senator DALY:
South Australia

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT