Senate
30 July 1930

12th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 12th Parliament
  3. 1930

The President (Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 4886

QUESTION

STATEMENT BY VICE-CONSUL FOR JUGO-SLAVIA

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate been called to a report in the newspapers alleging that the Viee-Consul for Jugo-Slavia has been circularising restaurants in Sydney with a view to engaging men to serve under the Graziers’ Co-operative Company in connexion with an industrial dispute now in existence ? If so, will he have the matter investigated in order to ascertain whether this vice-consul has so transgressed the ordinary usage?

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Before the Senate met the honorable senator was good enough to call my attention to the par- ticular paragraph. If he will place his question on the notice-paper the matter will be investigated and a reply furnished.

page 4887

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE

Secretary

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

– On the 24th July, Senator H. E. Elliott asked the following questions, upon notice -

  1. What salary is the Secretary of the Department of Defence receiving?
  2. What was the amount of the salary of his predecessor in office?
  3. Is it a fact that an agreement was made by the Eight Honorable W. M Hughes, or by his cabinet, on behalf of the Commonwealth, with Mr. Shepherd that his salary should never be less than £2,000 per annum, or otherwise fixing his remuneration?
  4. Will the Minister lay such agreement (if any) on the table of the Senate?
  5. Is it possible for the Public Service Board or for the Cabinet or Parliament (a) to reclassify this position so as to provide that the salary paid to Mr. Trumble for this office can be reverted to; (6) to declare this office unnecessary; (c) to redistribute the duties of the office amongst the military officers who are now being rationed so as to save the salary altogether?

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

  1. £2,000.
  2. £1,350.

I would refer the honorable senator to the following reply given to a somewhat similar question* on 15th March, 1928, vide Hansard page 3793, viz. : - “ The appointment of Mr. M. L. Shepherd as Official Secretary in Great Britain of the Commonwealth of Australia was approved by His Excellency the Governor-General in Council on the 6th January, 1921, with salary at the rate of £2,000 per annum. The Prime Minister at the time of Mr. Shepherd’s appointment was the Right Honorable W. M. Hughes, and the papers show that the decision to recommend Mr. Shepherd’s appointment for the approval of the Governor-General in Council was made by Cabinet. The papers do not, however, contain a record of any definite agreement having been entered into regarding Mr. Shepherd’s salary, but the terms of the approved order in council arc definite on this point.”

  1. See answer to 3.
  2. The appointment of permanent heads is a matter for cabinet decision. Mr. Shepherd was gazetted to the position of Official Secretary in London with salary at £2,000, and it was apparently not considered equitable by the previous Government to transfer him unless a position carrying the same salary was provided. The position he formerly occupied as secretary, Prime Minister’s Department, is also graded at £2,000 per annum, and the present Official Secretary receives £2,000 per annum. All Commonwealth Governments since federation have considered it necessary that the office of Secretary for Defence should be a civil appointment. At the present time when the Defence Department is a composite one embracing naval, military and air forces, munitions supply, civil aviation, and rifle club3, it is considered essential that the office should continue to be a civil appointment and the Government has no intention of altering the policy in this respect.

page 4887

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Appointments, Etc

Senator DALY:
ALP

– On the 25th June, Senator Herbert Hays asked the following question, upon notice -

  1. What was the number of new appointments made in the Public Service during the six months ended 31st May last?
  2. What was the number of temporary employees on the pay-sheets of the Commonwealth Service at 31st May last?
  3. What was the amount paid for overtime in the Public Service during the six months ended 31st May last?

A reply has already been furnished in regard to part 1.

I am now in a position to furnish the following replies to parts 2 and 3 : -

  1. 4,118. It is pointed out that the question of the honorable senator relates only to temporary employees. Should, however, particulars bc required as to exempted employees, I would refer him to page 25 of the sixth report on the Commonwealth Public Service by the Board of Commissioners, (Parliamentary Paper No. 19, 1929-30). Later figures can be obtained if required.
  2. £33.283 8s. Id.

page 4887

QUESTION

COST OF PREPARING INFORMATION

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– by leave - Honorable senators will have noticed in the reply to the question asked by Senator Herbert Hays, the phrase, “ Later figures can be obtained if required “. The Government is anxious to draw the attention of honorable senators to a matter to which attention has already been drawn in another place - that owing to the urgent need for economy it is desired that honorable senators will not ask for information unless they feel it essential that it should be supplied. It is costly to procure some of the information which has been sought in another place, as much as £100 having been spent upon some investigations.

page 4888

PAPERS

The f ollowing papers were presented : -

Excise Act - Regulations amended - StatutoryRules 1930, No. 71.

Navigation Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 83.

London Naval Treaty, 1930, signed at St. James’s Palace, London, on Tuesday, 22nd April, 1930.

Naval Disarmament Conference - London, 1930 - Report of the Australian Delegate (Honorable J. E. Fenton, M.P.).

Canned Fruits Export Control Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 78.

Committee of Public Accounts Act - RegulationsStatutory Rules 1930, No. 84.

page 4888

QUESTION

DEFENCE OFFICERS’ QUARTERS

In respect to the system of rationing of employment prescribed for officers, and noncommissioned officers and warrant officers of the Permanent Military Forces - in the case of these officers, who are provided with quarters, are they required to give up such quarters during the period of leave without pay, or are they charged for the use of such quarters during such period?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– Members occupying military quarters are not permitted to relinquish the quarters during enforced leave without pay, and they arc required to continue the usual payment of rent during such period.

page 4888

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motions (by Senator Daly) agreed to -

That until8th August, 1930, unless otherwise ordered, Government business shall take precedence of all other business on the noticepaper except questions and formal motions.

That Standing Order No.68 be suspended up to and including 8th August. 1930, for the purpose of enabling new business to be commenced after half-past Ten o-clock at night.

page 4888

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

Assent reported.

page 4888

SUPERANNUATION BILL

Question proposed -

That the reports be adopted.

Motion by (Senator Daly) agreed to -

That the bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clause 27.

In committee (Recommittal) :

Clause 27 -

Section sixtyI of the principal act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: - “(2.) In the application of Part IV. under the last preceding sub-section, section forty-nine of this act shall be read as if the words ‘ or thirty-seven ‘ (wherever occurring) were omitted, and the words ‘ thirty-seven, sixtyN or sixty o ‘ were inserted in their stead.”

Senator DALY:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

.- I move-

That after the word “ forty-nine “ the words “ and fifty “ be inserted.

The amendment is purely consequential. This clause empowers the board to call upon an invalidity pensioner who was a member of the military and air forces to submit himself for a medical examination as and when required by the board. Section 50 of the original act prescribes the action to be taken by the board following the restoration to health of any invalidity pensioner. Honorable senators will realize that as section 49 will in future apply to members of the military and air forces, section 50 should be made similarly to apply to them. It is for that purpose that I desire the addition of the words “ and fifty.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with : i further amendment.

page 4888

FLAX AND LINSEED BOUNTIES BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29th . July (vide page 4839) on motion by Senator Barnes -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [3.17]. - My attitude with regard to this bill will be of a general charader. Since the Senate dealt with the Cotton Bounty Bill, this country has had inflicted upon it the most calamitous budget ever known in its history. I view this proposal in the light of that budget. In view of the picture presented of the Commonwealth finances I conclude that the country cannot afford this or any other similar bounty. I shall not enter into the merits or demerits of the pro- posal. At a time when the taxpayers of Australia are having inflicted upon them an additional impost of £12,000,000 we are not justified in indulging in luxuries of this nature. If times were normal, there might have been something to be said for this or a similar bounty, but, in existing circumstances, I cannot bring myself to vote for the bill, and, if a division is taken upon it, I must record my vote against the second reading.

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

– I hope that the Senate will pass this measure. This is a time when any promising industry should receive our support. I believe that the flax and linseed industry will prove a valuable one to Australia if granted a little’ assistance. T. am confident that, aided by this bounty, the industry would assume substantial proportions in the Commonwealth. During the past 25 to 30 years attempts have been made to establish the industry in Australia. I recollect that over 20 years ago there was a demand for flax fibre both on the Australian market and for export purposes, and growers in my own district undertook its cultivation. It grew most luxuriously, 4 to 5 feet high, cropping 2 or 3 tons to the acre; an excellent result for the type of land on which it was grown. Some two or three years ago I visited Gippsland, and there saw flax being cultivated with considerable success. Farmers - especially those engaged in mixed farming on good land - want another crop. At one time oats was a main crop, the oats being cut for hay for horses; but, owing to the development of the internal combustion engine, resulting in horses being largely superseded by motor cars, the chaff market has gone. A crop to take the place of oats is needed. No greater skill is required to grow flax than is necessary to grow oats. The land is prepared and cultivated and the crop harvested in the same way, as in the case of Algerian oats. At one time, difficulties were encountered in harvesting the flax crop, but now flax is harvested with reapers and binders like any cereal crop is dealt with. A further stumbling block in the way of the development of the flax industry in the past was the difficulty of processing the flax for mar’ket. The crop had to be retted, or rotted, by being spread out in the paddocks and turned over continuously for a period of two or three months. Largely on account of the difficulty of preparing the flax for market, the industry was not a success. Those difficulties have now been overcome by the use of modern machinery. If given a start, the industry will develop and become a profitable asset. Some years ago there was a bounty on flax, but the results were not encouraging, because, at that time, all farm products brought high prices, and, consequently, farmers did not give to the cultivation of flax that attention which they would give it now.

The flax companies propose to buy the crop in the sheaf at from £5 to £6 a ton. The manager of a flax company in Tasmania told mc the other day that his company had paid one farmer £24.1 for the flax sheaves obtained from 15 acres of land. Those figures show the profitable nature of the industry. I have inquired into this matter in both Tasmania and Gippsland, and the farmers in both places state that if they can sell their sheaves for £5 a ton the industry will be profitable to thom. This bounty is asked for to enable the processers to obtain the necessary machinery for treating the flax. As in the case of oats, two tons of flax to the acre is a fair crop. Such a crop should produce 14 bushels of seed and 6 cwt. of fibre. At 9§. a bushel for the seed, aud £3 a cwt. for the fibre, that represents about £24 an acre. Australia imports annually large quantities of materials made from flax whicli could easily be manufactured here. Linseed and linseed oil to the value of hundreds of thousands of pounds are also imported annually. The linseed produced from flax grown in Tasmania has been analysed and found to be rich in oil contents. The oil obtained was about 38 per cent, of the seed. Large quantities of canvas are used in Australia, all of which has to be imported. There is no reason why canvas should not be manufactured here. For about £20,000 a canvas-making plant, which would employ 140 persons and produce about 1-1 5th of Australia’s canvas requirements could be established. Even if our requirements of canvas did not increase, we could still have fifteen such plants, or one plant fifteen times as big, in operation before the home market would be fully supplied. The growing of flax would assist small farmers considerably.

It has been said that flax-growing is not a white man’s industry. The cultivation of flax, its processing and manufacture into canvas is as much a white man’s industry as is any. other industry for which Australia is adapted. I realize that times are bad, and that we must economize; but surely our first effort in that direction should not be in connexion with an industry which will assist small, deserving farmers to make ends meet. This industry is as much worth encouraging as are other industries which have been assisted by the granting of bounties. I hope that the Senate will pass the bill.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [3.26]. - It is with deep regret that I have to inform the Senate that I shall vote against the second reading of this bill - regret because I know so well the many disabilities under which Tasmania is labouring. If I thought for one moment that the granting of this bounty would be of permanent advantage to that State, I should gladly vote for the bill before us ; but I am firmly convinced that every attempt we make to bolster up an industry - either secondary or primary - which is not self-supporting, will only get us deeper and deeper into the mire. There is not an industry in this country which can afford to pay for bounties to be given to other industries. Yesterday a number of questions were asked on my behalf with respect to the galvanized iron industry. Before the bounty on galvanized iron was increased from £3 12s. to £4 10s. a ton, the annual production of galvanized iron per man employed in the industry was 52 tons. According to the answers given in the Senate yesterday, the production has dropped to 35 tons since the bounty was increased. It would appear that the greater the bounty the less need there is to work or to ensure economy in production. We were told when we agreed to increase the bounty on galvanized iron that a bounty was the only alternative to increased protection. Almost as soon as the additional bounty had been granted economic conditions gave a further increase of £1 a ton in the protection enjoyed by the local industry, inasmuch as importers of iron had to pay an extra £1 a ton by way of exchange, and were compelled to increase their price. Then another duty of £1 a ton was put on. But, in spite of additional assistance equivalent to £2 a ton, the production of galvanized iron per man has decreased. Experiences of that kind should convince us of the utter futility of granting bounties to industries which cannot maintain themselves, and must continue to be a drag on the few industries which are still struggling on without bounties. Senator J. B. Hayes emphasized the need for encouraging primary production in this country. It is utterly useless for us to encourage any losing industry, whether primary or secondary. By encouraging them we are only destroying those industries which, if left alone and given a fair chance, would pull the country out of its difficulties. I should very much like to record a vote that would assist Tasmania in overcoming some of the difficulties imposed upon that State by federal policy, but, for the reasons given, I shall, with deep regret, be compelled to vote against the second reading of the bill.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– The arguments advanced by some honorable senators representing Western Australia, against some of the measures’ introduced in this chamber, suggest that they are eligible to become members of an Australian Calamity Howlers League. Considerable opposition has already been shown by honorable senators opposite to the bills introduced by this Government providing for the payment of bounties to assist primary and secondary industries. But only a few weeks ago Senator Sir Hal . Colebatch, who is opposing the payment of a bounty on flax, was a member of an influential deputation from Western Australia which waited upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) and asked for a bounty on the production of gold. On that occasion, the honorable senator, no doubt, expressed his views in favour of the payment of such a bounty in the interests of the State which he represents. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce), said that as the Government has to raise an additional £12,000,000 in taxation to balance the budget he could not support this or any other bounty measure. The right honorable senator is, however, in favour of the payment of a bounty on the production of gold. A few weeks ago he supported a measure to assist the gold-mining industry in the State which he represents. Apparently the industries of Western Australia should receive financial assistance from the Government, but those in other States should not. The opinions of some honorable senators concerning the payment of bounties appear to change according to the State concerned. I submit that spending money to increase primary and secondary production is preferable to incurring heavy expenditure in the construction of warships. Australia, in common with other countries, is adjusting itself to altered conditions. As the cotton, iron and steel, wine and many other industries are already receiving bounties, there does not appear to be any reason why the flaxgrowing industry, which will be of great advantage to primary producers, should not also be encouraged by the same means. I am safe in assuming that 90 per cent, of those engaged in primary production, many of whom will grow flax, are not supporters of this Government. Recently, I noticed that a good deal of business was being done in an office in the basement of a building in Pitt-street. Sydney, where money was being received from persons investing capital in the flaxgrowing industry in New Zealand. We should encourage investments in the industry here. As linen, twine, cordinga, canvas, and other such commodities, which are extensively used in Australia, and which now have to be imported, are manufactured from flax, the industry is entitled to support. During the time I have been a member of the Senate, I have never heard Senator Sir Hal Colebatch support a bounty other than a bounty on the production of gold.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– The honorable senator has never heard me support a gold bounty.

Senator DUNN:

– If the honorable senator does not believe in the payment of such a bounty why did he attend the deputation which asked the Prime Minister to provide for a gold bounty? Why did not he on that occasion inform the Prime Minister that he was not in favour of the gold bonus?

I venture to think that if he had done so he would have found his name at the bottom of the poll when next he appeared before the electors of Western Australia.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– What the honorable senator fails to realize is that the gold industry is being destroyed by burdens imposed upon it in the form of bounties and protection to other industries.

Senator DUNN:

– The honorable senator is entitled to his opinion. My only complaint is that he changes his mind so quickly. This bill, he informs us, does not square with his freetrade ideals. Therefore, he does not intend to vote for it. This Government stands by the principle of new protection, which is one of the principal planks in its fighting platform. I believe the Government is taking the right course in submitting this measure. According to the information available to us, there is more than sufficient land in Tasmania alone to supply the whole of the flax requirements of the Commonwealth. I hope the bill will be passed by the Senate.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– This is not the first attempt by a Commonwealth government to encourage the production of flax in Australia. A measure for the payment of a bounty on flax was passed in 1907. It lapsed in 1917; but within a few months a second attempt was made, with the object chiefly of assisting the Imperial Government during the critical period of the war, when there was a shortage of flax because so many of the European countries, which ordinarily produce this commodity, were at war. Belgium is a large producer of flax; but the industry there was, during the war years, at a standstill. But for the fact that the Tariff Board has inquired carefully into this proposal, and has reported in favour of it, I should not be found supporting the bill. The Minister (Senator Barnes), in his secondreading speech, drew upon information supplied by the Tariff Board as a result of its inquiries, and stated that it was possible to produce flax in large quantities in Victoria, Tasmania, and some of the other States. The one drawback in the preparation of flax for fibre, and not for seed, is the process of retting, or exposure, to separate the woody portion of the product from the fibre. In Ireland and Belgium this process is carried out by what is known as bogretting, or retting in streams. One river in Belgium - the river Lys, on the banks of which we fought with the Germans for years - is used largely for this purpose. I do not think it would be practicable in Australia to conduct the operation of retting in our creeks or rivers, because of the danger of contamination of the water for stock or other purposes, so I assume we should have to depend on dew retting, which is a difficult and somewhat lengthy process, requiring a considerable area of land upon which to spread the crop. I believe a retting machine is now on the market, but whether or not it is successful, I am unable to say. I think it is in the experimental stage.

The Tariff Board recommends a bounty on a sliding scale, and although I suppose the attitude of all honorable senators towards measures of this nature is governed more or less by conditions in the State which they represent, I suggest that the report and recommendation of the Tariff Board warrant support for this bill. If, at the end of the period mentioned in the report, the industry is not sufficiently established, it should not be deserving of further assistance. I contend, however, that it might very well be given a trial. I have not the slightest doubt that flax can be grown successfully in Australia, particularly in Tasmania. I have seen some magnificent crops in that State. The conditions to-day are somewhat different from those obtaining in 1917, but the report of the Tariff Board indicates that there is a reasonable possibility of the industry becoming selfsupporting after the first three or four years. In view of the fact that the board recommends the proposal contained in the bill, I intend to support it.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I regret that already some opposition has been shown to the bill on the ground, mainly, that the financial position of the Commonwealth does not warrant the expenditure that would be involved. The Leader of the Opposition says that since the Senate has dealt with other bills for the payment of bounties, the budget has been presented. In view of the contents of that budget, he says that he cannot sec himself voting for this bill or for any further bounties at .the present juncture. In considering this bill we ought to ask ourselves whether it will be of advantage to an industry .that should count in the development of Australia. In the past we have spent a lot of money bolstering industries worth nothing to Australia, and have failed to give assistance to others, particularly rural industries, that gave promise of being of permanent advantage to the Commonwealth. Senator J. B. Hayes has explained that hay-growing as a rural occupation has practically disappeared since the advent of motor traffic. It is reasonable, therefore, for us to see if we cannot provide for the man on the land an occupation which will prove just as profitable as hay-growing was. One of the main objects of this bill is to establish a new primary industry.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– If .the Australian farmers grow as much flax as they used to grow hay, what will it be worth?

Senator PAYNE:

– As the figures which I shall quote directly will prove, it. will be worth about five times what it was worth fifteen years ago. This bill is not dealing exclusively with a matter affecting Tasmania. There are flaxgrowers on the mainland, and if this bounty is paid, a fair proportion of the flax produced in Australia will be grown in Victoria where the climatic conditions are eminently suitable for flax-growing.

Senator Guthrie:

– Already more flax is grown in Victoria than in Tasmania.

Senator PAYNE:

– I believe that, that is so, but if encouragement is given by the payment of a bounty, more flax can bc grown in Tasmania. The flax produced in certain parts of Tasmania has proved to be excellent in regard to yield, the quality of the straw and the linseed. We must not forget that in addition to the fibre contained in the straw, linseed is a very valuable product. A company which has been operating in Tasmania for some time hopes to be able to produce flax, not only for the purpose of producing linseed and fibre for export, but also so that the latter may be manufactured in Australia into materials, such as canvas, for which there is always a ready market. Senator Sampson has referred to some of the difficulties experienced in working flax straw. One of the processes is known as retting. Less than two years ago I had an opportunity to see in London a wonderful machine, invented by Dr. Pritchard, for the treatment of flax straw. It is beyond the experimental stage because I understand that a large mill on the model of this plant has already been erected in Glasgow, and is to be at work this year. Of the whole process of treating flax straw, the retting is the most objectionable because of the enormous labour involved, and the time taken to extract the flax fibre. The process extends over four or five weeks. There is also a process called scutching, through which the straw has to pass, and this in ordinary circumstances has to be done by an additional machine. Both processes are carried out by Dr. Pritchards machine. I brought away with me two samples of scutched flax, and one of the finished article, thu pure flax ready for the spinner. I saw the flax straw put into Dr. Pritchards machine at one end of a room and at the other end of the room I handled the pure flax ready for the spinner as turned out by the machine. The whole process occupies only five hours, whereas the ordinary process of converting flax straw into fibre ready for the spinner, takes five1 weeks. Dr. Pritchard’s machine should revolutionize the whole of the flax industry throughout the world. I shall quote some figures to show how important the flax-growing industry is, and how the yield has fallen off in England and Ireland. In 1859 there were 136,000 acres under flax in Ireland and in 1870 there were 22,000 acres under flax in England and Wales. In Ireland, in 1926, the area under flax was only 30,534 acres and in Engand and Wales, only 627 acres. This tremendous decrease in the acreage devoted to flax production in Great Britain and Ireland is entirely due to the enormous amount of labour involved and acreage required in the retting process. Most of the flax produced for the world’s requirements of recent years has come from the Continent, particularly from Russia. Since the war governmental and economic changes have resulted in the Russian flax production being less than 300,000 tons a year, and the world’s supply of flax is at the present time not more than 400,000 tons. No other country capable of growing flax is able to devote to it the labour for retting and scutching, nor is it likely that any other country can ever do so because of the labour difficulty. Russian flax which sold at from £20 to £30 a ton now costs £120 a ton. I may be asked how the world has got on without flax production. The explanation is that many substitutes for linen have been employed in the manufacture of textile fabrics. But nothing has yet been evolved that is equal to the quality of linen goods. Cotton and artificial silk have had to be used in substitution for linen, because, owing to the scarcity of flax production, the price of linen has risen enormously. People who previously bought linen goods, now find it impossible to do so. The advent of Dr. Pritchard’s machine, however, should lead to a revival of the flax and linen industry, and I cannot see why Australia sho°uld not make a bold attempt to get the flax industry on a firm basis, particularly in Tasmania, where the climatic conditions are comparable with those of the textile centres of Ireland and England. I do not suggest that during the next ten years we could go in for the manufacture of linens and fine flax goods - I do not think that would be possible - but I think that with the encouragement, which is now being sought, and with the aid of a small plant 0[1 Dr. Pritchard’s model, ‘the people engaged in the industry ought to be able to turn out plain materials such as canvas. There is a fairly largeconsumption of linen goods in Australia. Cotton goods have been largely used in substitution for them, solely because of the falling off in the world’s production of flax, which, as 1 have said, has led to a great increase in the price. I commend the bill, not because it has some particular reference to Tasmania, but because it is based on the development of a primary industry which ought to be encouraged, particularly for the purpose of replacing the dying industry of hay-growing in the southern portion of Australia.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

.- I support the bill. Almost everything in Australia is protected or bounty-fed. There is a tariff wall higher than the

Wall of China, and there are arbitration courts and wages boards for workers in various industries. Among the bountyfed industries we find iron and steel, sugar - at least, the assistance which the sugar industry gets is equal to a bounty - cotton, shale oil and galvanized iron. In addition to a duty of £2 a ton and another £1 advantage because of the exchange rates, the galvanized iron industry, which, as Senator Colebatch has pointed out, produces only 35 tons of galvanized iron per man employed, has just had its bounty increased to £4 10s. a ton.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– Who is going to pay this bounty?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I am sorry that the Government did not bring forward this bill before it submitted the Wheat Marketing Bill, because there are some honorable senators anxious to pay a bounty on flax and linseed who were not very keen in their advocacy of the rights of the farmers when the Wheat Marketing Bill was before the Senate. In fact someof them opposed assistance of any kind to the wheat-growers. The bounty asked for in this instance is only £20,000 maximum. Closer settlement is something we ought to encourage, and flaxgrowing is eminently suitable for closer settlement in many parts of Australia. Flax of very high quality, capable of producing the best fibre and good linseed, can be successfully grown on the southern side of the Dividing range in Victoria; I have not seen it grown to the north of the Range, but I should say that it can be grown there, and in most of the coastal districts of Australia. The industry has been languishing in Australia for many reasons. Until recently, in the districts where flax grows best, hay was grown. The reason why hay-growing is no longer profitable to the farmers has already been explained. Wheatgrowing is also not profitable to the farmers ; in fact, I do not know anything that the farmer is to-day producing at a profit. We have embargoes on the importation of peanuts, and sugar, and various secondary products; and the Government is being asked to pay a bounty on gold. I advise honorable senators to look at a Wells cartoon which appeared in the Melbourne Herald a few days ago illustrating the enormous expenditure on certain extravagant undertakings. It depicted Mistress Canberra welcoming Mistress Sugar, and boasting that she had cost £12,000,000, while Mistress Sugar’s reply was - “Dearie that is nothing. It takes £7,500,000 a year to keep me.” When it comes to the granting of a mere £20,000 a year to assist farmers in the closely settled areas honorable senators raise an objection. Those farmers have had to go out of hay-growing because of the unprofitable prices obtained for their hay by reason of motor traction having practically eliminated the use of horses. Our primary producers, and particularly those who are breeding valuable sheep, find it necessary to look ahead and make provision against drought. The rate of freight on hay makes its purchase prohibitive if it has to be grown in the south of Victoria and transported to the drier areas of the north and the Riverina where the best stud sheep in the world are bred. Not only is the fibre taken from flax grown in Australia of a high quality, but the linseed is also of great value in the manufacture of Meggitts and similar concentrated stock foods, which are extremely useful for feeding valuable lambing ewes during autumn and the dry periods. Being in a concentrated form, its chief constituent being linseed, that type of stock food can be conveyed from centre to centre much more cheaply per food unit than can a bulky food such as bay. Flax-growing in Australia has been languishing merely because it is a baby industry, struggling to find its feet, and has not received sufficient attention.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The honorable senator’s defence is that it is an industry in its infancy.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The galvanized iron industry receives a bounty, and under it a substantial sum of money is paid to people who do not deserve it half as much as do the small struggling farmers who are growing flax in the closely settled parts of Victoria and Tasmania. I cannot see why we should not make our own twine in Australia. Reference has been made by previous speakers to the fact that in the past we have experienced the greatest difficulty in retting our flax, which is really rotting the pithy portion of the plant in water. That stage takes a lot of time and labour and involves a somewhat difficult process, which is brought to perfection, I understand, only in certain parts of Ireland, t cannot understand why certain honorable senators should vote for bounties for all sorts of other products and yet, when it comes to this primary product and the granting of support to the man who needs it, quibble over the matter. Our primary producers are subjected to the disadvantages resulting from a high protective tariff, to high freights and recent low prices. Anything that they produce has to be sold in the markets of the world in competition with cheap labour products of South Africa, Argentine, and similar countries. “We should give this industry a trial for four years as recommended by the Tariff Board. Honorable senators favoured the granting of assistance to other industries without waiting for the recommendation of the Tariff Board, and sometimes despite its recommendation. Here is a primary industry which, according to the Tariff Board, should be granted assistance for at least four years. For that and many other reasons, I shall support the second reading of the bill.

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the ExecutiveCouncil · South Australia · ALP

– I hope that the Senate will not reject this bill. I entirely agree with many of the sentiments expressed by SenatorColebatch and by the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) regarding bounties. I invite honorable senators to study the matter since the present Government has been in office. It did not bring into being, for example, the iron and steel bounty. But it did attempt to introduce a marketing system to encourage the wheat producer.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Not by bounty.

Senator DALY:

– This Government believes in tackling these problems in a scientific manner. The right honorable senator knows that the Government was faced with the alternative of assisting the wheat industry by bounty or by the establishment of a scientific marketing system. The granting of a bounty to that industry would merely have resulted in an increase of the profits of the wheat merchants. I agree with Senator Guthrie that it is the man on the land who needs encouragement. The middleman in King William-street, Adelaide, can look after himself. This Government assisted the cotton industry by a bounty and now it seeks to establish the flax industry in Australia. I suggest that those honorable senators who refer to our financial position, should try to appreciate the fact that the real reason why 200,000 men are walking the streets of our capital cities to-day is that this country cannot absorb its population. Its absorptive capacity is such that we have an over-supply. I know of no permanent solution of unemployment except by increasing the absorptive capacity of the nation in which the unemployed are living. I invite Senator Colebatch to study the report of the Tariff Board on flax and linseed production in Australia. At page 9 ‘ of its report the board states -

Estimated on actual production in Australia in former years the 70-acre crop of. flax in Victoria for the year 1927 included with the 150-acie crop of Tasmania would produce approximately 8 tons of flax fibre, and18 tons of linseed, and seeing that the requirements of the Commonwealth are estimated at 1,370 tons of fibre and 22,300 tons of linseed, it is evident that Australia does not supply any appreciable quantity of her requirements.

I suggest that SenatorColebatch should calculate by how much the absorptive capacity of this Commonwealth would be increased if we were to produce sufficient flax for our own requirements.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Not by one man if the flax were produced at s loss.

Senator DALY:

– I did not- expect the honorable senator to discuss the obvious with me. If, although we are now sustaining a temporary loss, we are enabled to increase our absorptive capacity, surely it follows that later we shall be able to carry on the industry concerned at a profit.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Already £130,000 has been thrown away on the flax industry.

Senator DALY:

– I entirely agree with Senator Oolebatch that the principle of bounties has been tacked on to our political system. Industries have come along to governments, pointed out the disadvantages under which they were labouring, explained the objectives at which they were aiming, asked for a bounty, and suggested that within a certain period they would reach their objective. As soon as they obtained the desired concession they, like Micawber, washed their hands of the affair, saying, in effect, ‘‘Thank God that’s settled.” That is not what this Government intends to do with its system of bounties.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– That is what it did with the iron and steel industry.

Senator DALY:

– I have already pointed out that that was not the baby of this Government. When the Government assumed office its baby had already been reared, and ‘ we could not allow it to remain out in the cold to die. The babies that have been born of this Government are the cotton and wine bounties.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– And the sewing machine bounty.

Senator DALY:

– That baby is not yet born. I have no doubt that, if the Senate passes the Sewing Machine Bounty Bill, it will have no cause to regret its step. I suggest to honorable senators chat, if there is an industry that warrants assistance from the Commonwealth in order that it may be placed on a basis whereby it can produce and increase our absorptive capacity, it is the flax industry. A market exists for all the flax we can grow, just as it does for cotton. The extra taxation that will be imposed upon the people as a result of the bounty will be infinitesimal, and if there is any risk attached to the scheme it is well worth taking.

I ask honorable senators not arbitrarily to turn down proposals for bounties. I do not object to their raising objections after due consideration; but I believe that the more carefully one considers the possibilities of the flax industry in Australia the more probable it is that the majority in this Senate will vote for the bill. I urge honorable senators, before contemplating the rejection of the proposal of the Government, to consider the report of the Tariff Board - an independent body. I ask them not to concern themselves with its conclusions, but to study the facts that were elicited by that board, and then to consider is it worth while our attempting to put the industry on a profitable basis. As Senator Sampson pointed out, it is anticipated that within a very short period the industry will be carrying on at a profit.

Senator Lawson:

– I draw the attention of the Minister to the conditions embodied in paragraph 9, on page 17, of the Tariff Board’s report. Are they incorporated in the bill? If not, why not?

Senator DALY:

– I am not in a position to answer that question at this stage. I suggest that it would be more fitting to submit it during the committee stages of the bill. I have no doubt that, if that condition is not in the bill, there is a very good reason why it should not be there.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Because the Government does not propose to adopt the board’s report.

Senator DALY:

– SenatorColebatch has a very happy knack of misconstruing the intention of the Government. It is not because the Government does not propose to give effect to the recommendations of the board. That bodv’s recommendations have received the fullest consideration from the Government ; but, as Senator E. B. Johnston pointed out, it is some years since the report of the board was submitted.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– The adroitness which characterized the speech of the VicePresident of the Executive Council (Senator Daly) has put the Senate in a good humour; but what disturbed me during his eloquent speech, and particularly during his speech in support of a bounty on the production of sewing machine heads, was what people outside must think of us who are supposed to be the guardians and custodians of the finances of the country. I do not propose to preach to the Senate, or even to attempt to dictate to the Government ; but I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Sir George Pearce) that we should not grant further bounties to assist industries which may or may not be profitable at a time when the finances of the Commonwealth are in such a serious position.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Is the honorable senator in favour of the gold bounty?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Perhaps the honorable senator will understand some day the difference between a bounty on gold and these other bounties. During the last few weeks this Parliament has given those people overseas, to whom we look for financial aid, occasion for deep thought. First, we had the Cotton Industries Bounty Bill, against which I cast my vote; then we had a measure in respect of the Wiluna Gold Mine - a gamble with £300,000. The Minister told us just now that there were possibilities in the flax industry. In spite of the serious state of the country’s finances - so serious as to cause the Minister to adopt a tone of sadness - we are asked to give £20,000 here, and another £20,000 there, to assist, this or that industry, State, or even constituency. Where will actions of this kind land us? I do not agree with the Minister that this bill will be rejected by the Senate. It is because I believe that it will be agreed to that I voice my protest against the indiscriminate granting of bounties. Before long these chickens will come home to roost. The granting of this bounty will start a new industry in Australia, but we do not know whether it will be successful or otherwise. If it is not successful, we shall have further requests for assistance. The Minister admitted that other industries had come to Parliament time and time again for additional assistance, but he disclaimed responsibility in respect of such bounties, saying that they were as babes left outside the door without clothing, whom the present Government was forced to clothe. We are asked to grant this bounty at a time when additional taxation is being imposed on the people of this country. Levies are being made on the earnings of the workers to provide the necessaries of life to their fellows who are out of employment. This Parliament is losing its sense of proportion; coincidently with the imposition of heavy burdens on the people, it grants bounties to new industries, concerning which the Minister can only say “ there are possibilities “. Such legislation cannot inspire in the minds of those whose advice we have sought in financial affairs confidence in our financial outlook and economic practices. Had the Treasury been overflowing, nothing would have pleased me more than to assist these promising industries. I admit the flax industry shows promise of success, but, with the finances of the Commonwealth strained to the limit: with sales taxes, increased customs duties, amounting, in some cases to prohibition, and heavier income taxation, I submit that it is no time to be playing with sewing machines or assisting industries about which we know so little that we can only say that, possibly, they will be successful. For the reasons I have given, I shall vote against the granting of this bounty or any other bounty, with the exception of those bounties to industries to which promises have already been made. In this measure we are asked to grant assistance to an industry to which no promise has yet been made. Here wc have a new child, which before many years have passed, will come to us for further clothing. Once this measure has passed through this Parliament we shall be committed to the granting of assistance to it. The Minister may well divide the Senate on this bill. I do not blame any honorable senator for voting for a measure which will assist the State he represents. But 1 put it to honorable senators that, at a time when every Government in Australia is finding it difficult to make ends meet, they should pause before passing legislation of this kind. I shall vote against the second reading.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I regret that an honorable senator has seen fit to describe those who oppose this bill as calamity howlers. That such a statement should have fallen from the lips of the Government Whip - a gentleman high in the confidence of the Government - is particularly regrettable. If there is calamity howling in Australia to-day, it is due to the tragic Government in power, and the disastrous budget its Treasurer has presented. A week or so ago the Treasurer presented a budget, which provided for additional taxation to the extent of over £12,000,000. Since then we have had placed before us proposals for the granting of bounties in all directions.. We have had bills for bounties on cotton, sewing machines and other things, mid now we have before us a measure providing for a bounty on flax and linseed. Nothing seems too small or too big to warrant a bounty. Instead of imposing fresh taxation, and then proposing bounties, the Government would have been wiser if it had introduced legislation to repeal the sugar embargo, and the existing legislation providing for bounties.

Senator Guthrie:

– Did the honorable senator support the Wiluna Gold Mines Bill?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I supported the ratification of an agreement that had been entered into between the Commonwealth Government and a government of the same political colour in Western Australia. I hope that I shall never stand for the repudiation of agreements made in good faith between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of a State.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The Wiluna gold mines agreement was subject to the approval of this Parliament.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– The Premier of Western Australia was persuaded to sign a guarantee in good faith, expecting it to be ratified. It would be better to abolish embargoes, bounties, and high tariffs than to increase them. I regret that this particular bounty is one that seems to affect an industry in which Tasmania might engage, because I realize that Tasmania has suffered severely in common with the States of West Australia and South Australia, as a result of Federation. Were the Government to introduce a measure to increase the grant to Tasmania, I should support it in preference to this measure. Senator Guthrie justified his support of this bill by saying that other industries had been protected. In my opinion, our three greatest industries-^-wheat, wool, and gold production - are not protected at all. On the contrary, every bounty - including the proposal before us - places an extra burden on those industries. That is why I feel compelled to oppose this measure.

Senator Daly:

– The honorable senator would not allow the Government to assist the wheat-growing industry.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I voted against the Wheat Marketing Bill because I wished the Commonwealth to accept the full responsibility for the guarantee.

With this the Government refused to agree. I offered to support that measure if . the States were relieved of liability under the guarantee.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill) . - I remind the honorable senator that he is not obliged to answer interjections. They are obviously made with the object of leading him out of order.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– In this bill, the Government proposes that the Commonwealth shall pay the whole of the bounty; it is not asking the States to accept any responsibility. It would appear that the Government has reformed during the last few weeks, for not long ago it placed before the Senate a measure providing that the States should share in granting asistance to the wheat industry. Bounties and high tariffs place a burden on the primary producers which they cannot carry.

It is worthy of note that the Tariff Board made its recommendations for a bounty to assist the flax industry in 1928. At that time, a government very sympathetic towards primary producers was in office; but although money was then more plentiful, that government did not introduce legislation providing for a bounty to assist the flax industry. If assistance to the industry was not justified then, it certainly is not justified now when the state of the finances is much more serious.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

. - I have been extremely interested in this discussion, and have noted that the opinions of honorable senators with respect to bounties seem to depend largely on the States from which they come.

Senator O’Halloran:

– Their principles are largely geographical.

Senator RAE:

– Some honorable senators who have opposed bounties which would have benefited other States have reversed their attitude when a bill to assist an industry in their own State has been before them. Senator Johnston favours’ a bounty on gold production.

Honorable senators interjecting-

The PRESIDENT:

– I remind honorable senators generally that the subject under discussion is the merits or demerits of a bounty on flax. It is out of order to discuss the past actions or the present intentions of honorable senators. Those are personal matters which, as far as possible, should be avoided.

Senator RAE:

– I mentioned the gold bounty only incidentally. The chief argument against the bounty proposed in this measure is the serious state of the Commonwealth finances which has necessitated heavy additional taxation. I suggest that if a good case has been made out for the establishment of the flax industry in Australia, it would help to lighten the financial burden if that industry could be established, and so produce something which would increase our export trade. On every hand we hear that we should do something to correct the adverse trade balance; that increased production is one way of doing so. If that is so the successful establishment of such an industry would be the means of increasing our export trade.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– But the product of this industry is to be used entirely for home consumption.

Senator RAE:

– Even so it will, in a corresponding degree, help to adjust our adverse trade balance, by relieving us of the responsibility of importing the products of flax of the same value. Consequently, whether we use flax for our local requirements or export the fibre for manufacture elsewhere, it will help to adjust the present adverse trade balance. I admit that the industry would assist in that direction only to a small degree; but whatever industry we assist we cannot expect it to produce large quantities of great value at the outset. The correction of our present financial position, which must be the work of time, depends upon the increase of our export and the decrease of our import trade. I am not one of those who believe that bounties constitute a heaven-born idea for the salvation of all industries, but in accordance with the principles generally adopted by this Parliament they assist in establishing industries which are of value to Australia. Mistakes have been made in the past, and purely artificial industries which have been assisted by the payment of bounties have eventually failed. No one can say that the industry now under consideration is in any sense artificial. We have evidence that flax can be grown in Tasmania and in portions of Victoria, and that there are also large areas eminently suitable for the production of this crop in other portions of the Commonwealth. We have undoubted proof that there is a wide and constant market for the products of this plant. As the production of linseed oil and kindred by-products has already been undertaken in New South Wales, some of the products of the flax plant should at once be in demand. There will also be a market for cordings, canvas and similar products of flax, which are now imported in fairly large quantities. If other industries are entitled to bounties, a good case has clearly been made out in support of the payment of a bounty to assist the production of flax. I have seen the flax plant growing fairly well in portions of New South Wales, and I believe that a large additional area of suitable land could readily be made available in that State in the near future. The Tariff Board states that large areas of suitable land are available in Tasmania and Victoria and elsewhere on which flax could be produced in sufficient quantities to meet our requirements.

Senator Guthrie:

– It will also grow well in New South Wales.

Senator RAE:

– I believe that portions of New South Wales are as well suited to the production of flax as are portions of Tasmania and Victoria. I recognize that it will take time to produce the finished article. If it is advisable to establish this industry, we should act at once. As has already been pointed out, many of our primary producers are in an unfortunate position in the matter of rotation crops. There are large cultivable areas on which a variety of crops can be produced, but which with the exception of periods allowed for fallowing, produce the same crop every year.. With a proper rotation of crops the land could be used almost continuously. As the demand for oaten hay and chaff has considerably diminished in consequenceof the development of motor transport, it is highly desirable that primary producers should be able to alternate their crops in this way and thus have a second’ string to their bow. If they are. unableto do that, they must either grow the same product year after year or allow the land’ to remain idle. If this industry is successful it will assist the Commonwealth) financially and be the means, if only to a small degree, of placing it on a sounder basis than at present. I do not think that any honorable senator has adduced any strong argument why this measure, which I intend to support, should not be passed.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– One would think from the remarks of some honorable senators who are opposing this bill that the Government has introduced a measure embodying a new principle. This principle has been accepted by the Commonwealth Parliament practically since the inception of federation. Assistance has been given to primary and secondary production, either in the form of protection or by the payment of bounties, for many years. Where it has been recognized that the industry will produce only a small portion of the Commonwealth’s requirements, it. has been considered preferable to pay a bounty rather than to impose a heavy duty. But when an industry has developed to such an extent that it is producing a substantial proportion of Australia’s requirements the payment of a bounty should be discontinued and protection afforded by the imposition of customs duties. Has any sound reason been advanced why this industry should not receive favorable consideration? It has been said that some honorable senators support the payment of bounties to assist industries in the States which they represent, and oppose those to help industries in other States. As honorable senators are consistent only in their inconsistency, that is always likely to obtain. Senator McLachlan strongly supported the payment of a bounty to assist the wine industry, but I would not say that he did so because it would be of advantage to the State which he represents, or that he is opposing this bounty because it will be of advantage to Tasmania. Honorable senators can, however, draw their own conclusions. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) said that, in view of the heavy additional taxation to be imposed, the people could not afford to provide money for this purpose. But if my memory serves me aright, the right honorable senator, when the Wheat Marketing Bill was under discussion, moved an amendment which was ruled out of order, providing for the payment of a bounty on the production of wheat, which would have cost this country from £5,000,000 to £10,000,000. Why should the right honorable senator favour the payment of a bounty on wheat and oppose a measure to provide financial assistance to those engaged in growing another primary product? If a freetrade or a revenue tariff policy had been in operation, our primary producers would have been able to carry on without financial assistance ; but under the fiscal policy which has been in force in Australia for many years, they have been compelled to pay exorbitant rates for many of the commodities they require, with the result that the cost of production has been increased to such an extent that they are compelled to ask for assistance. I cannot understand why any opposition should be offered to this measure, which provides for assistance to those engaged in small mixed farming propositions and will increase closer settlement which is so essential to Australia’s development. Flax can be produced by small farmers, who could establish their sons on small holdings, and who in the past have obtained a living by producing hay and chaff for which there is now practically no demand. The justification for this measure is further found in the fact that we are importing a primary product of other countries which can be profitably produced in Australia.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– I hope that the honorable senator will not induce farmers’ sons to engage in a propped up industry of this kind.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– I am not suggesting that flax should be produced as a main crop; but that it should be grown under a rotation system. The Leader of the Opposition, who said that the time was inopportune to spend money on this industry should realize that at present we are sending money out of Australia to support the industry in other countries. Even if we cannot produce sufficient for export we should be able to produce enough to prevent importations of flax or flax products to a considerable extent. I hope that a majority of the Senate will support the bill. It may be inferred, from the remarks of some honorable senators who have spoken against it, that flax-growing is a Tasmanian industry, and that it is being supported by the Tasmanian representatives in the Senate for this reason. We might as reasonably argue that certain honorable senators are opposing it because they do not wish to assist a Tasmanian industry. This Government, and the same may be said of preceding ministries, has not been overgenerous to that State. Certain financial assistance has been given, it is true; but what is the use of financial aid if support is not also given to legislative proposals for the encouragement of Tasmanian industries? Flax-growing will not be confined exclusively to Tasmania. The soil and climatic conditions in certain other States are also favorable. I sincerely hope that the bill will be passed.

Senator LAWSON:
Victoria

– I do not wish to occupy much of the time of the Senate in discussing this measure. During the second-reading speech of the Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly), I asked certain questions bearing on the following paragraph in the report of the Tariff Board, dated 3rd October, 192S, dealing with this matter : -

The board is prepared to recommend the payment of a substantial bounty both on production of fibre a,nd seed, but proposes to impose conditions that no bounty should be payable until the combined efforts of the producers in the Commonwealth result in the production in Australia of an aggregate quantity of fibre and of seed of not less than onefifth of Australia’s requirements, as estimated in its report, namely, requirements of 20,300 tons of seed and 1,370 tons of fibre.

The board, I may add, recommended that the minimum total value of flax fibre to be produced in Australia to entitle the growers or producers to claim the bounty should be £20,000, and as regards linseed, the minimum total value of linseed to be produced in the Commonwealth to entitle the growers or producers to claim the bounty should be £70,000. I asked the Minister whether the condition above referred to, contained in the report of the Tariff Board, had been incorporated in the bill. I have read the measure carefully, and can find in it no reference to such a condition. The Minister has been courteous enough to handme a type-written copy of a further memorandum of members of the Tariff Board, dated 18th January, 1929. I have glanced through this document, and I find that apparently the Deputy ComptrollerGeneral of Customs had made certain observations on the board’s report, which had thereupon been referred back to the board. This memorandum seems to indicate that the minimum quantity to be produced to entitle growers to the bounty shall be determined now, not by value, but by weight. The last paragraph of the memorandum contains the following statement relating to the second paragraph in the board’s report: -

It seems desirable to mention that there is room for misconception in the paragraph as expressed. The word “ aggregate “ in the paragraph might be taken to mean that, before any bounty is payable, the minimum production of both fibre and seed must be attained. The Tariff Board’s recommendation is, however, to the effect that bounty will become payable on fibre in the first year when fibreproduction reaches a value of £20,000 (now amended to a quantity of 250 tons), and that bounty will become payable on seed in the first year that the production of seed reaches a value of £70,000 (now amended to a quantity of 4,000 tons).

Whether the minimum quantity of flaxis to be determined by weight or monetary value, there is in both the original report of the Tariff Board and in the supplementary memorandum which the Minister has been kind enough to furnish for my perusal, a condition which I do not find in the bill.

I belong to that school of thought which accepts protection as the settled policy of this country. One corollary of protection is the payment of bounties to certain classes of production. But I believe that all these forms of governmental assistance should be properly safeguarded by expert inquiries and investigation. I see grave danger, if bounties and privileges are to be given by favour or as the outcome of political pressure that may be brought to bear upon the Government of the day. I wish it to be clearly understood that I am not referring to any act of policy by this Government. I am dealing only with general principles. The public good must, after all, be the predominant consideration. Accordingly, it seems to me that if we accept protection as the settled policy of the Commonwealth for the encouragement of those industries which are economically possible, and which may be established, we ought to stand by that policy with reasonable prospects of success. At the same time, we should, by the creation of such machinery as may be deemed necessary, take steps to safeguard governments and members of Parliament from undue political pressure. We may do this by laying down as a general principle that all such requests for government assistance shall automatically go before an independent and expert tribunal for investigation and report. Parliament may establish the principles upon which such assistance, in the way of customs duties or bounties shall be given, but there should be an independent body, constituted in such a manner as to command the respect of all sections of the people, to whom such requests should be submitted for investigation and report.

Senator Millen:

– That is the function of the Tariff Board, is it not ?

Senator LAWSON:

– Yes. That was the intention when the Tariff Board was appointed. It follows from what I have said that an investigation by such a body would be regarded as a condition precedent to the imposition of customs duties or the payment of bounties. I again wish to make it abundantly clear that I am not in any way referring to any particular action taken by the present Government, and that I have not in mind any recent developments in the direction of increased customs duties. I am stating this general principle because I have had experience of political pressure in such matters. I know how strongly it may be applied to Ministers, and I realize how important it is to safeguard them against such influences. My desire is to remove all possibility of temptation in connexion with the alteration of a principle which many of us recognize as the policy of the country, namely, adequate protection for the development of essential industries and such local industries as are economically sound and which have reasonable prospects of success. The more variety we can give to the character of our industries the better it will be for the Commonwealth. I suggest that the time has come when Parliament should consider, in regard to these matters, whether the Tariff Board should not be strengthened so as to make it impossible for any government to yield to pressure, or to do anything of its own volition, except in respect of recommendations made by the board.

Senator Rae:

– That would make the Tariff Board supreme.

Senator LAWSON:

– Not at all. Parliament would still determine the policy. It would still lay down certain guiding principles for the investigations m relation to the protective policy of the country. The policy having been determined, it would be the duty of the board to consider what were the absolutely essential industries for the adequate development of this country. It would give consideration to the possibilities of encouraging any particular industry, and the prospects of its successful development. If in respect of this particular industry the recommendation of the Tariff Board is right, should we not accept it? The payment of the bounty presupposes certain effort on the part of producers and the investment of a certain amount of money, as a condition precedent.

Senator Rae:

– The industry must first be established before it asks for a bounty.

Senator LAWSON:

– No bounty can be claimed until the commodities in respect of which it is to be paid are produced or manufactured. The Minister intimated that the question which I have raised relative to the condition mentioned in the Tariff Board’s report could be more fittingly discussed in committee. I realize the present difficult financial situation of the Commonwealth, and I am much impressed with what has been said by those honorable senators who have addressed themselves to this question. It may be that the Government will find it difficult to obtain the money for this bounty. With some misgivings and some doubts, I intend to support the second reading, to press those matters to which I have referred when the bill is in committee, and to reserve to myself, the right to vote as I may deem fit on the third reading

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

– A survey of the industry in Australia shows that the first bounty bill was passed in 1907. Under that measure the sum of £130,000 was provided, the payments to be spread over a period of ten years at a rate not exceeding £13,000 a year. The steps then taken were not successful in encouraging the flax-growing industry, because during the whole of that period the highest amount claimed in any one year was £635, in 1915-16, the lowest was £77 in 1914-16 and the total payments under that act amounted to only £6,500. That bounty ended in 1917. During the war, flax was in great demand in Great Britain, because its importation from countries which had previously supplied it had practically ceased. Those countries were engaged in war either on the side of the Allies or on the side of our enemies. After 1917 the bounty was replaced by a guaranteed price, which was £5 a ton at the mill in 1918, and £6 a ton for .the following four years. Notwithstanding this assistance, the greatest production of flax in any one year was only 63 tons of marketable fibre, and 250 tons of linseed, although the estimated requirements of Australia were 37,000 tons of flax fibre, and 22,300 tons of linseed. From 1907 to 1923, in all sixteen years, the industry was working either under a bounty or under a guaranteed price. It had every chance to establish itself; yet we find that in 1927 .the only acreage under flax in Australia was 70 acres in Victoria, and 150 acres in Tasmania. We have to bear in mind that at that time, owing to a heavy drought which was raging in Queensland and the northern portion of New South Wales, enormous quantities of linseed cake-meal and nuts were being sent out into those districts, where they were required for feeding starving stock. No argument has been advanced to-day, acceptable to ‘me at any rate, to show that flax crops can now be grown more successfully than in the past. There are, I believe, unlimited areas in Australia suitable for the cultivation of flax, but I understand that hitherto the lack of success which has attended the industry has been due largely to the difficulty in retting the straw, and extracting the fibre by the water process or by the dew process. No one has shown this afternoon that a more up-to-date method has been evolved.

Senator Payne:

– I thought that I had explained that a new process had been developed.

Senator COOPER:

– The honorable senator certainly told us how fibre had been turned out in a very short time, but he gave us no idea of what the process he saw at work would mean to the industry. I understand that a Mr. Grigg has invented a machine called a decorticating machine, which will do away with the lengthy and very undesirable process ‘of retting, by water or dew. But we have had very little information from honorable senators who are conversant with the flax industry as to the success that has attended the use of this particular type of machine. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to tell us that it can be suitably employed.

Senator Payne:

– I saw the finished article turned out by machinery in five hours.

Senator COOPER:

– The honorable senator may have done so, hut we are entitled to the fullest information upon the possible cost of equipping suitable plant. I regret to say that so far I have not been able to secure any such information. In European countries or other countries where flax-growing has been an establish id industry for many years, the crop is pulled by hand.

Senator Payne:

– The ordinary reaper and binder will harvest the crop in Australia.

Senator COOPER:

– I am pleased to have that assurance.

Senator Payne:

– It is being done in Tasmania to-day.

Senator COOPER:

– It is the first time I have heard during this debate that the harvesting of flax can be done without having to resort to the uneconomic method of hand-picking. The flax industry cannot be compared with the cotton industry. It has not yet reached the stage at which machinery capable of handling the crop has been developed, whereas up-to-date machinery is already in use in Queensland for handling cotton immediately the crop is grown. The fact that those engaged in the flax-growing industry could not submit to the Tariff Board anything but estimates of the actual cost of production, indicates that the industry in

Australia has been run on haphazard lines. I should rather favour the growing of flax for the production of linseed only, I understand that when the flax is grown for both fibre and seed, the return of oil from the seed is not nearly so much as it is when the flax is grown for seed only. Machinery is already well established in the southern parts of Australia for treating linseed, and utilizing the by-products. We have a certain market for all the linseed that we can produce. Its production will enable us to extend our manufacture of linseed oil, linseed meal, concentrated sheep nuts and other foods . that are essential for the successful carrying on of our pastoral and dairying industries in times of drought, when natural fodders are scarce. To produce the 22,300 tons of linseed that is now being used in Australia, it would be necessary to place 150,000 acres of land under cultivation. That very large area of country could be profitably used, merely for the cultivation of flax for linseed. We manufacture 2,400,000 gallons of linseed oil annually, and if we grew the raw material the whole process could be carried out in this country. I should like to see a concentration on the production of linseed, as that branch of the industry has an excellent future. Australia has up-to-date machinery, factories and mills to process the seed. The Minister has not supplied any details as to the cost of growing and harvesting flax and linseed, and I should be glad if he would rectify that omission when replying. I do not intend to oppose the second reading of the bill, although, from my survey of the industry, I do not expect that the fibre side of it will be a success. On the other hand, there is every reason why the production of linseed and its byproducts should be highly successful.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

– Honorable senators know that I am a fairly consistent protectionist. I certainly feel that I should be open to a charge of gross inconsistency if, after supporting the bill that provided for a bounty on the production of cotton and the manufacture of cotton yarn, I were to oppose similar proposals for the encouragement of the flax industry in another State. I have, so far, avoided the charge of being a geographical protec tionist. It would be of decided advantage to the country if honorable senators took a broad Australian view of the measures submitted for their consideration. It is essential that we should develop, not only certain favoured localities, but, so far as is possible, the whoh area for which we are responsible.

From what I can gather, the climatic and other conditions of Tasmania are suitable for the production of flax. Possibly a similar remark may be applied to some of our other States. If that, is so, there is no reason why, in a very little time, the flax industry should not develop into substantial proportions in Australia. We know that it has done so in other countries which have conditions somewhat comparable to our own.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The flax industry received a bounty for ten years. Why did it not then develop satisfactorily ?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– No doubt a good deal was learnt during that period which will be very helpful in establishing the industry successfully on this occasion. I have not looked up the figures lately, but from memory I believe that the production of linseed in the Argentine amounts to 500,000 tons per annum. I do not know what methods that country employs to harvest the plant and to thresh the linseed, but I know that in this country we have developed improved harvesting machinery to deal not only with wheat but with rice. We can harvest our rice much more cheaply and efficiently than can any other country in the world. I have sufficient faith in the mechanics and engineers associated with the development of our agricultural implements to believe that if there are any difficulties connected with the harvesting of flax or linseed they will quickly evolve a machine that will effectively serve the purpose.

What we need in these times is a little more faith in our own country and our primary producers. Undoubtedly, our economic circumstances are temporarily embarrassing. How long they will continue so depends largely upon ourselves. They can be removed in one or two ways. We must endeavour to increase our exports and decrease our imports. The only way that we can do the latter is by producing more in Australia for home consumption. We must either do thai or deny ourselves many things that we now regard as necessary for our comfort. Here is an opportunity for the Senate to assist in passing a measure that will help to increase production for home consumption. At present there are very few commodities that we can produce for export at a price that yields any profit. We do not knowwhen the existing markets’ of the world will be closed against us. If Russia bocomes again a great exporting country for wheat and other commodities, ami develops its dairying industry, as authorities say it may, the overseas market for our wheat and butter will be, if not entirely closed against us, at least seriously restricted. We can make up for the loss of that trade only by producing for our home consumption. I know that there will be a further demand upon the public revenue to assist to establish the flax industry, but the amount involved is not very large and even if there was a possibility of failure, the argument against the expenditure would not be justified. Although it is claimed that flax can be grown successfully in other Slates of the Commonwealth, Tasmania seems particularly adapted to the industry, and affords an excellent opportunity to put this proposal to the test. We all have kindly feelings for Tasmania, but few of us believe that it suffers any great disabilities under federation. Personally, I think that the Commonwealth provides a splendid market for Tasmania’s products. Still, Tasmania is a small State without the secondary industries enjoyed by some of the larger States, particularly New South Wales and Victoria, and I do not see that it is possible for it to establish very many secondary industries. Such industries must inevitably be established in our large centres of population. The manufacturers of Melbourne have n market of 1,000,000 people within a few miles of their factories, and a similar remark applies to Sydney. Any proposal that is likely to be of advantage to industry in a small State such as Tasmania should receive our most sympathetic consideration, especially when there seems a chance of the industry being successful.

But the advantage will not be entirely with Tasmania, because whatever Tasmania makes out of the flax industry will, to a large extent, be spent in the other States in the purchase of necessary commodities. For the reasons that I have given I shall vote for the second reading, and do all I can to get the measure passed through committee.

Senator Sir JOHN NEWLANDS (South Australia) [5.36]. - As I have listened to the debate and heard that various parts of Australia are suitable for the growing of flax, I have wondered why this crop has not been almost as extensively grown in Australia as are wheat and potatoes. I am reminded that it is nearly time that a bill was introduced to provide for a bounty for the production of good potatoes instead of the bad ones that we are now getting. A bounty on flax seems to be somewhat incongruous in times such as these through which wc are passing. In all the large capital cities meetings of taxpayers are being held to protest against the budget proposals of the Government, and to suggest ways of saving the taxpayers’ money. If there is one body of men more than another which appears to need educating as to the burden already being borne by the taxpayers, it is that section of the Senate whicli urges that money should bc provided to grant bounties to various industries. 1 hope that honorable senators will view this proposal from the stand-point of the general taxpayer, and deal with it in a common-sense way. Senator Cooper said that the improved machinery which was now available would enable flax to h<” produced more cheaply than in the past. The flax industry in Australia was granted a bounty for ten years, and yet it failed, notwithstanding that during the war period high prices were paid for flax. It would appear that there is something wrong with, the flax industry, for the acreage under flax has diminished even in Ireland where flax has been grown for centuries. It may be that both Tasmania, and Ireland ure suffering the same disabilities. Wc have acted foolishly in the past in supporting legislation providing for the payment of bounties to certain industries. I am opposed to this bounty, but J believe that any bill presented to Parliament should be carefully considered. That can be done only by allowing it to reach the committee stage. I, therefore, do not propose to vote against the second reading, but I shall oppose the third reading, because I am determined to do what I can to prevent the indiscriminate granting of bounties.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Do not start with this one.

Senator Sir JOHN NEWLANDS:

– This bill is designed to assist the flaxgrowing industry of Tasmania.

Senator Hoare:

– Flax is also grown in South Australia in the Mount Gambier district.

Senator Sir JOHN NEWLANDS:

– I doubt if any flax is grown in South Australia. In any case, this bounty will not make much difference to South Australia. Some years ago a member of this Parliament proposed to grow sugar beet at Mount Gambier, and in consequence there was a stir among Queensland members. Perhaps flax will be as successful at Mount Gambier as sugar beet has been! I shall support the second reading, but I shall not further assist to place this measure on the Statute-book,

Senator REID (Queensland) [5.45’J.- The speeches which have been delivered on this measure have all told the same old- tale of the wonderful results which will accrue from the granting of another bounty. Since I have been a member of the Senate I have supported every proposal for a bounty that has come before us, believing that it would accomplish some, good purpose. But the financial position of the Commonwealth was much more satisfactory then than it is to-day. Throughout Australia largely-attended meetings of taxpayers have voiced their protests against the further taxation outlined in the Government’s budget proposals. In view of public opinion in this matter, I marvel how any honorable senator can vote for another bounty. Honorable senators have a good deal to say about the necessity for economy; but they really mean that we should economize at the other fellow’s expense. Some honorable senators from South Australia oppose this bill ; yet South Australia has its wine bounty.

Senator Sir John Newlands:

– The wine industry pays for it.

Senator REID:
QUEENSLAND

– We must regard the legislation that comes before us from the point of view of the nation. I have supported numerous bounty proposals; but I have at last awakened to realities. In view of the financial position of the Commonwealth, I feel that I cannot now vote for another bounty.

Senator Rae:

– Did the honorable sen a- ‘ tor vote for the cotton bounty?

Senator REID:

– I was not here when the vote was taken. That proposal did not strongly appeal to me. I know that Tasmania is’ in a bad way; but, in view of the little result from the bounty on flax which operated between 1907 and 1917, 1 cannot support this proposal. I do not wish to do anything to discourage the establishment of industries in this country; but I am concerned where the money for the payment of bounties is to come from.

Senator Guthrie:

– Would the honorable senator oppose a continuance of the sugar embargo?

Senator REID:

– In view of our financial position serious consideration will have to be given to the assistance which industries, including the sugar industry, are receiving. We have reached a stage in our economic life which compels us to view many of such matters from a different standpoint.

Senator Rae:

– Would the honorable senator be in favour of reducing our interest bill by one-half?

Senator REID:

– I am not permitted to discuss that subject at this juncture ; but I may say that if ever this country declines to meet it3 obligations to those who have loaned us money we shall be in a bad way. Some of the bounties authorized in the past can be regarded only as acts of disloyalty to the taxpayers of this country. We have to study this proposal from a common-sense viewpoint, and to consider how the money is to be raised to pay bounties to assist industries such as the industry covered by this bill. The financial position has become so acute that a reduction in the allowances of members of Parliament and of the salaries of public servants has already been suggested, and such a proposal, which has my support, may yet have to be faced.

Senator Guthrie:

– How much does the sugar embargo cost the Australian people ?

Senator E B Johnston:

– £7,750,000 a year.

Senator REID:

– I have already said that our financial position has become so acute that this Parliament may have to consider the extent to which the sugar and other Australian industries should be assisted. In view of the staggering budget recently presented, and of the necessity to raise millions of additional revenue, I shall be compelled to vote against this measure and any other similar proposal, as a protest against such payments until our financial position has considerably improved.

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– No argument has been adduced by honorable senators opposing this measure to justify its rejection. The Tariff Board has reported that at present Australia is annually importing approximately £1,600,000 worth of flax products, and that if the industry is assisted by a bounty it should develop sufficiently to enable the local industry to supply practically the whole of our requirements. The estimated cost of the bounty over a period of five years is £66,000, and if by the payment of that amount we can supply our requirements of these products it should be a business-like proposal.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Would the Honorary Minister favour a bounty on tea on the same basis?

Senator BARNES:

– If tea could be grown in Australia such a proposal might be considered.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Tea is already being grown at Healesville, in Victoria.

Senator BARNES:

– In answer to the point raised by Senator Lawson, which I explained in my second-reading speech, I may say that the Government departed from the recommendation of the Tariff Board because the board overlooked the practical point that a given quantity of flax produces approximately equal quantities of flax fibre and linseed. Therefore, the board’s proposed stipulation of a minimum of 250 tons of flax and 4,000 tons of linseed was inconsistent. It meant that producers would qualify for the flax bounty years before they could obtain a bounty on a similar quantity of linseed, which would be produced simultaneously. The basis of the objections raised against this measure is that no industry is worthy of assistance unless it is able to carry on practically without Commonwealth help or is capable of supplying the whole of the country’s requirements. The industry if properly developed should, as I have said, be able to supply approximately £1,500,000 worth of flax products, which are now imported, and also employ from 7,000 to 8,000 persons. In those circumstances the Australian people, particularly primary producers, should 1>e in favour of the project, and Parliament should assist it until it is able to operate on a profitable basis.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Why did it not extend during the ten years in which a bounty was paid ?

Senator BARNES:

– The bounty was not sufficiently generous to encourage the development of the industry.

Senator McLachlan:

– The growers did not ask for it.

Senator BARNES:

– They are now asking for it. The Government proposes to assist the industry; but, for the reasons I have given, on a slightly different basis from th.at recommended by the Tariff Board. If, by the expenditure of £66,000 over a period of five years, and by allowing a margin of £34,000 to cover a larger expansion of the industry than that forecast in the Tariff Board’s estimates, we can avoid importing over £1,500,000 worth of flax products there is every justification for the passage of the bill. Senator Newlands, who said that he did not know of the existence of this industry in South Australia, is unaware that the Tariff Board reported that there are approximately 376,000 acres in that State suitable for the production of flax. If the industry were properly developed, South Australia would probably be one of the biggest producers of flax.

Senator Cooper:

– Are there any mills at present producing flax fibre?

Senator BARNES:

– Up to the present only a small quantity has been produced ; but it is hoped that the payment of a bounty will encourage the production of flax in those States where it can be profitably grown. If production is not undertaken, the Commonwealth will not be involved in any financial liability.

Question - that the bill be now read a second time- put. The Senate divided. (The President. - Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill. )

AYES: 19

NOES: 10

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In commititee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause2 (Definitions).

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [6.5]. - I should like to know why the “ flax plant “ to be encouraged, is defined as a flax plant of the genus Linum usitatissimum. I understand there are many varieties of flax, including a native plant. Why are some of them excluded from the definition?

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Specification of bounties).

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– Can the Minister say if the variety mentioned in the definition clause is produced in Tasmania, or is it intended to cultivate it in order to qualify for the bounty?

Senator Barnes:

– It always has been cultivated in the Commonwealth. The New Zealand flax plant differs from it somewhat in certain characteristics.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Rates of bounty).

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [6.10]. - I move -

That the following proviso be added: -

Provided that no bounty shall be payable in respect of flax unless and until the production of flax within the Commonwealth exceeds a total of 274 tons of fibre, and no bounty shall be payable in respect of linseed unless and until the production of linseed within the Commonwealth exceeds 4,460 tons.

My object is to give effect to the recommendation of the Tariff Board, that the bounty shall not be payable until onefifth of the total requirements of the Commonwealth in fibre and seed are produced. This condition is mentioned on page 17 of the board’s report, to which Senator Lawson referred during the second-reading debate. I am afraid that many honorable seators have not read the report. If they had, they would not have supported this measure. It states that even in Kenya Colony, where the climate is very suitable, and where cheap black labour is available, flax-growing has practically disappeared, although in 1920 the area under cultivation was no less than 25,000 acres. In New Zealand, also, production seriously declined. In 1923-24, there were 12,000 acres under cultivation, and in 1927-28 only 5,000 acres. The report of the Tariff Board has been so framed as to avoid, if possible, a repetition of the fiasco experienced under the 1907 legislation.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.I have very little more to say. During the ten years from 1907 to 1917 the Commonwealth paid a bounty on flax, but during the whole of that time the only bounty claimed was £2,361 on flax and hemp, and the magnificent sum of £15 on linseed. At that time the cost of production was ever so much lower than it is to-day. I have shown that the industry has declined in Kenya Colony with coloured labour, and in New

Zealand, where the conditions are more favorable than they are in Australia. The Tariff Board, to which the matter of this bounty has been referred, and which is animated by a desire to act in conformity with our protection policy, has recommended the payment of a bounty with a condition attached to it as to the quantity to be produced. On page 17 of the report of the board, honorable senators will see set out in detail the limitations insisted upon. I think it must be obvious, after the trial given to the industry, that if we are to continue paying a bounty there must be some demonstration on the part of those who propose to produce these articles that they will do so in sufficient quantities to make it worth while trying to establish . the industry. Otherwise, we shall have a repetition of our experience between 1907 and 1918.

Senator Guthrie:

– If there is no claim for a bounty, nothing will be paid.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE. But why load up the statute-book with useless legislation?

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– In the report of the Tariff Board on flax and linseed production in Australia appears the following:

England - 13,537 acres sown in 1918;667 acres in 1924..

Ireland - 143,355 acres sown in 1918; 50,000 in 1925.

Kenya Colony, East Africa - 25,000 acres sown in both 1920 and 1921; 522 acres in 1925; and at the present time the industry has lapsed.

Canada - 31,300 sieves sown in 1920; 0,200 acre3 in 1

When Ireland was producing so much flax there was a special demand for it owing to the war. I have already pointed out that if fiax is not produced there will be no bounty paid. But surely if there is a market in Australia for £1,500,000 worth of flax and linseed, it is worth while voting the small amount proposed to be spent, on an attempt to encourage the flax-growing industry here. The whole thing is so obvious to me that I see no reason for agreeing to the right honorable senator’s amendment.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added (Senator Sir George

Pearce’s amendment) - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator Plain.)

AYES: 14

NOES: 15

Majority . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 -

The Minister may make application to the Chief Judge . . . for a declaration as to what conditions of employment and rates of wages are fair and reasonable for labour employed . . . or in growing flax plants from which such (lax and linseed are produced. (7.) If-

the Chief Judge or a Judge of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration has not declared, in accordance with subsection (1.) of this section, what conditions of employnic.it and rates of wages are fair and reasonable for labour employed in the production of flax or linseed, or for labour employed in growing flax plants from which such flax and linseed arc produced; and

there are not in force in the locality where the flax or linseed is produced, or the flax plants are grown, any standard conditions and rates relating to the labour employed in the production of flax or linseed, or in growing flax plants, prescribed by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration or by an industrial authority of a State, or contained in an industrial agreement registered under any law of the Commonwealth or a State, the Minister may appoint an authority or authorities for determining, for the purposes of this section, conditions of employment and rates of wages which are fair and reasonable for labour employed in the production of flax or linseed, or in growing flax plants, and any authority so appointed shall be deemed to be a Commonwealth authority within the meaning of sub-section (1.) of this section. (8.) An authority appointed by the Minister under the last preceding sub-section shall consist of a representative of employers engaged in the production of flax or linseed, or in growing flax plants, a representative of employees engaged in such production or growing, and a person, who shall act as Chairman, and who shall be appointed by the Minister on the joint nomination of the representatives of employers and employees:

Provided that, if the representatives of employers and employees fail to make a joint nomination of a Chairman within twenty days after being called upon by the Minister so to do, the Governor-General may appoint a person to act as Chairman.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [8.12]. - I move -

That sub-clauses 7 and 8 be left out.

In sub-clauses 1 to 6 of this clause provision is made for a declaration to be obtained from the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration as to what conditions of employment and rates of wages are fair and reasonable for labour employed in the production of flax or linseed, or in growing flax plants from which such flax and linseed are produced; but in subclauses 7 and 8 it is proposed to enable the Minister to appoint an authority or authorities to determine what rates of wages and conditions are fair and reasonable in the industry. The Minister could thus ignore the Arbitration Court, and in the States of Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, where flax is grown, set up authorities to determine what wages and conditions of labour are fair and reasonable in the growing and harvesting of flax. If those honorable senators who are prepared to pay this bounty are also prepared to accept this portion of the bill, they are paying a big price for it. They are flying in the face of State Parliaments by giving a Commonwealth Minister power to set up in the rural districts of their States, industrial authorities, and thus override the State industrial laws. Sub-clauses 1 to 6 afford ample protection to the workers engaged in the industry, by enabling the Minister to get a declaration from a judge of the Arbitration Court that wages and conditions of labour in the industry are fair and reasonable. Subclauses 7 and 8 give the Minister a totally unnecessary power to interfere with functions that primarily belong to State industrial tribunals.

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I am surprised that this amendment should be moved, seeing that the provision to which the right honorable senator takes exception is to be found in every bounty bill passed by this Parliament.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– These sub-clauses appear in only one other bounty measure.

Senator BARNES:

– When we are spending the people’s money to encourage the establishment of an industry we must make certain that the workers in that industry are treated fairly, and we do so by taking power in this bill for an industrial authority, such as the Arbitration Court, or a wages board to determine the point. Where there is no such industrial authority, the bill, provides for the election of representatives of the employers and employees, with a chairman who will be selected by both. In the event of their failing to agree, the Minister comes into the picture. That is a very remote possibility, but it is necessary to provide for it. Most of the people engaged in this industry are already covered by awards. I believe that no danger may be apprehended from the operation of this provision. Surely no honorable senator would grant a bounty to an industry in which the employers failed to ensure that the employees were satisfactorily treated, either by an award of the court or one formulated by the body to which I have referred. I cannot accept the amendment of the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce).

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

– From my reading of the measure, I believe that sub-clause 6 provides all the safeguards that are necessary for the protection of the employees in this industry. It seems to me that the additional provision is unnecessary. I shall, therefore, support the amendment moved by Senator Pearce.

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

off the real discussion on this clause, as it might conceivably be if the advice tendered by Senator Guthrie is accepted. I invite honorable senators to read the clause, and then draw their own conelusions. Sub-clause 6 reads -

If the Minister finds that the conditions of employment or rates of wages, or any of them, observed or paid in respect of any labour employed in the production of any flax or linseed upon which bounty is claimed, or in growing flax plants from which such flax and linseed are produced -

are below the conditions and rates declared, as in’ the first sub-section of this section mentioned, to be fair and reasonable; or

are below the standard conditions and rates prescribed by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, or by any other industrial authority of the Commonwealth or a State, the Minister may withhold the whole or any part of the bounty payable.

So that if the representatives of the employers and employees exhaust the tribunals specifically mentioned the responsibility is to be thrown on the Minister to decide what the minimum wage of the industry shall be.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– No. He will withhold the bounty.

Senator DALY:

– Is that not a distinction without a difference? Of course, he would withhold the bounty. I suggest to honorable senators that whatever our politics may be, we should be honest one with the other. The suggestion that meets with the approval of the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition is that the Minister should have power to withhold the bounty.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– If the judge of the Arbitration Court decides that the wage is not a fair one.

Senator DALY:

– If there is no industrial authority for the purpose, and this Senate does not insert a clause in the bill similar to that suggested, then the Minister will have to decide what is a fair wage in the industry.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– No. It will have to be done by a judge of the Arbitration Court.

Senator DALY:

– I am certain that the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition is not purposely misleading himself. I appeal to honorable senators who have just as good a knowledge of the English language as have I or the

Leader of the Opposition, to read the clause.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

-Read sub-clause 1 of clause 14.

Senator DALY:

– It states, “The Minister may make application to the Chief Judge or a judge of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration “, for a declaration in regard to this matter. What Senator Guthrie said is that whether he makes that declaration or not-

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Oh, no.

Senator DALY:

– If it is admitted that Senator Guthrie’s argument applies only if the Minister takes advantage of the sub-clause enabling him to approach the Arbitration Court we are in the position that we debated on the Cotton Bounty Bill that the Government is offering to the Senate the best form of industrial tribunal that it is possible to obtain, one consisting of representatives of the employers and employees in ‘this struggling industry, sitting with an independent chairman. That, board will decide the wage irrespective of whether it affects outside industry or not.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– That is the principle of a wages board.

Senator DALY:

– Precisely. I desire to keep this discussion within the proper limits.For the reasons that I advanced during the debate on the Cotton Bounty Bill, which had the approval of a majority of the Senate, I suggest that this policy, consistent as it is with the previous measure, should be adopted by the Senate.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I have been waiting for an opportunity to move an amendment that comes earlier in the clause than that moved by the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce). I ask the honorable gentleman to withdraw his amendment temporarily.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– In order to enable Senator Payne to move a prior amendment to mine, I ask leave temporarily to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Senator PAYNE:

– I move -

That the words “or in growing flax plants from which such flax and linseed are produced “, sub-clause 1, be left out.

I take a similar attitude to that adopted by me with regard to the Cotton Bounty Bill. I shall be no party to the introduction of ordinary industrial conditions into a rural industry. I want to see flax growing become a successful industry in Australia, and I believe that is possible, provided that it is allowed to be conducted on normal lines.

SenatorO’Halloran. - Under sweated labour conditions.

Senator PAYNE:

– No. If the industry is hampered by the introduction of industrial conditions, it must inevitable be a failure. I repeat the illustration that I gave when dealing with the Cotton Bounty Bill, which I supported. The growing of the flax plant is purely primary production, and the resultant manufacture of the flax fibre and linseed may bo termed a secondary industry. If my amendment is carried, it will allow ordinary industrial conditions to apply to the secondary section of the industry, but will prevent their application to the primary section. There arc no awards applying to farming operations in Tasmania.

If we hamper the’ industry by imposition of artificial conditions governing the planting, cultivation and reaping of the crop, the whole scheme is fore-doomed to failure. I hope that my amendment will be carried.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I cannot for the life of me understand the desire of Senator Payne to introduce degraded slave labour conditions into the flax industry.

Senator Payne:

– I have no such desire.

Senator RAE:

– We can judge the honorable senator’s desires only by his utterances in support of his amendment. If it were provided in the bill that growers should obtain no benefit whatever from the bounty, something might be said for Senator Payne’s proposal, but clause 9 specifically says that no bounty shall bo payable unless the grower obtains a fair and reasonable price for the production of the flax plant and its by-products. There is nothing free or natural in the bounty system. It is purely an artificial device by means of which the grower is protected from having his produce taken from him under sweated conditions. There would be’ something to be said in favour of Senator Payne’s amendment if the grower had a free hand in the way which he produced his flax, but he is specifically to benefit under the bounty only if he complies with certain conditions. It is no more artificial to prescribe reasonably decent living conditions for those who have to do the actual labour than to prescribe a bounty for the growers. Senator Payne’s proposal with regard to the Cotton Bounty Bill, which was of a similar nature to his present amendment, was negatived by a majority of the Senate. The good sense of honorable senators caused them to realise that labour should ‘ get a fair deal. If this is going to be a family industry, as was the case with the cotton industry, there would be no interference.

Senator Payne:

– It could not be. There can be no comparison between the two.

Senator RAE:

– No case has been made out to justify the deprivations of labourers in the flax industry of a decent wage. It would be better for the Government to drop the measure rather than to allow sweated conditions to operate in the industry. I . should vote against the third reading if political power were used 1.0 deprive the workers of the country of a fair deal, or to prevent their access to industrial tribunals appointed to hear their case.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [8.30]. - In order to prevent any misunderstanding, I wish to explain the vote that I shall give on this question. I cannot support Senator Payne’s amendment. The provisions set out in sub-clauses 1 to 6 are in all the bounty acts which we have passed. We have accepted the principle that the recipients of any bounty shall pay reasonable wages and observe fair conditions of labour. Those wages and conditions will be determined by a judge of the Arbitration Court. If we decide to strike out that condition in this bill, we should, to be consistent, do the same in all bounty acts. It is a universal provision, whereas the other provision which I proposed to strike out is not universal. We cannot differentiate between the various stages of manufacture.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– It is not so much a question of wages as of the conditions which shall apply in the industry. Unlike the manufacture of flax into goods, the growing of flax is a seasonal occupation. We should do nothing which would hamper a seasonal occupation. In the harvesting of the crop it might not be possible to observe a limited number of working hours each day.

Senator Rae:

– Should not the employees in the industry get decent conditions ?

Senator CARROLL:

– There is only a certain time in which to harvest the crop. If the court stipulates that the working hours each day shall be less than are necessary to harvest the crop, the year’s efforts may prove fruitless.

Senator Rae:

– The tribunal will take all such matters into consideration.

Senator CARROLL:

– It is to be hoped that it will.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– The growing of flax will be only a part-time industry; the work of cultivating and harvesting the flax will be carried out in conjunction with other farm work. Every one recognizes that the wages paid to farm workers compare favorably with those paid in other industries. If we stipulate that farm employees who spend a few hours each day in the harvesting season gathering the crop must be paid certain rates while so employed, although for the rest of their period of employment they are not subject to awards, then we are carrying legislation to extremes. The growing of flax will be a small man’s industry.

Senator Daly:

– In time it will be a big man’s industry.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– I think not.

Senator Daly:

– Then what is the use of the bounty?

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– In the north-western district of Tasmania we had a splendid example of closer settlement. The farms there comprise only from 100 to 150 acres. It is unreasonable to set up a tribunal to determine the wages and conditions of employees’ who are engaged for only a few days each year in the growing and harvesting of flax and linseed.

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– Honorable senators will notice in sub-clause 1 of this clause, the words “ or to any Commonwealth authority “. Those words appear in only one other bounty act. It was found necessary to insert them to enable anauthority to be set up where there is no arbitration court or other tribunal to settle wages and conditions of labour in an industry. Even allowing that the growing of flax is a seasonal industry, are not many other industries which are controlled by awards also seasonal? For instance, shearing and fruit-growing are seasonal industries.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– They are separate industries.

Senator BARNES:

– That may be so; but they are seasonal industries. Machinery has been set up to give the workers in those industries an opportunity to apply to a duly constituted tribunal to redress any wrongs that might exist. What objection can there be to seeing that persons employed in this industry are treated fairly? As Senator Rae pointed out, clause 9 protects the grower from exploitation by the manufacturers. In that case why should not the employee also be granted protection ?

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– He may get more than the taxpayers who find the money.

Senator BARNES:

– What the employee gets is regulated, not by the grower or the manufacturer, but by an authority established by this Parliament. The position is the same as it is in other industries. The people of Australia have found that it is necessary to control avaricious employers who do not care under what conditions their employees work. If they were allowed to do so they would employ children, and pay them practically no wages. The country will not stand for that kind of thing. I do not know how any man can stand in his place in Parliament and advocate that an industry should be carried on without proper safeguards for the employees in that industry being provided. The Government cannot accept the amendment.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– I do not know what has engendered all the heat shown by the Minister. The honorable gentleman has missed the point made by Senator Herbert Hays when he said that flax-growing was a seasonal industry. Senator Hays said that some of the employees on a farm may be employed for a few hours a day, or occasionally, in dealing with flax. It seems to me that the judge would have regard to that condition. If not, no flax would be grown, because it could not be grown economically if the only person to be considered were the employee. I think that Senator Payne’s point is met in sub-clause 3. The authority would have regard to the nature of the industry. The judge of the Arbitration Court would not act as an arbitration judge, but as an adviser of the Minister regarding what is fair and reasonable in the industry. He would not make an award at all.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
“Tasmania

– I do not suggest that anything other than proper wages and conditions should be observed in this industry. Awards have been made to govern the employment of men on farms. The Minister’s remarks convey the impression that he regards flax-growing as an exclusive industry, whereas, in fact, it will be but a part of the ordinary farming operations. Instead of growing oats, or some other crop, a man will grow flax. It may happen that the growing of flax will be subject to an award of the court while the other operations on the farm would be subject to no award. For the few days that an employee would be harvesting the flax crop, he would be subject to an award governing his conditions of employment, whereas for the rest of his work he would be controlled by another tribunal or no tribunal at all. I rose to correct the impression which might be caused by the Minister’s suggestion that flax-growing would be an exclusive industry; it would be a part of the ordinary work of farming.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– The arguments of honorable senators opposite destroy each other. Senator Carroll said that he objected to this proposal mainly because flaxgrow.ing, being a seasonal industry, would make it impossible to lay down hard and fast conditions. He said that he did not object to fair wages, but he suggested that, if certain conditions were laid down by the court, the harvesting of the crop might be interfered with. Senator Herbert Hays said that the work of growing flax may, in some instances, occupy only a few hours of the employees’ time. Then is it objectionable to fix the conditions of labour, owing to the scramble and hustle in harvesting the crop, as implied by Senator Carroll, or because, as Senator Herbert Hays said, it is such a fragment of a general industry that it should not be legislated for on the lines proposed? In these mixed industries it is possible that dairying is carried on under a certain amount of control ; but if some other industry is carried on in conjunction with dairying, those engaged in that industry should not be deprived of fair wages and conditions. Similar arguments could be applied to other measures, including the Cotton Bounty Bill, which has already been passed by this Parliament.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

. - I voted against a similar amendment, moved by Senator Payne, and for this industrial clause in the Cotton Industries Bounty Bill, because the Minister in charge of the measure gave the committee an assurance that, as the cotton industry would be largely carried on by families, the industrial provision would not apply to the opening up of new country or the preparation of the ground for planting. I should like the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Daly) to give a similar assurance in connexion with this provision, and, if he does, I shall, in order to be consistent, support the clause. Otherwise I do not like it.

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– As stated by Senator Thompson, an assurance was given by the Minister in charge of the Cotton Bounty Bill that the industrial provisions would not apply to the opening up or preparation of nev.’ land, and a similar assurance is given in this instance. When that measure was under consideration it was stated that the work of cottonproduction was undertaken largely by families, and that, in such circumstances, the conditions of labour would not be interfered with by the .court, or by any similar authority. The Government believes that the men engaged in cottongrowing will see that the members of their families receive reasonable .wages and work under fair conditions. In such cases, the Government does not desire any interference on the part of any authority.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I am as interested in the passage of this bill as is any other honorable senator ; but I do not wish it to contain anything to retard the development of the flaxgrowing industry. Notwithstanding what has been said by certain honorable senators, I am still convinced that these words should be deleted. Senator Rae had the audacity to charge me with being in favour of sweated labour.

Senator Rae:

– I said that that was the effect of the honorable senator’s amendment.

Senator PAYNE:

– Nothing of the kind. Certain persons were induced to experiment in flax-growing in Tasmania, which is now past the experimental stage. A fairly large area is now being utilized for this purpose, and it has been found that the growing of flax, its transport to the mills and other work associated with the industry is unprofitable without government assistance. The expenditure in connexion with the growing of flax and the production of fibre on a commercial basis has been carefully estimated, and the parties interested in the venture have asked the Government to provide a bounty to reimburse them for some of the expenditure they must necessarily incur. But it is now proposed that the Government may request a judge of the Arbitration Court to make an award as to the wages and conditions of employment in the industry. If a judge of the Arbitration Court has not made a recommendation or an award the Minister may appoint an authority to fix wages and conditions of labour which may involve heavier expenditure than was anticipated when application was made for a bounty. If additional expenditure has to be borne by the growers it may result in the failure of the whole proposition. Those who have to find the money have taken the estimated cost of production into consideration, and all the estimates may be upset if unreasonable industrial conditions are imposed’. The retention of these words may imperil the success of the industry. But for that I should not have moved the amendment which I intend to press.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

– I find some difficulty in deciding the attitude to adopt with respect to this provision. It seems to be generally understood that the industry will be carried on chiefly in Tasmania, and I should not like to force upon the Tasmanian representatives a measure to which they are opposed. I think, however, that Senator Payne is placing an extreme construction on this provision. The bill provides that the Minister may make application for a declaration as to whether the wages and conditions of labour are fair and reasonable to those engaged in the industry. If a judge of the court is asked to give a decision I am sure that he will take into consideration all the points which have been raised by honorable senators, and will also have regard to the wages paid in the agricultural industry generally. I am sure that the representatives of Tasmania in this chamber would be the last to admit that the wages and conditions of employment of those engaged in primary production in that State are unreasonable, having regard to such circumstances as a judge of the Arbitration Court or any other authority would take into consideration. If this measure is placed upon the statute-book there should be no difficulty in obtaining a declaration beforehand as to what the Minister would regard as reasonable wages and conditions. When the so-called sugar bounty was in operation in Queensland many years ago, the Minister was asked what he considered reasonable wages, and he decided that 22s. 6d. a week and “ found “ in the south, and 25s. a week and “found” in the north, was fair. I do not suggest for a moment that such wages would be regarded as reasonable in Australia to-day. I have sufficient confidence in the Minister’s administration to realize that he will act fairly, irrespective of the political party to which he belongs, and that he will be actuated by a desire to assist the industry.

Senator HOARE (South Australia)

Senator Payne I can come only to the conclusion that he is in favour of sweated labour on farms where flax is grown. If those engaged in the production of flax cannot pay the wages, or observe the conditions imposed by the court or any other authority, the industry is not worthy of assistance. As the Government is assisting those engaged in the industry by paying a bounty, the least the growers can do is to pay a living wage. Senator Payne thinks that those controlling the secondary branch of the production should pay the wages awarded by the court ; but that those actually growing the flax should not.

Senator Payne:

– Those engaged in secondary industries can always pass it on.

Senator HOARE:

– That does not alter the position. If it is reasonable to insert in legislation relating to secondary industries provisions providing for Arbitration Court awards or wages board determinations, similar conditions should be inserted in bills dealing with primary industries that receive bounty payments. If the proposal is so objectionable to Senator Payne, there is nothing to prevent the Government from withdrawing the bill altogether. I hope that the clause will be passed in its present form so that the flax-growing industry may be developed and placed on a satisfactory footing, mid reasonable conditions be observed. After all, the taxpayers of the Commonwealth will foot the bill, and, I feel sure, that they do not wish to see sweated labour conditions introduced in any Commonwealth industry. Senator Payne’s one concern appears to be to reduce wages for all sections of the workers. This is a short-sighted policy. It is a wellrecognized economic principle that high wages mean an increased purchasing power for the community generally. I cannot follow the honorable senator’s arguments. Apparently, he draws an imaginary line between what are regarded as reasonable conditions of employment in secondary industries and reasonable conditions in primary industries. Both should be treated similarly. The majority of honorable senators agreed to a similar provision in the Cotton Industries Bounty Bill. To be consistent they should accept this clause.

Senator Payne:

– Will the honorable senator give me credit for being consistent in regard to both measures?

Senator HOARE:

– I give the honorable senator credit for endeavouring to destroy the Cotton Industries Bounty Bill, just as he is seeking to kill this measure.

Senator MILLEN:
Tasmania

.- It is unfortunate that Senator Payne should have brought this matter up. I know of no reason why it should be inferred that the farmers in Tasmania fail to pay a living wage.

Senator Payne:

– Who is assuming that they are not paying a fair wage?

Senator MILLEN:

– That appears to be the inference to be drawn from the honorable senator’s remarks. I entirely disagree with him. I deny emphatically that the conditions in Tasmania are any worse than in the other States. On the contrary, they are better than in some of the States. I am convinced that the inclusion of this provision will not affect the development of the industry in any way, because the wages at present paid in Tasmania are equal to those paid in the agricultural industry in the other States. There is no reason why employers in the agricultural industry should be afraid of any determination that may be made by a tribunal established under this bill. I am perfectly certain that there is no need to fight against the clause.

Senator DUNN (New South Wales) 1 9.7]. - This provision is similar to one that was inserted in the Cotton Industries Bounty Bill. Honorable senators will recall the stone-walling criticisim adopted by Senator Payne when that bill was being discussed at the committee stages. Senator J. B. Hayes pointed out this afternoon that this provision will not apply to those engaged in the flaxgrowing industry provided all the work is done by members of a farmer’s family. If, however, outside labour is engaged, it is reasonable to assume that the rural workers will receive award rates. If an industry is receiving assistance in the form of a bounty it should observe reasonable labour conditions. Apparently Senator Payne would advocate that flaxgrowing should bc conducted under black labour conditions. The honorable senator should take the broad- view. He should not adopt the role of an overthrifty Scotchman, and suggest the payment of starvation wages. Since other rural industries in receipt of Government assistance are required to pay award rates of wages to outside labour employed, the flax-growers should do likewise.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I listened with interest to the comments of Senators Dunn and Hoare. I should not be human if I took lying down all that those honorable senators said about me. I strongly resent the suggestion that I am trying to destroy the effectiveness of this measure. Senator Hoare alleged that I endeavoured to destroy the Cotton Industries Bounty Bill when we were discussing a provision similar to that contained in this clause. Some honorable senators appear not to be endowed with sufficient intelligence to realize that certain provisions ijj. the bill may totally defeat the object for which it was introduced. The stipulations in this clause, , to which I have been directing attention, will, in my opinion, go a long way in that direction, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary by its supporters. I remind honorable senators that, as there is no market for flax fibre in Australia, the producers will have to accept world parity for it. In view of this fact, how can the industry be developed if we insist upon the observance of artificial conditions comparable to those obtaining in a number of our secondary industries? It is time we called a halt. I deny absolutely that I am an advocate of low-wago conditions, and I resent the suggestion of Senator Millen that I have implied that the workers in Tasmania were not as well paid as are workers in the mainland States.

Senator Millen:

– Then why did the honorable senator raise this issue?

Senator PAYNE:

– Because I thought it was the right thing to do in the circumstances. In any case, I do not take my orders from the honorable senator. I expected to receive support from him in this matter, because I thought I had adduced arguments to show that the retention of this provision would be prejudicial ro the successful development of the industry. This is my last word on the matter. I have no desire to see anything approaching conditions of slavery introduced into the primary industry of Tas mania. I submitted my amendment in the full belief that it was the right course to adopt.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out (Senator Payne’s amendment) - put. The Senate divided. ( Chairman - Senator Plain. )

AYES: 4

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in- the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [9.15]. - I move -

That sub-clauses 7 and 8 be left out. 1 do not agree with the construction put on this clause by Senator Daly. If subclauses 7 and 8 are not omitted the Minister need not make an application to the Chief Judge or a judge of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. He can select representatives of employers and employees, who will appoint a chairman, and the tribunal thus constituted will act as a wages board to fix wages and conditions of labour in the flax industry.

Act, which contains the powers given to the Minister in sub-clauses 7 and 8 of this clause. I opposed the inclusion of these sub-clauses in the Cotton Industries Bounty Bill, and I do so now. Those who vote for them will do so with their eyes open, knowing that they are giving the Minister power to ignore the Arbitration Court and to set up a tribunal himself to fix wages and hours in every section of the flax industry.

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

.- I think that the right honorable senator has misunderstood the purpose of the clause. It is scarcely conceivable that if there is an industrial court functioning the Minister will go beyond it to establish an authority for fixing wages and conditions of labour. Sub-clauses 7 and 8 are required only to meet case3 where there is no Arbitration Court in the State, as is the case in Tasmania. The Minister has authority to appoint the chairman only when the representatives of the employers and employees cannot agree upon a chairman, I and it is hardly likely that he will ever be placed in that position.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– On the second reading and in the committee stage of the Cotton Industries Bounty Bill, I expressed my disagreement with these industrial provisions, but voted for them on the assurance given by Senator Daly that they would not apply to the opening up of land, that is to say, to the cultivation and preparation of it for cotton-growing. The assurance given on that occasion by the Leader of the Government in the Senate was not limited to the work of a man and his family, which was the assurance given a little while ago by Senator Barnes. No such limitation was made in regard to the cotton industry, and the assurance given by Senator Daly satisfied me that I could vote for the bill. There was also, I must confess, a little bias on my part, because cotton is mostly grown in the district from which I come. It is called the “ Dixie-land “ of Australia. The assurance given to-night is quite different, and I, therefore, feel disposed to vote for the amendment moved by Senator Pearce.

Senator RAE (New South Wales)

Senator Thompson is mistaken as to the assurance given in regard to the Cotton Industries Bounty Bill. If I remember rightly, it was not given in connexion with the preparation of land for the growing of cotton, but was confined to the opening up of new land.

Senator Thompson:

– It included all.

SenatorRAE. - If I thought it did, and had a chance of doing so, I should have voted the bill out of existence.

Senator Daly:

– No such assurance was given.

Senator Thompson:

– Refer to the Hansard report.

Senator RAE:

– I think the Minister will endorse what I have said - that the assurance was limited to the -preparation of new land.

Senator Daly:

– That is so.

Senator RAE:

– Sub-clauses 7 and 8 which Senator Pearce seeks to have omitted are really governed by the word “ if “. It is not possible for the Minister to appoint an entirely new tribunal of his own creation, unless a judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court is not available.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– No; unless the Minister has not asked a judge of the Arbitration Court for a declaration.

Senator RAE:

– Surely the words “if the Chief Judge has not declared “ imply that only in the case of the Chief Judge not declaring, the Minister may go further, and appoint authorities for determining wages and conditions of labour in the flax industry; only in the last resort; only when the Chief Judge or a judge of the Arbitration Court is not available. The provision is made to meet a case where no other tribunal is available. The judges of the Arbitration Court may be engaged elsewhere. It may be impracticable or impossible for them to break off from some big case in which they are engaged and make the journey to Tasmania for the mere purpose of giving a determination just as the flax crop is about to be harvested. In order, therefore, to secure the peaceful working of the industry, and prevent a state of chaos through the absence of regular authorities to deal with the matter, this special provision is made. It seems to me entirely reasonable that it should be made. It is to meet a special emergency -which may seldom arise, but conceivably may.

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council” · South Australia · ALP

– Senator Pearce will agree, I think, that no Minister would flout the expressed will of Parliament. The committee is entitled to proceed on the assumption that the Government will carry out the expressed wish of Parliament, and it- should be obvious to any one who has studied this bill, that Parliament imposes on the Minister the responsibility of obtaining, if it is possible to do so, a declaration from the Chief Judge or a judge of the Arbitration Court.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The Minister is given a choice. The clause says that he may make application to the Chief Judge.

Senator DALY:

– I invite Senator Pearce, who has had a quarter of a century’s Parliamentary life, to consider an elementary rule in the contruction of an act. The establishment of the authority of Ministers is found in sub-clause 7, which provides that if the Chief Judge has not declared in accordance with subclause 1, the Minister may do certain things. Certainly sub-clause 7 gives the Minister what may appear to be an unqualified right to go over the head of the Chief Judge and appoint an authority.

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

– The Minister may not make an application to the Chief Judge.

Senator DALY:

– Only if he chooses to flout the expressed wish of Parliament, as stated in sub-clause 1.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Parliament allows him the choice.

Senator DALY:

– Of course. This provision has been inserted to exemplify -the attitude of the Government towards the law. Whilst it believes that the best means of settling industrial trouble is the round table conference, so long as arbitration law is on the statute-book in its present form it is prepared to abide by it, and, consequently, in framing this legislation, it has set up a provision under which the Minister may make an application first to the Chief Judge, and, secondly, to any Commonwealth authority established for the purpose.

Sub-clause 7 relates to the establishment of such an authority. It is clear from the language employed that if the clause is passed in its present form, the instruction to the Minister is that the Chief Judge is first to make the declaration if it is possible to get him to act.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Make the word “ shall “ and not “ may “ in sub-clause 1. ‘

Senator DALY:

– I have no objection to the insertion of the word “shall,” provided another clause is inserted to the effect that “if the Chief Judge is unable to do” so and so. But that would necessitate the introduction of seven or eight additional clauses. Senator Pearce knows that these statutes are drawn up by lawyers, who believe in employing as few words as possible to achieve the desired end. Clearly, there is a declaration of the Government’s policy towards the present Court of Arbitration and Conciliation. If it is impossible or impracticable to obtain a determination, and there is no State industrial authority, the Minister, is given the right to appoint an authority for the purpose.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– I shall not press my amendment if the Leader of the Government in the Senate is prepared to substitute the word “shall” for “may”.

Senator DALY:

– Personally, I would have no objection to the insertion of the word “shall”, but I do not think that that would improve the position. It would be necessary to make additional alterations, and the whole section would be full of “shalls”. I suggest to honorable senators that there is nothing at all in the contention of Senator Pearce. I take it that honorable senators are prepared to trust the Minister for Trade and Customs in this or any other Government, until such time as he fails to carry out the expressed will of Parliament. I hope that the clause will be retained in its present form.

A reference has been made to the Wine Bounty Bill. This Government has learned many things since it assumed office. Had it as much experience when it passed the Wine Bounty Bill as it now has, a similar provision would have been included in that measure. The Government believes that while the policy of the country should be adhered to, no obstacle should be placed in the way of employers and employees meeting at round-table conferences, especially in an industry such as this. Senator Payne raised the point that some judge, acting upon a legal; theory, might set up artificial conditions of employment that would destroy the industry. There will be two practical men, one representing the employers and one the employees, presided over by an independent chairman. Is it not extremely probable that such a body would arrive at an award that would be infinitely preferable to that determined by a court of conciliation and arbitration after interminable legal argument? If the parties desire that the matter should go to arbitration, provision is made for that to be done.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– It is left to the discretion of the Minister.

Senator DALY:

– There is also an obligation upon the Minister toshow no slight to the Chief Judge of the Arbitra- . tion Court, if.it is practicable to obtain his services. I assure the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) that so long as the Chief Judge is available and willing to make an award in this industry, and the parties desire his assistance, no other industrial authority will be appointed for the purpose. I urge honorable senators to accept the clause in its present form.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

, - I think that there is a good deal more in this than actually meets the eye. The Minister is, to some extent; charged with the duty of making this application, not only to the Chief Judge, but to a judge of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Honorable senators will see from a perusal of sub-clause 2, that on the hearing and determination of such application, the Chief Judge is given certain powers under the Excise Procedure Act. That is the procedure that deals with the methods that may be adopted by a judge when dealing with these matters. Those honorable senators who are so greatly concerned about the remuneration of the legal profession will see in this a measure after their own hearts. Here the procedure is to be guided by equity and good conscience, and power is granted to appoint an assessor from each side to examine the position. The machinery that is in the Excise Procedure Act is similar to that which the Minister is so anxious to have in the bill a little later on, under sub-clauses 7 and 8. So that, under sub-clauses 1, 2 and 3, the whole of the necessary machinery is provided, and adequate powers are placed in the hands of the judge to whom the matter is referred to have evidence brought before him, to punish, and to protect either employer or employee. There is a complete code provided.

Senatorrae. - Suppose that the judge is pressed with work?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Why was one of the judges of the Arbitration Court seconded to the Bankruptcy Bench? Evidently because there is so little work in the Arbitration Court at present. That other distinguished gentleman who is the Chief Judge of the Court has been engaged in some civil work in the nature of a royal commission, and is, I understand, to make inquiries into the claims of British settlers in Victoria. There is no pressure of work in the Arbitration Court to justify our relinquishing the procedure hitherto adopted, and which 1 supported in connexion with the Cotton Bounty Bill. The Minister must have something in his mind when he proposes this additional procedure to deal with a matter that is not of tremendous size or difficulty.

Senator Daly:

– Has the honorable senator calculated the cost that would be entailed in sending a judge of the court from Melbourne to Tasmania to hear one of these cases?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– If there is to be a tribunal and chairman, the latter will have to be paid. The costs of the court are running on every day, irrespective of the demands upon it. Why set up this machinery?

Senator Rae:

– It is not being set up. The bill merely provides the necessary power to do so.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– If the power is there it may be exercised. Why all this anxiety to get away from the jurisdiction of a judge of the Arbitration Court, vested with all the necessary powers under the Excise Procedure Act? An award to cover the flax industry would not take a tremendous amount of time. The judge will have before him all the details ascertained by the Tariff Board when it investigated the matter. The necessary machinery exists, it has been used in connexion with every other- bounty bill that lias been passed. Now somebody imagines that the Chief Judge, or a judge of the Arbitration Court, may not make a declaration. And there are two points of view on that. First, that the judge may not make a declaration, and the other, that he may never be asked to make a declaration. That is the real point in issue. Ministers come, and ministers go, but no minister goes on for ever. While I am always prepared to take the assurance of the Leader of the Government in the Senate with regard to any matter upon which we are legislating, it is essential that we should have something definite and certain to act upon. It may be that, in the whirligig of time, a minister of another political colour, or in any case some other minister, may take over the administration of the act. Why have any uncertainty about it? I put it to the Minister, why make provision for the setting up of additional machinery when never in the past has there been any necessity for it; when the work of the Arbitration Court is slacker to-day than it has been for some considerable time, and there is every indication that it will be slacker still? While the provisions that have been made for the tribunal rather appeal to me, I really think they are an excrescence on the measure. I shall vote for the amendment.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

– If I were an employer engaged in the production of flax I should regard sub-clauses 7 and 8 as a concession rather than as a burden. I am in favour of settling such differences as may arise between employer and employee by a form of State tribunal. These sub-clauses make the necessary provision for that. Paragraph h of sub-clause 7 provides that if-

There arc not in force in the locality where the flax or linseed is produced, or the flax plants are grown, any standard conditions and rates relating to the labour employed in the production of flax or linseed, or in growing flax plants, prescribed by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration or by an industrial authority of a State, or contained in an industrial agreement registered under any law of the Commonwealth or a State.

That is a concession to the employers in the industry. The clause continues -

The Minister may appoint an authority or authorities for determining, for the purposes of this section, conditions of employment and rates of wages which are fair and reasonable for labour employed in the production of flax or linseed or in growing flax plants, and any authority so appointed shall be deemed to be a Commonwealth authority within the meaning of sub-section (1.) of this section.

Then clause 8 reads -

Au authority appointed by the Minister under the last preceding sub-section shall consist of a representative nf employers engaged in the production of flax or linseed, or in growing flax plants, a representative of employees engaged in such production of growing, and a person, who shall act as chairman, and who shall be appointed by the Minister on the joint nomination of the representatives of employers and employees: 1’rovidcd that, if the representatives of employers and employees fail to make a joint nomination of a ‘chairman within twenty days after being called upon by the Minister so to do, the Governor-General may appoint a person to act as chairman.

I should like to see a similar provision in our Conciliation aud Arbitration Act, so that the representatives of employers and employees, with a chairman selected by both parties, could determine matters which now go before the Arbitration Court. Such a tribunal would be in closer touch with those engaged in industry than any judge of the Arbitration Court can be. In my opinion sub-clauses 7 and 8 are a great improvement on the existing bounty acts.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- The Minister said that if the Government had known before the Wine Bounty Bill was passed what it afterwards discovered, similar provisions to those now under discussion would have been inserted in that measure. I know of nothing in connexion with that bill to justify the setting up of special wages boards. The Minister also said that no Minister would flout the will of Parliament. Let me show how Parliament is being flouted at the present time. Indeed, not .only Parliament, but also the people as a whole are being flouted by the Government in connexion with the iniquitous tariff schedules which it has introduced. Under those schedules, which have scarcely been touched in another place, and have not yet come before the Senate, revenue has been collected, in some cases for nine months. Tho legislature and the people of this country have been ignored. In this case the Minister may act similarly. The Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Daly) objects to the substitution of the word “ shall “ for the word “ may “. If we delete from the bill the whole of sub-clauses 7 and 8 there will be no need to decide which word should be retained. One of the greatest curses to this country has been- dual control in arbitration matters, yet here it is proposed to set up additional authorities to deal with industrial disputes. The Minister said that there were no local courts in Tasmania to deal with these questions. I take it that that is a good reason why matters should be decided by the Arbitration Court.

Senator Daly:

– Would it not be better for employers . and employees to meet together with a view to settling their differences ?

Senator REID:

– There is nothing to prevent them from doing so now. Although there is a provision that if the proper wages are not paid the bounty may be withheld, it might happen that a Minister would ignore the Arbitration Court. If he decided to do so, he would probably receive the support of caucus. Should the Minister ignore the court, separate bodies would have to be set up in each State. I see no necessity for the sub-clauses.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– I remind Senator Reid, who said that the Government had flouted the will of Parliament, that the present Government is pledged to arbitration and conciliation. The Labour party stands for conciliation to-day as it did in 1905 when Senator Reid, who was then a redhot he-man in the Labour movement, told a Labour convention that the Labour partes platform was not “ red “ enough for him. The judges of the Arbitration Court are kept busy, and for that reason authorities to determine wages and conditions of labour might be found necessary. Surely it is in the interests of industry to enable disputes to be settled at a round table conference. I remind Senator Reid that at the last election the people endorsed the arbitration policy of the Labour party. The retention df subclauses 7 and 8 will tend to the settlement of disputes by conciliation at round table conferences. I, therefore, urge that they be retained.

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– These sub-clauses were submitted to the four manufacturers who waited upon the Minister in connexion with this bounty) and they raised no objection to them.

Senator E B Johnston:

– Are four manufacturers responsible for this bill?

Senator BARNES:

– Four manufacturers, who, I take it, were representatives of manufacturers generally, conferred with the Minister. They had no fault to find with these provisions.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

– A number of honorable senators have stated that these provisions appeared for the first time in the Cotton Industries Bounty Bill recently passed by this Parliament. In the first instance exception was taken by the Queensland Government to a clause in the Cotton Bounty Bill providing that the labour conditions should be determined by a judge of the Arbitration Court, and a provision similar to that in this bill, which it is now proposed to delete, was drafted and inserted to meet the objection then raised. A clause similar to this was inserted to meet the expressed views of the Queensland Government, as indicative of the desire of the Commonwealth Government to meet the Queensland Government. This clause is a distinct improvement to the bill, and those who think that the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court should not operate over every industry, and particularly an industry of this nature, should approve of it.

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

– When the Cotton Bounty Bill was under consideration I strongly objected to the insertion of a provision similar to that now under consideration, but when it came to a division I voted with the Government because I had to choose between the withdrawal of the bill or the acceptance of the clause. At that time representatives from the Queensland Cotton Board, who were present, favoured the clause, hut during the discussion to-night honorable senators representing those States which this provision will affect have not said whether it. is acceptable or not to them.

Senator Daly:

– Is it not a question of principle ?

SenatorCOOPER. - I was not in favour of its incorporation in the Cotton Bounty Bill, and as I have not heard an expression of opinion from those who represent States likely to be affected, I shall vote against the retention of the clause.

SenatorRAE (New South Wales) [10.4]. - Those who supported the second reading of the bill are now trying to stonewall it to death. If they do not want it, why do they not say so? It would be very much easier for the Government if it were relieved of the responsibility of paying this bounty. Those interested in assisting various forms of primary production show their sincerityby quibbling over trivial provisions, and in doing so are running the risk of defeating the measure. If I were in charge of the bill I should tell them to take the bill as it is or leave it.

Senator Daly:

– This Government is more conciliatory. ‘

SenatorRAE. - I believe in conciliation to the extent to which the other fellow will go ; otherwise I am prepared to fight all the time. Various quibbling interpretations have been placed upon many of its provisions, and I challenge Senator McLachlan, with all’ his legal knowledge, to justify the last speech- he made on this measure. The honorable senator said that we were erecting unnecessary machinery in order to carry out work for which provision had already been made. The proposed machinery is of an emergency nature only, and when called into operation will be in a simplified form and deal only with ordinary cases. Why, therefore, should it be necessary if the Chief Judge or other judges of the Arbitration Court are engaged, as they sometimes are, in handling big cases to hold up the flax-growing industry in some remote part of Tasmania until the

Arbitration Court, with all its unnecessary “ trappings “, can be transported to that State, when we could provide the necessary machinery to meet such an emergency ? When a child I was told that those who were unduly suspicions of others were inclined to he “ crooks “ themselves. If those who say that this Ministry will find a way to do something which is on the verge of legality, it is only because, as past history shows, they are capable of political trickery, and wish to apply their own low standards in judging others. It is positively nauseating to find, that some honorable senators, while professing to support the principles embodied in this provision, will stone-wall the measure to death by trivial objections and hy falsifying the meaning of a clause in order to justify their preposterous arguments.

Question - That the sub-clauses proposed to be left out (Senator Sir George Pearce’s amendment) be left out - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 15

Majority . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 18.

The Governor-General may make regulations prescribing . . .

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– Owing to an oversight, an important provision, included in other bounty bills, has been omitted. I, therefore, move -

That the following words be added to the clause: - “ and the proportion in which bounty shall be payable to claimants who have complied with the prescribed conditions, in cases where there is not sufficient money available to pay the full bounty in respect of all the claims.”

The amendment is necessary to enable the Government, in the event of the value of the production exceeding the amount of bounty at the rate provided of £20,000 a year, to pay to those who have produced the excess quantity a proportionate share of the bounty.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment.

page 4924

QUESTION

HOUR OF MEETING: BUSINESS OF THE SESSION

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

.- I move-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till to-morrow at 1 1 a.m.

I have arranged with the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) for the Senate to meet to-morrow at 11 a.m., instead of at the usual time, so as to avoid a late sitting. We are making fairly satisfactory progress, but I remind honorable senators on both sides that there is still a fairly lengthy legislative programme to be disposed of. Tonight I heard complaints that arrangements were not being made for a discussion on the tariff. It seems to me that there is little possibility of discussing the items before next March, but we may be able to set aside a day or two for general discussion, if we push on with the other legislative measures which the Government desires to pass. These include the Sales Tax Bill, the Income Tax Assessment Bill, the Appropriation Bill, the Workmens Compensation Bill, and last, hut not least, a proposal of interest to Tasmanian senators, the Hops Control Board Bill. I am afraid that, if not this week, at least next week it may be necessary to break away from our usual practice and sit all night.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 July 1930, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1930/19300730_senate_12_126/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant