1933-05-18 13 1 4 REPS 1495 0 House of Representatives. Thursday, 18 May Mr. Speaker(Hon.G. H. Mackay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers. WORLD WHEAT CONFERENCE. Mr. HILL.- I ask the Acting Leader of the House what instructions, if any, were given toMr. MacDougall, who is representing Australia at the World Wheat Conference at Geneva? Has Mr. MacDougall power to bind Australian wheatgrowers to any determination arrived at by the conference, or will the wheatgrowers of the Commonwealth be consulted before any arrangement is made withother countries? What attitude will Mr. MacDougall adopt in regard to the proposed limitation of production ? Mr. LATHAM.- I cannot state in detail the instructions given to Mr. MacDougall, but the fact was impressed upon him that Australia's position as a wheat producer is very different from that of the United States of America, for instance. The Government does not consider that any restriction of production would be in the interests of Australia, But if such restriction were decided upon, a distinction should be made between countries which have large unmarketed surpluses and other wheat-producing countries. Mr. MacDougall has no power to bind the Commonwealth to any decision. No report has yetbeen received by the Government regarding the work of the conference. If such a report should contain definite proposals, the Government will have to determine in what direction the real advantage of the Commonwealth lies, and, of course, the closest attention will be given to the interests of the wheat-growers, whose views were expressed at therecent conference in Melbourne. ROYAL VISIT TO AUSTRALIA. Mr. HUTCHIN.-The Sydney Morning Herald of to-day reports that arrangements have been made by the Governments of the Commonwealth and the States for the visit to Australia of a member of the British Royal family. Can the Acting Leader of the House state whether that report is authoritative, and whether the Australian public may confidently anticipate such a welcome event ? Mr. LATHAM.- At the present stage, I am unable to make any announcement on the subject. SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY. Visit to London. Mr. BEASLEY.-In view of the special qualifications alleged to be possessed by the right honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Bruce) whenthe bill for the appointment of a Resident Minister in London was before the House, can the Acting Leader of the House explain the reason why Mr. H. J. Sheehan, Secretary to the Treasury, has been sent to London at great cost to the Commonwealth? Is Mr. Sheehan to do the work which the Resident Minister might have done? Does this arrangement indicate that the Resident Minister has failed to discharge the duties for which he was appointed? Mr. LATHAM.- Mr. J. R. Collins recently relinquished the position of financial adviser to the representative of Australia in London, a positionwhich he had held for some years. The work of the Treasury is becoming increasingly complex, and demands a much more extensive knowledge, and, indeed, higher qualifications, than in earlier years. Mr. Sheehan has been sent to London to enable him to increase his already great ability to serve the people of the Commonwealth. EXPORT OF AUSTRALIAN APPLES. Mr. BLACKLOW.- Has the Minister for Commerce read in the Sydney Morning Herald a statement by Mr. McCann regarding the possibility of increasing the market in Scandinavia for Australian apples? Mr. McCann stated also that the Commonwealth lags behind Canada and the United States of America in its methods for obtaining publicity. Will the Minister have an investigation made with a view to the development of the Scandinavian market? Mr. STEWART.- I shall read the statement, and have the matter to which it refers investigated. MARKETING CONTROL BOARDS. Mr. FORDE.- According to reports published in this morning's newspapers, the State Ministers for Agriculture have decided to urge the Commonwealth Government to introduce legislation to facilitate the establishment of Marketing Control Boards, whilst the Chamber of Commerce inSydney is protesting to the Commonwealth against any further government interference with industry. I ask the Acting Leader of the House if these communications have been received by the Commonwealth Government, and, if so, have they been considered ? Mr. LATHAM.- The Minister for Agriculture in New South Wales has conveyed to the Minister for Commerce a resolution of the recent conference of State Ministers for Agriculture, but, so far as I am aware, no communication on the subject has been received from the Sydney Chamber of Commerce. The recommendation of the Ministers for Agriculture was brought before Cabinet in accordance with an undertaking by the Minister for Commerce, and Mr. Main will be informed that an opportunity for the discussion of this matter will be afforded at the forthcoming conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers. TRAVELLERS FROM OVERSEAS. Customs Examination. Mr. WHITE.- On the 10th May, the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Blacklow) asked a question, without notice, regarding a report published in the Sunday Sun of the 7th May, relating to complaints made by a new arrival in the Commonwealth, Mr. Sheridan, to the effect that he had been discourteously treated by customs officers at Fremantle in connexion with the examination of his passport. The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) also wrote to me on the subject. A full report has been obtained from the Collector of Customs at Fremantle, and, in my opinion, it discloses that the newspaper account was an exaggeration of what actually occurred. The customs officers are responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Immigration Restriction Act, which prohibits the entry into Australia of any person who is likely to become a charge upon the public by reason of infirmity of mind or body or insufficiency of means of support. Obviously, officers could not carry out their duties under the act without personally questioning new arrivals. The substance of Mr. Sheridan's complaint appears to be that he was subjected to an inquisition, which lasted twenty minutes, regarding his private and financial affairs, and that questions were put to him which had no bearing on his entry into Australia. He further complained that his wife was subjected to what he termed an " equally close and impertinent examination." Twenty persons were noted by the Principal Medical Officer for theport as requiring further examination by the customs for thepurpose of the Immigration Restriction Act. Mr. Sheridan came under notice because of his age and defective vision. The ship was not boarded by the customs officer till 7 a.m., and the necessary inquiries were completed shortly after 8 a.m., so that the average time taken in examining each of the twenty persons interviewed was only a few minutes. The questions put to Mr. Sheridan were of a routine character, and were such as are necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Australian immigration laws. There does not appear to be any goodreason to believe that the officer showed any discourtesy in his examination. This is borne out by the senior officer, who was also in attendance. I am of the opinion that Mr. Sheridan's statements, as reported in the press, are exaggerated, and were no doubt duo to his resentment at having to answer any question at all regarding his financial position. Mrs.Sheridan was not questioned, except to ascertain the address of her son, whois at present in Australia,but whose address Mr. Sheridan could not supply. Customs officers are well aware that passengers are entitled to every courtesy and assistance, and they endeavour to carry out their duties in a tactful manner, making due allowance for those passengers who feel aggrieved at being asked personal questions to satisfy the requirements of the Im migration Act. . COMMONWEALTH CLOTHING FACTORY. Mr. HOLLOWAY. - Is the Commonwealth Government associated with the Victorian Government and the Chamber of Manufactures in the effort to prevent the Commonwealth Government Clothing Factory from continuing to tender for contracts for uniforms other than purely naval and military uniforms? Mr. LATHAM.- My only personal information on the matter has been derived from the press, where I have read the statement that it is proposed to institute proceedings against the Commonwealth for the purpose of obtaining a declaration as to the rights or powers of the Commonwealth to utilize the clothing factory in the manner mentioned. In such proceedings the Commonwealth would be against those who are proposing to initiate the action. During past years many representations have been made to various Commonwealth administrations on this subject. This is a permanent problem; but I am not aware that any particularly recent communications have been received from either of the sources mentioned. WIRELESS BROADCASTING. S tar ting-pricebetting-commission's Head-quarters. Mr. JENNINGS.-In view of the protests and police reports that starting-price betting is encouraged by the broadcasting of starters and prices during race meetings, is it the intention of the Commonwealth Government to bring b class broadcasting stations into line with the policy adopted by the national stations, and to prohibit the inclusion of starting information in broadcast programmes? Mr. ARCHDALEPARKHILL. - It is primarily the business of State administrations, if they think fit, to deal with starting-price betting as a normal question or social evil. If the States are determined to take action in the matter, it should, in my opinion, be done, not in a piecemeal fashion by dealing with one offending agency only, but in a complete manner, by dealing with all such agencies. I have already said on numerous occasions that any proposals which the States may place before the Postal Department will be sympathetically considered. The b class stations are under the control of the Postal Department, and that portion of the honorable member's question relating to them will receive consideration. Mr. JOHNLAWSON.- Has the Postmaster-General noticed in the press a report which suggests that the headquarters of the Australian Broadcasting Commission may shortly be removed from Sydney to Melbourne; and, if so, is he in a position to deny or affirm that statement ? Mr. ARCHDALEPARKHILL.- So far as I am aware, there is no intention to alter the present arrangements. COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE. Basic Wage. Sir HENRYGULLETT. - Has the Government yet reached a decision as to whether the new basis of calculating the cost of living adopted by the Arbitration Court is to be applied to the remuneration of the Commonwealth Public Service? Mr. LATHAM.- No decision has yet been reached on that matter. INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS. Mr. JAMES.- Is the Attorney-General aware that new claims for old-age pensions are paid on the basis of 15s. a week where the applicant was in receipt of food relief, irrespective of the fact that the food relief ceased immediately the pension was paid, and that the department will not make up the amount to the maximum pension unless it receives a notification from the food relief officer that the applicant is not in receipt of food relief? In view of the fact that the pensioner is being deprived of 2s. 6d. a week during the period of suspension, will the right honorable gentleman see that the payment is made retrospective from the date on which the food relief ceases? Mr. LATHAM.-I shall see that inquiries are made into the subject raised by the honorable member, with the object of taking any action that may appear to be necessary and fair. Mr. ROSEVEAR.-Is the Attorney-General aware that the pensions department, in cases in which invalid pensioners have their pensions stopped. because in the opinion of the department's doctor they are not entitled to them, and in which subsequently the pensions are restored because of the weight of medical evidence, is not making good the payments which were stopped during the period of suspension? Does the Government approve of such an attitude on the part of the pensions department? Mr. LATHAM.-I do not pretend to have an accurate knowledge of the subject to which the honorable member has referred; but it will be seen that, if it were laid down as a rule that whenever an invalid pension has been suspended on account of medical opinion or evidence, and the pension at a later date is restored, the pension should be paid for the intervening period, some quite unreasonable positions would arise. I shall, however, see whether it is possible to introduce any administrative change which will provide for cases in which there has been an immediate review, to which I understand the honorable member's question refers. Mr. Rosevear.-The review should be within about a month. Mr. LATHAM.- Practically an immediate review. Mr. BEASLEY.- Is it a recent policy of the Government to appoint men to stand behind the counters at the post offices in order to spy on pensioners as they enter? Mr. ArchdaleParkhill. - That is not the policy of the Government. Mr. BEASLEY.- Is it the policy of the Government to appoint men to stand behind the counter when the pensioners are being paid, to take the numbers of the pension cards, and then to follow the pensioners to their homes, and adopt all kinds of other methods in order to intercept them and discover means of cancelling their pensions ? Mr. LATHAM.- I doubt whether any honorable member would object to information being obtained concerning the pensions that are paid from the public moneys of the Commonwealth; but I have no knowledge whatever of objectionable practices of the description suggested. The only objectionable practices that the Government has under consideration at the moment are associated with organizations whose representatives post themselves outside offices where pensions are being paid, and pester the pensioners for subscriptions to their leagues. Mr. James.- Where is that done? Mr. LATHAM.-In Victoria, at least. The Government is considering whether action ought not to be taken to prevent pensioners being, in effect, compelled to contribute an amount, small though it may be, towards the support of these organizations, which profess to be acting in their interests. Mr. McGRATH.- I wish to direct the attention of the Government to the disgraceful and despicable tactics that are employed by certain individuals towards old-age pensioners. In Ballarat, these persons intercept old people and invalids as they leave the pensions office, and demand 3d. from each, the proceeds being devoted to keeping these loafers in an easy job. Will the Attorney-General take steps to see that these tactics are prevented in future? Mr. LATHAM.- I have given some attention to this matter, and it appears to me that it may be perfectly well dealt with by the State police preventing the obstruction of the highway. I intend to communicate with the Victorian authorities with a view to bringing about the cessation of the practice. Mr. A.GREEN.- Will the Attorney-General cause inquiries to be made concerning persons who lay information against old-age pensioners in regard to the amount of money or the meals that they may receive from outside sources, with a view to providing that such information must be laid in the form of an affidavit instead of being furnished by anonymous letter? In country districts, particularly, any man may have enemies, and although much of the information furnished anonymously is palpably dictated by malice, it nevertheless causes acute mental anguish to the pensioners. Mr. LATHAM.- Apparently, the honorable gentleman suggests that some inquiry should be made as to whether the department should pay attention to communications of the character to which he has referred. It would be difficult indeed to lay down a general rule; each case needs to be considered and dealt with on its merits. Honorable members, but particularly Ministers, are accustomed to receiving anonymous letters, and these are seldom highly complimentary in character. Occasionally, something of value is discovered in them, but probably the majority of them find their way into the waste-paper basket. Mr. JAMES.-Can the Acting Leader of the House inform honorable members if the Government of any country in the world has sunk to the mean and despicable depths which this Government reached when it introduced and passed amendments to the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act confiscating the property of the aged and infirm? Mr. SPEAKER.- Order ! The honorable gentleman may not reflect on any act done by this Parliament. It is optional with the Acting Leader of the House whether he will reply to the question. Mr. LATHAM.- I reply to the question by saying that the Australian invalid and old-age pensions system, in its present form, is the most generous in the whole world. PETROL ROYAL COMMISSION. Mr. GREGORY.-Is the Attorney-General satisfied that under the legislation recently passed by this House the petrol royal commission will have full power to obtain the information desired in regard to intra-state trading? If not, will it be necessary for legislation to be passed by one or more of the States, or for the Federal Constitution to be amended so as to give to the Commonwealth control over trade and commerce? Mr. LATHAM.-The honorable gentleman has managed to pack a good many problems into one question. As Attorney-General, I am not prepared to answer it, n or to suggest that there are any weaknesses in the legislation recently passed. I hope that it may prove successful, and I propose to enforce it to the limit of federal power. I have already stated in this House that it is desired to press this inquiry to the limit of legitimate federal power. At the present stage I do not accept the suggestion that this inquiry cannot be made unless the Commonwealth is able to secure the assent of one or more of the State Parliaments.It is intended at present to deal with the matter upon a federal basis, and to endeavour to make the inquiry effective. PERFORMING RIGHT ROYAL COMMISSION. Mr.NAIRN. - Has the Attorney-General yet received the report of the royal commission which inquired concerning the performing right operation in Australia? Mr. LATHAM.- Mr. Justice Langer Owen has sent his report to the Government, and it will be considered at an early date. TAXATION COMMISSION. Mr. BEASLEY.-Will the Attorney-General present to the House a progress report setting out the cost to date of the royal commission which some time ago was appointed to inquire into the question of taxation, in view of the fact that it appears likely to function indefinitely? Mr. LATHAM.- Mr. Justice Ferguson is acting without fee or reward. The work which is being done is most highly skilled, and will be of great potential benefit to the Commonwealth. I say " potential ", because the benefit is dependent upon agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. I shall look into the matter raised by the honorable member ; but, in connexion with this commission particularly, I doubt whether any useful purpose would be served by setting an accountant to work to find out the exact amount that has been spent up to the present moment. RESIDENT MINISTER IN LONDON. Cost of Office. Mr. WARD.- Will the Attorney-General furnish to the House particulars of the total cost to date of the office of Resident Minister in London? Mr. LATHAM.-No. The fullest information upon this matter will be available to honorable members when the Estimates are placed before Parliament. EXPORTS TO GREAT BRITAIN. Suggested Restrictions. Mr. ROSEVEAR.- Has the Minister for Commerce noticed in the press the report of a speech by Major Elliot, Minister for Agriculture in the British Government, in which the following statement appears: - Having regard to the increased supply of home produced milk now being diverted to manufacture, and the accumulated stocks on manufacturers' hands, he was going to ask the dominions as an emergency measurefor substantial reductions of imports of condensed whole and condensed skim milk, skimmed cream and milk powder. Has the British Government made any advances in the direction indicated? I should also like to know what is the general attitude of the Government towards these continued requests for restrictions on the exports of dominion products to Great Britain, and whether the honorable gentleman considers that by the adoption of this attitude the British Government is observing the true spirit of the Ottawa agreement. Mr. STEWART.-I have read the paragraph to which the honorable member has referred. Official confirmation of its contents is awaited, before a decision as to policy can be adopted. The restriction of the importation into Great Britain, of the items mentioned by the honorable member would affect Australia very little, because only negligible quantities of them are sent from this country to the United Kingdom. PAPER. The following paper was presented: - Post and Telegraph Act - Regulations amendedStatutory Rules 1933, No. 56. COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION BILL. Motion (by Mr. Lyons through Mr. Latham) proposed- That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act relating to a commission to deal with the matter of grants by the Commonwealth of financial assistance to the States. Mr. Beasley.- The motion which the right honorable the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) has just moved stands on the notice-paper in the name of the right honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons). As a question of procedure, I should like to know from you, Mr. Speaker, if it is competent for another Minister - in this case the Attorney-General - to move it? Should not the leave of the House be asked? Mr. SPEAKER(Hon. G. H. Mackay). - It has been the practice in this and other Parliaments for a Minister, in a case like this, to move a motion set down in the name of another Minister without formal request for permission to do so. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill brought up by Mr. Latham, and read a first time. BANKRUPTCY BILL. Motion (by Mr. Latham) agreed to - That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act 1924-1932. SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL. Motion (by Mr. Perkins) agreed to - That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to validate the issue of certain Crown grants, the extension of the term and the determination of the rent of certain leases, the determination of the capital value of certain lands and the sale or disposal of certain Crown lands in the Territory for the Seat of Government, to amend section six of the Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909-1929 and to amend section nine of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1931. TARIFF PROPOSALS (1932-1933). Customs Tariff (1932) : Special Duties (No. 4) : Primage Duties (No. 2) : Customs Duties (Canadian Preference, No. 2) : Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 1) : Special Customs Duties (No. 5) : Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 3). In Committee of Ways and Means: Consideration resumed from the 17th May (vide page 1493), on motion by Sir Henry Gullett (vide page 1167, volume 135) - 1. That on and after the fourteenth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Territory for the Seat of Government, duties of customs at the rates respectively specified in the column of the schedule hereto headed " British preferential tariff " be imposed on goods the produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom. And on motion by Mr. White (vide page 29) - 1. That the schedule to the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the thirteenth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, be amended as hereunder set out. And on further motion by Mr. White (vide page 1094). Group3. - Items which were passed by the House of Representatives during 1932. Postponed item 19, sub-items (a) (b) (Tobacco). Division 2. - Tobacco and Manufactures Thereof. Upon which Mr. Riordan had moved - That the item be further postponed. Mr.PROWSE (Forrest) [3.4].- No good purpose will be served by further postponing the consideration of this item. Honorable members have had ample time, since its postponement in March last, to make up their minds about these duties. If we were sitting as the board of directors of an ordinary commercial undercaking, we should be required to consider from every aspect the particular business in which we were concerned, and I suggest that, when we are dealing with the position of the Australian tobacco industry, we should be permitted to consider both import and excise duties at the same time. If the Chair and the Standing Order's would permit, it would not be too late, even now, to adopt this procedure, and thus save considerable time in debate. The Minister, surely, is in a position to indicate the probable amount of excise if the import duty of 3s. per lb. imposed under this item is agreed to. If he could inform us, possibly we should be able to save a great deal of time in the discussion on the excise duties when we are dealing with that portion of the Government's proposals. A deputation waited upon the Minister yesterday to put 'before him the views of the growers with regard to these duties. I do not know whether he 'considers that he has had sufficient time to determine his attitude to their requests. Mr. White.- There has not been time, to consider all aspects of the requests made by the deputation. Mr. PROWSE- It would greatly help the committee if the Minister could give an indication of the Government's attitude. In the course of his speech yesterday the Minister emphasized that the interests of the growers had been safeguarded 'by the action of the Government last year. No one will deny that the undertaking given by the manufacturers to purchase a stipulated proportion of the crop was more than fulfilled. They purchased a greater quantity of tobacco leaf than was provided for in their agreement with the Government, and, while the arrangement was of material assistance to this important primary industry for the one year, the continuance of such assistance was not promised for the future. When considering the protection necessary to enable other industries to become established, it has been customary for govern^ ments to take the long view. Apparently, tobacco-growing is expected to get into rtss stride almost immediately. Last year a deputation waited upon the former Minister for Trade and Customs, Sir Henry Gullett, to place before him the views of the growers, and in his reply the Minister said - The Government was quite prepared, and had so indicated, to see that the full crop grown this year of sound marketable tobacco was purchased by the companies, and it intended to maintain the highest possible price. This would not be left to the companies to decide. If necessary, the Government would put an embargo on as a starting point, and then come to terms with the companies. There, again, we have an undertaking to assist the industry for one year only. Sir HenryGullett. - And it was carried out. . Mr. PROWSE.-I have already admitted that; but the growers have been given no indication of the future position. The honorable member for Henty (Sir. Henry Gullett) speaking in this House on the 10th March, 1932, while he was still Minister for Trade and Customs, stated - The Government favours a change-over (from American to Australian-grown tobacco) subject to the production of leaf of good quality capable of yielding to the Treasury an amount of revenue similar to that which, it is now yielding. . . . The honorable gentleman was on sound1 lines on that occasion, and took the long range view. If that policy were given effect by the Government, I should', be perfectly satisfied. Like the honorable gentleman, I wish that the smokersof this country would change from theuse of American, to the use of Australian, tobacco, and I do not desire to see the change made at an expense of the revenue. This Government adheres fairly closely to the recommendations of the Tariff Board. On this subject the Tariff Board reported that- It would he unwise during the period in which the Australian leaf-growing industry is becoming established to seek to increase the net revenue from tobacco beyond the amount received during 1929-30 - approximately £0,500,000. I have said on previous occasions in this chamber that whether all the tobacco smoked is made from imported or local leaf, the revenue from it should be similar. This is essentially a revenue item. But the action of the Government has increased the revenue from tobacco by approximately £1,000,000 during the last year. Mr. E.J. Harrison. - But will a similar amount be received from it this year? Mr. PROWSE.-That is for the gods to determine. I do not think that the change over from American to Australian tobacco will affect the position. In the United States of America, where tobacco is indigenous, and has been grown perhaps longer than in any other country, the position of the industry is causing the Government considerable concern. Sir HenryGullett. - The leaf is sold there for 6d. per lb. Mr. PROWSE.-But it is produced at a loss. This led the Government of the United States of America to request t he tobacco-growers to restrict their production on the undertaking of the Government that, if they did so, the price would be increased by 25 per cent. We in Australia, on the other hand, are endeavouring to extract greater revenue than ever from the industry, although tobacco-growing in this country is in its infancy. I wish to make it clear to honorable members that I do not object to the obtaining of revenue from tobacco; but it should be obtained under reasonable conditions. For nearly seven weeks, we have been engaged in a tariff debate in this chamber, and the argument that has been used with success all along the line by the advocates of high duties, is that we must protect our manufacturers from the manufacturers of countries which employ black labour. I sincerely hope that there will be consistency in this respect in regard to this item. The American people consider that the tobacco industry is worth building up, and they are alarmed because the production of tobacco leaf hasbecome unprofitable. Last year a considerable quantity of tobacco made from Australian leaf was placed on the local market at 3s. per lb. less than the price asked for tobacco made from imported leaf. As a matter of fact, our smokers were able, only with difficulty, to obtain sufficient supplies of the local article. A very strong demand was made for tobacco made from Australian leaf. The local tobacco is, undoubtedly, improving in quality. It is well known to-day that 17s. 4d. per lb. is asked over the counter for imported tobacco. There is, therefore, a very big margin of profit even after substantial duties have been imposed. The objection to the tariff which the Government is now proposing is that it does not allow a sufficient margin of price to induce smokers to use the local article in preference to the imported article. One good effect which may come out of the action which the manufacturers are taking this year in placing the Australian leaf in store, is that it will mature and thus improve the quality of the tobacco made from it. The local manufacturers have not previously matured Australian leaf to any considerable extent. I am sure that the Australian smoker will suffer no disadvantage through acquiring a taste for Australian tobacco, for it is rapidly improving in quality. Many Australian smokers who think that they are smoking tobacco made from imported leaf are really smoking tobacco made from Australian leaf. Smokers who buy " Havelock Aromatic" tobacco may not have noticed an alteration in the lettering on the packets containing the tobacco. The words " Virginian leaf ", which formerly appeared on the packets, have been removed, the reason being, of course, that Australian leaf is now used. The tobacco industry is in a different category from any other, with the possible exception of the distillation of spirits. Tobacco is a narcotic, and the duty placed on it is purely a revenue duty. I submit that the Government is entitled to impose a sufficient duty on this article to cause it to yield the amount of revenue obtained from it prior to last year, but under conditions which will not make tobacco any more expensive to our smokers. I challenge honorable members to name any industry that we have built up in this country that can be compared with the tobacco industry. But I give an undertaking that, at all times, I will agree to a raising of the excise duty, as the local industry captures more and more of the Australian market. Mr. White.- Why cut it down now ? Mr. PROWSE- I have already given the reasons for my present attitude. The Minister must know that more revenue than was recommended by the Tariff Board has been received from this industry, and that very fact is reducing the prospects of the sale and use of Australian-grown tobacco. The people have acquired a liking for the locally-produced article, but a check has been placed upon the demand that was rapidly increasing. When the price of Australian-grown tobacco closely approximates that of tobacco made from imported leaf, the public will judge the two sorts of tobacco solely upon their flavour, and will probably prefer the kind to which they have been accustomed for many years. If the excise duty were reduced to 3s. per lb., the margin would make possible the ready sale of local tobacco. Less than 6,000,000 lb. of leaf will be produced in this country next season. Sir HenryGullett. - Is the honorable member sure of that? Mr. PROWSE.-The quantity is likely to be less rather than more than I have mentioned. The fear of unfavorable legislation with regard to tobacco is one of the reasons why the production estimated for the coming season shows a heavy fall. Many growers have gone out of the industry. The past season has been unfavorable; frosts, in particular, having destroyed the prospects in many localities. Mr. E.J. Harrison. - All the more reason why the excise duty should be kept up, so that the revenue shall not suffer Mr. PROWSE.-If the import duty were 4s. 6d. per lb., the loss of revenue from imports would not nearly be covered by the excise revenue that the Tariff Board suggested should be derived from Australian leaf this year. The matter of the ' excise duty should be considered annually, and an adequate rate should be fixed, having regard to the quantity of locally-grown tobacco used in Australia. The honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett') hopes that the day will come when Australian-grown leaf will supply the whole of this country's requirements of tobacco. In that event, the tariff would have to be adjusted in such a way as to meet the revenue needs of the country, as . suggested by the Tariff Board. This year, the quantity of Australian-grown tobacco available will be limited.;' but it will keep the local article under the notice of smokers, and make possible the ultimate attainment of the objective of the honorable member for Henty, which is that all the tobacco used in this country should, be grown here. I am satisfied that the quality -of the tobacco manufactured from Australian leaf in the next twelve months will be superior to that made heretofore, for the simple reason that the manufacturers are allowing sufficient time for the leaf to mature before placing it on the market. This method should be followed year by year. I shall be glad if the Minister will indicate the real intentions of the Government. The com mittee desires definite information, and I am satisfied that it will take a reasonable view of the matter. I hope that the duty will not be left as it stands, for there should be some further advantage in the matter of excise. I trust that the matter will be dealt with promptly, and on non-party lines. Sir HENRYGULLETT (Henty) [3.25]. - I cannot refrain from commenting on the remarkable change that has taken place since last year's debate on this item. I think that I may say that the whole lone of this discussion is entirely different from that of last year. The dismal forebodings as to the future, consequent upon the alteration of the duties a year ago, are not nearly so prominent in the present debate. As the Minister, who was responsible for the drastic change made last year, I should like to' acknowledge the almost unanimous, and! even generous, admission that that alteration has worked out extremely well for the' growers, at least so far as last year's crop is concerned. Having been sub'jected last year to bitter criticism, I much appreciate the admission from all parts of the House that the change was not a disastrous one, but, on the contrary, was highly beneficial. I take a bright view of the future, and, indeed, of the near future, of this industry in the Commonwealth. I believe that the problems and difficulties still confronting it are due entirely to its sudden development, and: are merely incidental to the transitionstage through which it is passing. Two facts stand out clearly. The first is that the Commonwealth can, and will, produce all of its requirements " of tobacco, and, in my opinion, it will produce them at a very early date. The honorable member for Indi (Mr. Hutchinson) in an admirable, well informed and courageous speech, last night estimated that it would take the growers about ten years to capture the Australian market. Personally, I consider that if they watch their business closely, and work well, they will capture about 90 per cent, of the Australian market within the next four years at most. . Of course, it will always be necessary to import a quantity of tobacco for blending and flavouring purposes. The next fact that stands out clearly is that the local manufacturers admit that the Australian grower can produce sufficient leaf to meet this country's requirements of tobacco. That is a most significant admission. It was made clear last year that the local manufacturers, and particularly the British-Australasian Tobacco Company, entered into their huge undertaking for the purchase of the Australian crop in the belief that they were buying leaf that would produce a tobacco acceptable to the Australian smoker, and in the sure conviction that the quality of the locally-produced article would progressively improve, and, eventually, take the place of the imported Virginian leaf. If the local industry is to capture the market at an early date, two things are essential. First, there must be still further improvement of the quality of the leaf. Unquestionably, our highest grade leaf is equal to the best Virginian leaf: indeed, the one closely resembles the other. That similarity makes the change-over all the simpler for every one concerned. The first essential is that individual growers shall concentrate on the production of leaf of the highest possible quality. The second requirement is a complete overhaul of the organization controlling the industry. The Australian tobacco manufacturing companies undertook to purchase 7,250,000 lb. of leaf. Of that quantity the British-Australasian Tobacco Company agreed to buy 6,000,000 lb., but. instead, it bought nearly 8,500,000 lb. of leaf at an average price of 2s. 3d. per lb. Altogether, the various companies purchased between 10,000,000 lb. and 11,000,000 lb. of Australian leaf, and for all the leaf of first-class quality they paid the growers . more than 2s. 3d. per lb., the average being 2s. 3d. per lb. With a protection of 3s. per lb., which the present duty gives to them, Australian growers of good bright leaf are assured of a fair price in the future for their output up to a total national production of 20,000,000 lb. per- . annum. But for the grower of dark leaf I see nothing ahead but disaster. Any attempt to encourage the growth of such leaf is absolute madness. In my opinion, any honorable member who encourages growers to cultivate tobacco on rich river flats, which are likely to produce only dark and heavy leaf, is most unwise, and, indeed, unkind. As I have said, I predict that within three or four years Australia will produce from 18,000,000 lb. to 20,000,000 lb. of tobacco leaf, equal in quality to sound Virginian leaf. Any attempt to force either the manufacturers of tobacco, or the smokers of tobacco, to accept heavy dark leaf, would be most unwise. The Government should make it clear to the growers of dark leaf that there is no prospect but disaster ahead of them. The tobacco-growing industry in Australia is poorly organized. There has been too much politics and not enough of business methods in it. There has been too great a desire to send deputations to Canberra in order to secure votes for the industry. Those concerned would have served the industry better had they set themselves to improve the industry from within, and to establish it on a sound basis. The inefficiency of the organization was shown clearly in its estimate of last year's crop. In March last year, when the tobacco harvest season was approaching, a deputation which waited on the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) and myself stated that the organization expected a total production of 5,000,000 lb. of tobacco leaf. Later, when the crop proved to have been a much heavier one, a representative of the growers endeavoured to explain the error by saying that the deputation had meant that the leaf would be 5,000,000 lb., and that excise would be paid on a greater quantity. The growers' officials informed us that the crop would certainly not exceed 7,000,000 lb. ; but when it was gathered it was found to be about double that quantity. The estimate of that deputation placed the Government in an exceedingly difficult position. It was almost impossible to enter into negotiations with the manufacturers on a satisfactory basis, because of the uncertainty regarding the amount of the crop which would be handled. We are now told- that this year's crop will not exceed 6,000,000 lb. I do not know what that estimate is worth. The position of the present Minister must be exceedingly difficult, because of the absence of anything like exact information. In order to obtain a more reliable estimate of last year's crop than was presented -to me by the deputation, I obtained an officer from the Development Branch of the Prime Minister's Department, and instructed him to proceed to the various tobacco-growing districts in order to make an estimate of the crop. He did so, and the result was most satisfactory. The estimate of the organization representing the growers was of no value whatever. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) is not so full of dismal forebodings to-day regarding the future of this industry as he was twelve months ago. The honorable gentleman contrasted the attitude of the Australian Government towards the tobacco-growing industry with that of the Government of the United States of America. He said that in the United States of America the growers of tobacco were subsidized by means of a bounty on the tobacco they produced, whereas the industry in Australia was loaded with an excise duty of 4s. 6d. per lb. I remind the honorable member that last year the American tobacco-grower received only 6d. per lb. on the ground for his leaf, whereas Australian growers of all tobacco, other than rubbish, were paid an average of 2s. 3d. per lb. for their crop, and in the previous year, 3s. per lb. Whatever the Commonwealth Government may, or may not, be doing to assist the tobacco-growing industry, the Australian smoker certainly subsidizes the growers of tobacco to the extent of from 100 per cent, to 150 per cent, of the value of his leaf. Speaking of the great value of the industry to Australia, the honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson) said that last year's crop was worth £1,250,000. That, possibly, was the cost to Australian smokers of tobacco, but the leaf they consumed could have been imported- for about £500,000, including exchange and primage duty. It will therefore be seen that Australian smokers of tobacco paid to the local growers of the leaf a bounty of about £750,000 in respect of last year's crop. Australian tobacco-growers receive from 100 per cent, to 200 per cent, more for their leaf than is paid to any other tobacco-gro wers in the world. I wish this industry well. Its pioneers are deserving of praise for the way in which they have persevered in order to improve the standard - particularly during the past three or four years. I speak not of the new men who have rushed in to' grow tobacco on unsuitable land while the going was good, but of those who have been longer in the industry. To these pioneers Australia owes a debt of gratitude. The subject of revenue has again cropped up. I do not wish to transgress the Standing Orders, but it is difficult to dissociate a discussion of the duty from references to excise or revenue. If I may quote a precedent last year, the honorable member for Darwin (Mr. Bell), as Chair man of Committees, allowed the debate to range over the whole subject. It has been claimed that the forecast made by the Government last year as to the revenue which would result from the duty on tobacco has been falsified hy results. It is true that the Government then budgeted for something like £6,500,000 from this source, and that it now appears that the amount will be exceeded by approximately £600,000. The explanation is a- perfectly simple one, and was given by the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Hutchinson) in his excellent speech last night. When the Government caine to make its agreement with the Australian tobacco manufacturers, who, with the growers'" organizations, had not the vaguest idea of- the growers' crop anticipations, it was found that the manufacturers had entered into contracts and actually paid for something like 9,000,000 lb. of Virginian leaf, which, as an act of common justice the Government gave the manufacturers permission to import. That leaf has been brought into Australia within the past year, and a duty of 3s per lb. has been paid upon it; I have no doubt, that : ah- additional. 4s. 6d. per lb. excise has. been paid on portion of it. To .those circumstances only is the swollen revenue- -for .-.the ;year attributable. -I doubt that the imports of tobacco from the United States of America will exceed 2,0.00,000 or 3,000,000 lb. during the coming, year.; so. that a heavy shrinkage in the revenue from that source must be expected. My reply to the contention of the honorable member for Forrest is that he should take not only one year, but an average over two or three years, when estimating what would have been the result had the Government not entered into its agreement with the manufacturers. Assuming that last year's crop amounted to 12,000,000 lb., it would have represented a total loss of revenue to the Government of £3,000,000, at the old duty of 5s. 2d. per lb., which, while it would not have occurred in any one twelve months, would have been suffered during the Government's period of office. It was that which was the great impelling force behind the Government's action. In conclusion, if I may be so vain, I repeat a statement that I made a year ago ; I look forward keenly to the development of the tobacco industry in Australia, and I am sure that that is the attitude of the Government. But that desire is qualified 'by the condition that the tobacco industry must continue to contribute heavily to the revenue of the country. The industry is of incomparably greater importance to the Government of the country as a revenue producer than it is to our tobacco-growers as a source of income. Last year's crop added to the wealth of growers approximately £500,000, while as a revenue producer tobacco has contributed about £7,000,000 to the exchequer. We cannot afford, by a change, either of excise or duty, materially to affect that position. The present rate of duty is 3s. per lb, and the excise 4s. 6d. per lb. There is a proposal to reduce the rate of excise on Australian leaf in some way. How that is to be done only on Australian loaf I do not know, and I leave the problem to wiser and shrewder heads than mine. It is insisted by the honorable m'ember for New England, and every other honorable member agrees with him, that Australian leaf is now approximately as- good as the best imported leaf, and will ultimately take the place of . the latter; also, that there is no limit to .the quantity of first-class leaf that can be grown in Australia. Accepting that contention, ' it is surely no hardship to the growers if our leaf has to carry an excise duty of 4s.' 6d. per lb., when the American leaf, which finds a ready consumption in Australia, bears a total impost of 7s. Cd. per lb. Those who urge the case of the growers cannot have it both ways. If the Australian leaf - is as good as the American leaf, it should readily carry an equal impost. It is being let off lightly by being subjected to an impost of 3s. per lb. less than the American ; also, that amount' is lost to the Treasury. The Australian grower has fallen on his feet ; the market is his if he grows good leaf, and there should be no objection to his product carrying an excise of 4s. 6d. per lb. Mr. Riordan.- What is the difference between the standard of living of the negro who produces tobacco in the United States of America and that of the white Australian producer? Sir HENRYGULLETT.- The honorable member's question has no bearing on the point that I am making. I have already pointed out that, while tobacco growers in the United States of America are receiving only 6d. per lb. and white growers in Canada 8d. per lb. for their leaf, Australian growers are being paid 2s. 3d. per lb. for their product. I do not know what arrangement the Minister has made for the current year, but I trust that it will be satisfactory to the growers. Mr. White.- The manufacturers will buy all the good leaf that is available. Sir HENRYGULLETT.- I do not press to be told the price at this juncture ; but, obviously, it enters largely into the matter. Mr. THOMPSON(New England) [3.48]. - The statements made by the honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett) are not difficult to answer. I appreciate the tone of cordiality that the honorable gentleman now adopts towards the industry, although I well remember the time when he said in this chamber that good tobacco could not be grown in Australia. Sir HenryGullett. - I said no such thing. The honorable member forForrest (Mr. Prowse) has quoted me to the contrary this afternoon. Mr. THOMPSON.-The honorable member declared that we cannot proceed with the proposed amendment of the excise duty on bright leaf because, if our leaf is as good as that from the United States of America, it should carry a similar impost. The honorable gentleman knows very well that at present only a very small portion of bright leaf is being produced in Australia which is equal to the imported product. Sir HenryGullett.- The proportion is 40 per cent. Mr. THOMPSON.-That refers to bright mahogany; but the honorable gentleman was speaking of bright leaf comparable with that from the United States of America. The fact that we are producing such a small quantity of bright leaf indicates that greater encouragement should be given to the growers to place more first-class leaf on the market. The tariff alteration which was brought about by the honorable gentleman has driven a great quantity of Australian tobacco off the market, and I am safe in saying that the demand for Australian tobacco has decreased by 50 per cent. since that alteration was made. My colleagues and I want to rectify that position, and reinstate our product on the market. Once the market is recaptured, and imports are shut out, satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the Government's requirements with regard to excise duty. The honorable member made capital of the fact that the organization was so ill informed that it misled him last year about the quantity of tobacco produced. He should know that the estimate upon which the Tobacco Growers Association worked, and which was furnished to him, was obtained from the Commonwealth Tobacco Investigation attached to the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. The fact that the estimate was wrong is no reflection on the growers' organization, which obviously cannot keep track of all the growers in Australia, and the quantity they produce. It is. however, a serious reflection on the State organizations which are supposed to be controlling the industry, not to be able to furnish all the information desired. It also proves that there is no effective liaison between the Commonwealth Tobacco Investigation and the State departments of agriculture in regard to tobacco. This was proved by evidence tendered to the committee of inquiry of which I was chairman. It is a weakness which neither the Commonwealth nor State authorities have attempted to rectify. The honorable member spoke of the heavy subsidy paid by the people of Australia to the industry, and quoted the sum of£1,250,000 paid in cash last year for Australian leaf. That, he said, was proof that our smokers had been very generous to the local growers. I remind him, however, that before one-tenth of the present annual crop was being produced in Australia, smokers were being charged practically the same prices as now. The smokers had to pay the same amount whether the money went to the growers or not. Of course, we know that, actually, it went to the tobacco combine, which has been making profits of £1,000,000 a year, paying bonuses of 40 per cert. to its shareholders, and watering its capital as well. Last night the Minister spoke of a proposed agreement for the purchase of this year's crop, or am I right in assuming that it is to be an agreement? Mr. White.- The buyers made a generous offer; it will not be an agreement. Mr. THOMPSON.-It would be a very serious thing for the industry if an arrangement of the kind mentioned by the Minister were made. He said that the manufacturers did not propose to buy this year any tobacco of a quality below bright mahogany. That would exclude mahogany and lower grades, so that there would be no sale for half the crop. I asked him three times during the course of his speech what price was to be offered, but he did not answer me. Even if the manufacturers agreed to take a reasonably large quantity of the leaf grown, they might not offer more than 6d. per lb. for it. Mr. White.- The manufacturers cannot say what price they will give for the leaf untilthey have seen it. Mr. THOMPSON.-Last year they offered 2s. 3d. per lb. before they had seen it. Mr. White.-And they over-bought by a great deal. Mr. THOMPSON.-The manufacturers' offer for this year's crop is of no use to the growers, having regard to the present duties. If the manufacturers are really going to buy only the grades mentioned by the Minister, they will exclude practically 60 per cent. of the Australian crop. Mr. White.- I said that they would buy as much of the dark leaf as would be needed to replace what was used last year. Mr. THOMPSON.- That is not a very helpful offer, because they are using only a small quantity of dark leaf now. If the manufacturers are prepared to take only a limited quantity of leaf, they might as well say so, and not make stipulations regarding the grades they will buy. If they pay 2s. 3d. per lb. for the high grades, and turn down all grades below bright, the average price will be only about1s. l1/2d. per lb. for the whole crop, and it is impossible to grow tobacco profitably with white labour at that price. The manufacturers' offer, if adhered to, will do even more to injure the industry than the recent tariff alterations. Reference has been made to the report of Mr. Marks, senior agronomist to the Commonwealth Tobacco Investigation, in regard to a request I made for an inquiry by an officer of his department into complaints by growers in the Tamworth, Manila, and other districts, that large quantities of leaf had been left on their hands. The report seemed to afford considerable pleasure to some honorable members opposite, and I was sorry to see that they took such delight in the fact that the case I had put forward seemed to be so overwhelmingly refuted by this official. I stated that, in my opinion, the combine was victimizing growers in the districts which I represent, including Tamworth, Manila, Scone, and other places. I said that I had been told by growers that the buyers, after refusing to purchase leaf, had. said, "You have to blame your Federal member, Mr. Thompson, for this ". I never heard of one instance in which the buyers, (after agreeing to take a crop, had told the grower that he should thank his Federal member for it. One of the complainants was the president of the Northern Tobacco Growers Association, Mr. Parkes, who accompanied Mr. Marks in the course of his investigations. After I had heard the complaints, I decided that I was called upon to take some action, and I took it in the only way available to me. I have also received complaints that the State tobacco expert, apparently aided and abetted by the State Department of Agriculture, was neglecting the district I represented, because the growers at various meetings had expressed dissatisfaction at his control of the industry. I pointed out that the expert was going around with the combine's buyer, and discussing with him whether the leaf should be purchased or not. I contended that that was the job of the buyers, and not of the State tobacco expert. Another complaint made by me was that the tobacco combine had been for many years hostile to the Tamworth district, because it is the oldest tobacco-growing district in Australia. There the agitation for the establishment of the Australian industry originated, and I have not the slightest doubt that, but for the white pioneer growers in the Tamworth district, the cultivation of tobacco in Australia would not have advanced as it has. done. I do not question the bona fides of Mr. Marks. I know him fairly well, and I am satisfied that he knows a good deal about the cultivation of tobacco ; but I question the methods he adopted in the preparation of the report quoted by the Minister. Only a Philadelphia lawyer could ascertain from the document what he means, and I shall be surprised if anybody is able to discover whether he is expressing his own opinions or those of the British-Australasian Tobacco Company. He refers to Chinese growers in such a way as to give the impression that all the tobacco produced in the Tamworth district is grown by Chinese. A departmental officer instructed to carry out an investigation of this sort should be able to analyse the evidence, weigh all the facts, and furnish a report that would be intelligible to Parliament. I say, with all respect to Mr. Marks' qualifications as a tobacco expert, that he is incapable of writing an understandable report. He has not stated how many Chinese are engaged in growing tobacco in the Tamworth district. Mr. White.- I stated that I have information that 52 per cent. of the growers with unsold tobacco are Chinese. Mr. THOMPSON.- That may or may not be true. If it istrue, half of the growers, who have not sold their tobacco in the Tamworth district last season, are white men. The impression should not be created that all the growers in the Tamworth district are Chinese. In any case, I do not know that the White Australia ideal is menacedmore by Chinese than by negroes. The very men who are so indignant regarding Chinese tobacco-growers are fighting tooth and nail for American negroes, who grow 90 per cent. of the tobacco imported into Australia. I am not contending for a Chinese industry; actually, only 1 per cent. of those engaged in the cultivation of tobacco throughout Australia are Chinamen, and there is nothing alarming in that state of affairs. With the exception of an occasional storekeeper, the Chinese growers in the Tamworth district do not own the land they are cultivating. They are merely labourers, some of whom have been growing tobacco in the district for 40 or 50 years. They do not cure the leaf; that is done by white men. The fact must not be forgotten that, for many years, the Chinese were the only growers of tobacco in Australia. After the combine had killed the tobacco-growing industry in Victoria, practically the only growers left in Australia for about twenty years were a few Chinese in the Tamworth and Texas districts. They produced large quantities of dark, heavy leaf, which they could afford to sell at a low price, but as the quality rose and fluecuring was introduced, the market for their product disappeared. Those honorable members who profess so much concern about the Chinese engaged in the cultivation of tobacco should also protest against the use of vegetables grown by Chinese,and against the smoking of tobacco produced by American negroes. The essence of Mr. Marks' report seems to be a chart, and I find it impossible to discover whether it is based on information collected by him or on information supplied by the British-Australasian Tobacco Company. Undoubtedly, similar information was supplied by the company to Mr. Mark's officein Canberra. He states in his report - Reference to the accompanying chart will show that of the 4,344 bales rejected by the British-Australasian Tobacco Company, the analysis gives only 8 per cent. of usable leaf. The only authority that could furnish that chart was the British-Australasian Tobacco Company. The Minister stated some time ago that the manufacturers had informed him that less than 10 per cent. of the leaf grown in the Tamworth district was usable, and even that was not worth more than 3d. per lb. Mr. Marks now quotes from a chart which supports the Minister's statement. The 4,344 bales would represent about 400 tons of tobacco, and it is physically impossible for any man to check that quantity, and analyse it in the detail shown in Mr. Marks' report in the brief period he spent in the district. His estimate includes such details as - inferior bright, . 9 per cent. ; mahogany, 65 per cent.; mahogany, good, 2.4 per cent. ; and mahogany, medium strong, 4.6 per cent. If Mr. Marks were able personally to examine and assess 400 tons of tobacco in such detail he is a magician; he should not now be wasting his time as an agronomist, but should be Prime Minister of Australia. I knew that I was taking a risk when I asked that an officer be sent to the Tamworth district to report on the quantities of unsold leaf left with the growers. There is a curious readiness on the part of both Commonwealth and State officers to decry Australian tobacco producers. The Select Committee on the Tobacco Industry found that most of the expert witnesses had so many reservations that their evidence was worthless. Each official who came before us with preconceived ideas showed that he was prepared to make reservations about everything, and even retract all that he had said. If Mr. Marks had made a fair report, and said that a lot of the unsold tobacco leaf in the Tamworth district was bad, I would not have objected, because I know that much of it is inferior. Mr. White.- The honorable member said last night that all of it was suitable for manufacture. Mr. THOMPSON.-I say that all of it is usable. Mr. White.- For what ? Mr. THOMPSON.- For some purpose in connexion with the manufacture of tobacco. I knew that much of the leaf unsold was quite inferior, but the statement that of the 400 tons fully 90 per cent. is unfit for any use is outrageous. That assertion cannot be substantiated by Mr. Marks, and I should like to test it with the evidence of the growers before an independent authority. Mr.Lane. - Why not the officers of the State department? Mr. THOMPSON.- Mr. Marks'report proves that the Tamworth growers have been shockingly neglected by the State department, and that they have considerable ground for believing that they have been victimized. He attributes the inferiority of much of the tobacco to the fact that those controlling the industry in New South Wales have been neglectful of this district. The growers are now left with 400 tons of tobacco, representing all their capital, and they should be afforded an opportunity to prove that the statements of Mr. Marks are wrong, and that he has merely followed in the footsteps of the BritishAustralasian Tobacco Company. I shall forward a copy of the report to the growers in my district who, I am sure, will communicate to the Government their dissatisfaction with it. They will prove that it represents wholly the opinion of the buyers of the British-Australasian Tobacco Company, and that the chart employed by Mr. Marks was one prepared by that company. I am personally convinced that the chart was taken from the records of the British-Australasian Tobacco Company. In no other way could the information have been obtained in a brief period. Mr. Marks has mishandled his job; he has certainly adopted the wrong methods, and reported incompetently. The jobhe professes to have done is too big for one man to have done in the time available, and I ask the Government to refer the matter to some independent authority for further investigation. Mr.Lane. - Suggest somebody. Mr. THOMPSON.-I cannot, offhand, suggest any person who is qualified to undertake this inquiry. I am disappointed that Mr. Marks did not deal justly with the growers. He has gone much too far in his sweeping condemna tion of the tobacco grown in the district, and that is proved by the fact that 600 tons of that tobacco were actually purchased by the manufacturers at an average price of 2s. 3d. per lb. Mr.Nock. - That is not mentioned in Mr. Marks' report. Mr. THOMPSON.- That is so. Mr. Marks has not carried out his job properly. He should have given verse and chapter in his reasons for damning the district, but that he was not able to do. For most of his information he was dependent upon data furnished to him by the British- Australasian Tobacco Company. The growers will probably instruct their representatives to wait on the Ministar in order to refute some of these statements. I do not say that the 400 tons of tobacco which is still left in the district is all good tobacco, but it is absolutely wrong to contend that it is 90 per cent. bad. Neither Mr. Marks nor theBritishAustralasian Company could stand up to that statement under cross-examination by persons who are competent to deal with the matter. If the Minister requires any further information from the growers I shall be pleased to supply it to him. I hope that in view of the misunderstandings and difficulties which have arisen during the course of this debate, the Government will accept the amendment of the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) to postpone the item, at least for a few days until we can decide whether it is possible to adopt some other policy which will be beneficial to the growers, and put a stop to the turmoil which is now developing in the industry, at the same time assisting the Government to extricate itself from a tight corner. Mr.RIORDAN (Kennedy) [4.17]. - I wish to point out to the members of the Country party and other honorable members representing tobacco-growing areas that if they carry this item as it stands, in the hope of altering the excise duty when the excise schedule is before the committee, I am afraid that any opportunity to assist the growers and those engaged in the tobacco industry will be lost to them. My amendment aims at the restoration of the. margin of protection established by the Scullin Government, which was an import duty of 5s. 2d. per lb., and an excise duty in respect of tobacco manufactured from both Australian and foreign leaf. As I cannot move for an increase of duty because of the fact that any alteration of the rates would affect the revenue of the Common- wealth, I have moved that the item be postponed. The Acting Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson) has stated that he intends to support the Government in opposing my amendment, on the ground that the item can be dealt with when the excise schedule is before the committee. The honorable member must know that we cannot deal with this item during the discussion of the excise schedule. Mr. Thorby.- Any member can move for a reduction of the excise duty. Mr. RIORDAN.- No member can move an amendment providing for a reduction of the excise duty, because, if carried, it would affect the revenue of the Commonwealth. Mr. Thorby.- An amendment to reduce the excise duty could be moved in committee. Mr,. RIORDAN.- It could not. If we pass this item as it stands, there will be no opportunity given to us to move for a reduction of excise duty of, say, ls. 6d. per lb., the consequent loss in revenue to be . made up by an increase of. the import duty. Yesterday the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse), by interjection, indicated that he proposed to support the amendment. Since then the Government, realizing that it was likely to be defeated on this item, has evidently approached the Country party for support, because the Acting Leader of that party has now adopted an attitude quite different from that of one . of his own colleagues who seconded the amendment, and who was chairman of the select committee which inquired into the tobacco industry. The honorable member for Gippsland has left his colleague high and dry. Last night the Postmaster-General (Mr. Parkhill) said that there was no true ring about the amendment and the arguments of those who were advocating that additional protection should be given to the industry. Since this Government has been in office the members of the Labour party ' and other honorable members have been continually fighting on behalf of the tobacco-growers. Protests have . been forwarded to the Minister for Trade and Customs, and deputations have waited upon the Prime Minister, the previous Minister for Trade and Customs, and the present Minister. Telegrams have been sent to practically every honorable member, asking him to make a stand in the interests of the tobacco-growers. It has been stated that the growers are quite content with the present rate of duty. That statement is not correct. The growers must have some 'reason for complaint, otherwise they would not go to the expense of sending delegations to Canberra. I say definitely that the growers are not satisfied with the existing tariff protection. The Minister has stated that the Mareeba growers were opposed to the renewal of last year's agreement, but it is evident that the secretary of the Mareeba Growers Association, who is an accountant, and its president, who is an agent, have been fed by the manufacturers with their propaganda in opposition to a renewal of the agreement under which they guaranteed to purchase up to 8,000,000 lb. of leaf at an average price of 2s. 3d. per lb. There was nothing wrong with that agreement, and no one had any complaint to make about it. The manufacturers honoured it, because they bought 10,000,000 lb. of leaf at an average price of 2s. 3d. per lb. They purchased 2,000,000 lb. of leaf over and above the quantity that they undertook to buy. Some of that tobacco sold in and around Mareeba brought up to 3s. 9d. per lb. When visiting a few of the factories in the capital cities, I noticed that some of the tobacco which the manufacturers had purchased had been badly banded and packed, and was not really worth the price paid for it. The agreement did not compel the manufacturers to buy that class of tobacco, but, nevertheless, they honoured the agreement. The restriction of imports gave security to the .growers, but since the termination of the agreement, the manufacturers have suddenly discovered that a disease known as " spotty leaf " has broken out in North Queensland. While the agreement was in existence, the manufacturers tried to persuade the Mareeba growers that there was no need to renew it, because, in any case, they would buy the whole of the tobacco leaf at favorable prices. They also contended that tobacco leaf was being grown in unsuitable areas. I admit that some persons began to grow tobacco in unsuitable areas, but, from the outset, their efforts were doomed to failure. That took place even in Queensland. In that State, i be growers have had the benefit of instruction from agricultural experts. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has established an experimental station at Mareeba, where instruction can be obtained in the cultivation of tobacco leaf, and the selection of land and seed. The growers in that district are producing a leaf which I am satisfied can be marketed Much of the work in the tobacco growing industry is seasonal, and one great advantage is that it provides employment in Queensland during the slack period of the sugar industry, which is between December and April. This industry is deserving of protection for that reason alone. The Minister said that he had received from a trade source the information that spotty leaf was prevalent in the Mareeba district. It is a peculiar circumstance that the honorable gentleman should rely on information from a trade source when the Commonwealth has in Mareeba a tobacco expert who could supply, within an hour or an hour and a half, any information that it desired. A reliable informant would be Mr. Howell, who is in charge of the experimental station at Mareeba. The honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett) said that he was pleased that the hostility displayed towards the proposals of the Government was not so marked on the present occasion as when bc was Minister for Trade and Customs. T assure him that it is quite as great. It, should be greater, because, although lie was responsible for the reduction of the duty, he at least took steps to protect, the industry during the marketing of last season's crop, by limiting imports and securing a price for the growers. The present Minister says that the companies undertake to purchase this year all the bright leaf produced and Mahogany No. 2 to the extent of the quantity of dark tobacco manufactured by them this year. From 25 per cent, to 30 per cent, of the drop will be light leaf. I do not know what quantity of dark leaf was handled by the company. Assuming, however, that its purchases last year totalled 12,000,000 lb., if they take only the light leaf this year the quantity disposed of by the growers will be not greater than 4,000,000 lb. Therefore, unless the effect of the Government's policy has been to lessen the production by '8,000,000 lb. on last year's figures, the balance will be left without a market, and there is no guarantee that it will be sold. The Minister said that the companies have bought two years ahead. I point out that it is necessary to store Australian tobacco for two years, so that it may mature sufficiently before the manufacturing stage is entered upon. The reason for the failure to have the agreement renewed is the low price of tobacco in the United States of America. The Australian growers have no guarantee in regard to prices, and cannot be sure that more than a comparatively small proportion of the leaf grown will be purchased. No difficulty will be experienced in marketing the Mareeba crop, because it is a good quality leaf which finds a ready sale at a price about ls. or ls. 3d. per lb. higher than that paid for the leaf produced in other districts. A lighter crop to the acre' is produced, but the quality is that which is demanded by smokers. The honorable member for Henty referred to the subsidy paid by smokers to the growers of tobacco. There is practically no difference between the pricetoday and that which ruled in 1929, before any protection was given to the industry. Up to three or four weeks ago. one could purchase fine cut Champion tobacco in Melbourne for ls. 6d. or ls. 7d. a 2-oz. packet. To-day the imported manufactured tobacco is ls. 9d. a 2-oz. packet. QLD tobacco, which is equal to the imported, can be bought for ls. 9d. a 2-oz. packet in Sydney. The honorable member for Henty says that the smoker pays a subsidy on Australian-grown leaf. Is that not preferable to paying a subsidy on that grown by the .coolie or the negro, who to-day is receiving 6d. per lb., and who last year did not get sufficient to defray the cost of the gasoline used in transporting his crop to market. In 1930-31 the Australian crop was less than 2,000,000 lb., and although in that year more, than 3,000,000 lb. of Australian leaf was used in manufacture, compared with less than 1,000,000 lb. in 1928-29, still the great demand for Australian tobacco in 1931 could not be supplied. In addition to a great improvement in quality - an all important factor - it was comparatively low in price. The import duty was then 5s. 2d. per lb., but the consumer of the local article was able to purchase it for 5s. per lb. less than imported tobacco. No attempt was made to exploit the protection afforded. The excise duty on tobacco then was 2s. 4d. per lb., making the combined duty on imported tobacco 7s. 6d. per IB. The duty on tobacco leaf entering the United Kingdom is 9s. 6d. per lb., and there is no local industry there to protect. The net result of the last alterations made in tobacco duties was to leave the combined duty on imported tobacco unaltered, but to increase the duty on Australian tobacco by 93 per cent.; from 2s. 4d. to 4s. 6d. per lb. One immediate result was an increase in the price of Australian tobacco, with a marked decline in the consumption of it. Manufacturers freely admitted that their inability to supply the demand for Australian tobacco in 1931 was due to the limited supplies of local leaf. Growers set out to make up the shortage, but before the first big crop was harvested the duties were drastically altered. The value of the Australian crop in J 929-30 was £92,000, and in 1931-32, well over £1,000,000 - some estimate it as high as £1,250,000. In 1929-30, the value of foreign leaf imported was £1,76S,000, and in 1931-32, £575,000. The beneficial effect to Australia will be seen by comparing these figures. Directly and indirectly, thousands of workers obtained employment who otherwise must have remained on the dole. In 1929-30, only 6 per cent, of the tobacco leaf manufactured locally was grown in Australia. A federal parliamentary select committee, after an exhaustive inquiry into the industry early in 1930, found that the then tariff protection of 3s. per lb. was inadequate. It recommended an increase, and the Government gave it, with the results stated. Towards the end of 1931, the Tariff Board inquired into the industry. No tobacco farms were visited, and only a very small number of growers gave evidence. The board's report proposed " crushing competition." In the report, at page 12, is this amazing statement - The board has already pointed out that the quantity of Australian-grown leaf will continue to increase unless the industry is exposed to crushing competition by the removal of the duty or its reduction to a figure thai will not constitute adequate protection. Growers feel that by leaving the combined duty on imported tobacco unaltered, and increasing the duty on Australian tobacco by 93 per cent., a crushing blow has been dealt to the local industry. They seek a revision of the present duties in such a way as will enable Australian tobacco to be put on the market at a price well below that of imported, and in this direction urge a substantial reduction in the excise on Australian tobacco. This would again stimulate the consumption of the local article and the purchase of Australian-grown leaf. A strong deputation waited on the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and Customs last year, and requested a differential rate of excise - 3s. 4d. on Australian tobacco and 5s. 4d. on imported. The request was not granted. There are other alternative schemes which could be considered. One is for a reversion to the 1931 duties, with progressive increases in excise to make good any loss in revenue resulting from a decline in the volume of imports. Another scheme suggested provides for a compromise between the 1931 duties and those now operating as follows: - 1931 duties, import, 5s. 2d.; excise, 2s. 4d.; margin, 5s. 2d.; present duties, import, 3s. ; excise, 4s. 6d. ; margin, 3s. ; suggested duties, import, 4s. 6d.; excise, 3s.; margin, 4s. 6d. The adoption of these suggested rates might be acceptable to all parties. The required, revenue would be forthcoming. The price of imported tobacco would not be increased. The price of Australian tobacco would be lowered, and there would be no administrative difficulty. I have received from E. S. and B. C. Moulton Limited, a letter referring to an exhibit which they staged at the recent Royal Agricultural Show in Sydney. They had as a backcloth to their stand a life-size replica of a sign which depicted Uncle Sam standing behind a gate, on which appeared the words, "U.S. Customs". Above the figures were printed the ' words, " Would they allow our tobacco into Virginia?" That is a fair question for Australians to ask. Negro-grown tobacco is allowed to enter Australia, and, unfortunately, many Australians purchase the imported in preference to their own tobacco, even though the price is the same. Economic circumstances, of course, compel many persons to. buy the cheapest article, no matter where it comes from. Up to date, however, most of our tobaccos have been sold at the same price as that charged for imported tobacco, although the Mareeba tobacco manufactured in Brisbane is 2d. a 2-oz. tin dearer than imported tobacco. Australian tobacco cannot be marketed at a higher price because of the extent of unemployment, rationing, and relief work, which makes it necessary for housewives to watch every penny and to buy in the cheapest market, no matter how strongly imbued they may be with the Australian sentiment. The honorable member for Henty said that there would be a shrinkage in imports this year. I point out that the quantity of foreign leaf imported into Victoria over a period of six months in 1932 was greater than for the. corresponding period in 1931. Imports have been flowing into that State while low prices have existed in the United States of America; the importers have filled their stores and made provision for next year, and the tobacco producer of this country must get along as he may. The honorable member for Henty also made the statement that the combine would be prepared to buy all good leaf. Who is to be the judge whether leaf is good or bad? The grower naturally says that his leaf is good, and the buyer seeks to depreciate the quality so as to obtain it at a lower price. In the last analysis, the buyer becomes the) judge, because of circumstances over which the grower has no control. The reason given by the Country party for again sidestepping the issue is, that it can accomplish some measure of reform by means of an excise duty of 4s. 6d. per lb. on foreign-grown tobacco, and .of 3s. per lb. on Australian-grown leaf. Do the members of that party really hope to get anything from the Government, or has the Government changed its policy in regard to the excise duty? Last year the then Minister for Trade and Customs said that he did not think it would be possible for the Government to have two different excise duties, one on foreign-grown and the other on , locally-grown leaf. He argued that a new department would be required to police the matter if such a practice were adopted. He referred the question to the Comptroller-General of Customs, whose opinion was that even if it were not impossible to have two different excise duties operating, such a scheme would be extraordinarily difficult and complicated to administer.' Replying to the deputation which waited upon him at that time, the honorable gentleman said - The Government was quite prepared, and had so indicated, to see that the full crop ' grown this year of sound marketable tobacco waa purchased by' the companies, and it intended to maintain the highest possible price. This would not be left for the companies to decide. If necessary, the Government would put an embargo on as a starting point, and then come to terms with the companies. The Government could take action along those lines to-day. The Minister, I admit, has the power to keep out imports by means of an embargo. If an embargo were put on - and it is strongly advocated by a number of growers' associations - much, of the leaf not now regarded by buyers as sound and marketable would quickly become so. Growers desire to know where they stand in regard to the portion of last season's marketable leaf still unsold, and also in regard to the disposal of this year's crop. Although the 1932 Australian crop was' over 12,000,000 lb. - some estimate it as high as 14,000,000 lb. - compared with less than 2,000,000 lb. in 1931, importations of foreign leaf still flow in freely. The Victorian crop in 1932 was five or six times that of 1931, and still more foreign leaf entered Victoria for the six months ended December, 1932, than for the corresponding period of 1931. In 1930 and 1931 there was a glut of leaf in the United States of America, with rock-bottom prices prevailing. In 1929, the average landed cost of American bright leaf was ls. 6d. per lb. To-day it is about 6d. per lb. It is considered imperative that drastic restrictions, if not an embargo, should be placed on the importations of this leaf into Australia. Even in America, a move is being made to have an embargo placed on the importation of a type of loaf from Sumatra which is adversely affecting the local product. With the Australian market assured to local growers, a large sum of money, instead of being sent to America each year for tobacco leaf, will be retained in Australia, providing employment in this country. Contrast America's policy with the attitude of the Sydney Royal Agricultural Society recently towards the Brisbane firm of E. S. and E. C. Moulton Limited, which desired to advertise the Australian tobacco industry at the last Sydney show. The following letter, written by the firm mentioned, to the society, is self-explanatory: - We desire to bring under your notice the circumstances surrounding an incident that occurred during the Royal Agricultural Show in Sydney. As distributors for the Associated Tobacco Manufacturers Proprietary Limited, of Brisbane, who manufacture a high class Australian tobacco, we staged an exhibit in the Industrial Hall at the Show, and, as a backcloth to our stand, a life-size replica of the above sign whs erected. The sign mentioned was an. illustration of Uncle Sam barring the entrance of Australian tobacco into Virginia - The Royal Agricultural Society took exception to this sign and ordered its removal in the following terms: - There is a sign on your stand which, in the opinion of the society, is not in keeping with the standard of commercial and international impartiality we endeavour to maintain. The sign and picture we complain of . . . refers to the entry of Australian tobacco into Virginia, and I must ask you to have same removed or covered in some way. The CHAIRMAN.- The honorable member has exhausted his time. Mr. GIBSON(Corangamite) [4.48].- I am sorry that the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) did not see h*is way clear to allow the excise duty to he debated during the discussion on this item, because I feel sure that the debate on excise will be simply a repetition of this discussion, and will probably occupy some days which could be more profitably devoted to the consideration of other important subjects. Tobacco-growing is a comparatively new industry in Australia, at all events as regards the cultivation of leaf for smoking purposes. But 75 years ago tobacco of a kind was grown in considerable quantities in this country, particularly in Victoria. Cultivation methods in those days were similar to those employed for the production of maize, potatoes and other agricultural products. By this I mean that the leaf was grown in rows 20 inches apart, and was horse-hoed. Since attention was not then given to quality, the production was used mainly as a preparation for sheep dip. For many years the belief was general that the improved quality of tobacco leaf could not. be grown in this country. We have found that that is not the case. Whenever any new industry is being established, the practice has been for governments to, as far as possible, give it every assistance by means of bounties or protection through the customs; and it is a fact that many industries which have been assisted in this way have not had a total capital investment that would he represented in the value of one tobacco farm. But, having been promised high, if not prohibitive, duties, to say nothing of the exchange advantage, they were able to make a start, and some have become fairly well established. I mention these artificial forms of assistance because I am sure that some, at least, of these new industries, will, when normal times return, go to the wall. Doubtless, the same fate also awaits those tobacco-growers who have not given sufficient attention to the quality of leaf, the climatic conditions and the most improved methods of cultivation. We must not lose sight of the fact that climatic and soil conditions, as well as a number of other important factors, have to be considered if we expect to produce high quality tobacco leaf in this country. Already quite a number of people are growing good tobacco. Unfortunately, quite a number of people are also growing a leaf that is unsuitable for any purpose other than that to which Australian-grown tobacco was applied many years ago, namely, as a mixture for sheep dip. The difficulties confronting our tobacco growers to-day had their parallel in the troubles that beset our wheat and wool-growers in the initial stages of their industry. For very many years wheat production in Australia was on an uneconomical basis. Our wheat-farmers did not then appreciate or understand the value of modern practice, nor werethey well advised as to the varieties ofwheat to be grown. Consequently, there were frequent heavy losses in all States, due to smut, rust, take-all, and a number of other plant diseases. Happily those difficulties have been practically overcome, but I remind the committee that success came only when our farmers realized the importance of modern agricultural practice, and the need for cultivating the best varieties of wheat. I venture the opinion that success will come to our tobacco-growing industry through the same avenue, and, I hope, in the near future. It is not too much to expect that, as the result of valuable research workdone by Commonwealth and State experts, blue mould and spotted leaf, which now take heavy toll of the industry, will eventually be eliminated, and that, by the application of proved methods of cultivation, in suitable soils, we shall be able to produce amuch larger proportion of high grade leaf than is being done now. But it is almost certain that, while the industry is in its initial stages, many men who are producing dark leaf tobacco on unsuitable soils will drop out. It may not be widely known that, by many farmers, tobacco-growing is regarded as a side-line, to enable them to carry on in this most difficult time of depression. For the most part these growers are mixed farmers, who are cultivating only a small area as an experiment, and in the circumstances they could hardly hope to be successful. So we may naturally expect that growers who are not devoting the whole of their time to the industry will, in due course, drop out, leaving only the efficient growers in the business. It seems to me that the success of the industry depends on the production of a high quality leaf. I understand that there are twelve qualities, namely, lemon, grades 1, 2 and 3; bright mahogany, grades 1 and 2 ; mahogany, grades 1, 2 and 3; and dark leaf, grades 1, 2, 3 and 4. The honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan), when complaining of the refusal of the manufacturers to purchase the crops of some growers, which, the latter declared, consisted of sound, marketable leaf, asked who should be thejudge when there was a difference of opinion between buyer and seller. I takeit that the values of the respective grades are determined in much the same way that the value of wool was appraised during the war period, and I assume that only an expert can distinguish between the different grades. I understand that the demand is for lemon leaf, grades 1, 2 and 3, and for bright mahogany, grades 1 and 2, and that last year the buyers took approximately 10,000,000 lb. of the Australian crop. 1 was also pleased to hear the Minister state to-day that the manufacturers had agreed to purchase 6,000,000 lb. of this year's crop. As it is estimated that the total production will be only about 6,000,000 lb., the buyers have, apparently, undertaken to purchase the whole of this year's Australian production. But I noted that the Minister stated definitely it was the intention of the manufacturers to purchase only the three grades of lemon leaf and No. 1 grade of bright mahogany. If this is correct, it would appear that No. 2 grade of bright mahogany, the three grades of mahogany, and the four grades of dark leaf, will not be purchased this year, except for the replacement of an unknown quantity of dark tobacco that was used. As the grades which the manufacturers intend to buy this year will represent not more than 40 per cent. of the total crop, it would appear, if the Minister's statement is correct that this year's crop will be only 6,000,000 lb., that the manufacturers will not buy more than 40 per cent. of it. I think I am right in saying that the arrangement made last year for the purchase of the crop was satisfactory to the majority of growers. At all events, it gave satisfaction to those who produced a decent quality of leaf. Apparently, therefore, those growers whose crop is not suited to the requirements of Australian smokers must do what other producers are required to do with their waste crop - scrap the unsaleable portion of it. I imagine that many growers, especially those who are endeavouring to produce tobacco by irrigation methods, and are not turning out the lighter grades which are in demand, will be obliged to face this problem immediately. As this subject was thoroughly thrashed out when last it was before the committee, much of what has been said in this debate will, I feel sure, be repeated when we are discussing the excise duties. I should like to see a margin between the excise duty on tobacco manufactured from the Australian leaf and tobacco manufactured from the imported leaf. There was, a margin previously, but with the import duty at 3s. per lb., that margin has practically disappeared; with the result, I am told, that sales of Australian tobacco have fallen off by approximately 40 per cent. I feel sure that, if we could establish a margin between the tobacco manufactured from the Australian leaf and that made from the imported leaf, we should create a greater demand for Australian tobacco. I do not admit that Australian tobacco is inferior to the imported article, and I was interested in a statement made last night by the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. E.F. Harrison) who read brief extracts from reports by three experts who expressed the view that Australian tobacco was uniformly of a high standard. That is my view also. When I visited the Mother Country recently, I found it impossible to purchase there a tobacco that was quite suited to my taste. I understand that other Australians have had a similar experience. Consequently most Australians who are about to visit Great Britain take with them a sufficient quantity of the Australian tobacco to last them while they are abroad. I have no doubt also, that people who visit this country from Great Britain or America, for the same reason bring with them supplies of British or American tobacco. This difficulty, if it can be called a difficulty, is due to the fact that tobacco is an acquired taste. It seems to me that if we had a variation of, say, 6d. in the price of 2-oz. packets of Australian and foreign tobaccoes, most people would purchase the Australian product, and acquire a taste for it. I, therefore, hope that, when we are discussing the excise duties, the Government will realize the importance of doing something in this direction, and that the Minister will bring down a proposal to alter the excise rates 6d. up and 6d. down. I am indifferent as to the precise form the amendment should take so long as it is calculated to encourage the local industry, and give a margin of1s. in excise. Not long ago, when the Government altered the duty to permit the introduction of Fijian bananas, an arrangement was made to assist the Queensland banana industry to the extent of £5,000, the amount which it was estimated the duty on imported bananas would realize. If now the Government will make the small variation which I have suggested in the excise duty on tobacco, it will not affect the revenue in the slightest degree, but will assist the Australian industry very materially. I think every honorable member is anxious to maintain the revenue from the tobacco duties, and, at the same time, assist the local grower. This, I repeat, can be done by the suggested differentiation between the duties to encourage our growers to produce more largely of those grades that are in demand. Mr. A.GREEN (Kalgoorlie) [4.58].- I agree with the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Gibson) that if we are to ensure the expansion of the Australian tobacco-growing industry, it will be necessary to ensure a difference between the market prices for Australian and imported tobaccos. But I cannot agree with his suggested alteration of the excise duty. The amendment moved by the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) is, I believe, the only solution of the problem. It is stated, in the circular which has. been issued to all honorable members, that the net result of the last alteration of the tobacco duties was to ease the position for importers, and to increase the duty on Australian tobacco from 2s. 4d. per lb. to 4s. 6d. per lb. - an in crease of 94 per cent. That, in my opinion, was a great mistake. As well as establishing our own secondary industries, we must do everything we can to put our primary industries on a prosperous footing.If the wheat-growers, tobacco-planters, and wool-growers continue to receive prices on which they cannot show a profit, the country, despite all its secondary industries, must become bankrupt. That being so, and seeing that the wheat-growing and other long established industries are not at present paying their way, we should welcome any effort to ensure that the consumption of tobacco in Australia shall be confined as much as possible to Australian-grown leaf. For too long has Australia been an open market for the products of' the United States of America. For every £1 worth of goods . we sell to that country we buy £7 or £8 worth from there. I have no prejudice against Americans as such. I have lived among them, and know them to be smart business people; but we should cultivate the same spirit towards our industries as they have done towards theirs. As the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) pointed out, there would be very little chance of finding a. sale for Australian tobacco in Virginia. We cannot, perhaps, prohibit the importation of American leaf immediately; but we could produce 16,000,000 lb. of the' 23,000,000 lb. consumed annually in Australia, and import for blending purposes the other 7,000,000 lb. to suit the palate of those who cannot be satisfied with anything but American leaf. Taste in tobacco is largely a matter of custom. At one time I occupied a position in a branch of the Customs Department, and while there met a man who insisted on importing Mexican cigars. No ordinary Cuban cigars would do him; only Mexican tobacco was, in his opinion, a satisfactory and desirable smoke. In the same way, many sea captains who have traded in the East Indies for years believe that the only cigar worth smoking is the Burmese cheroot, which is made of dark tobacco. These cheroots can be bought for about id. each' in Burma, and have a very fine flavour of their own. It is necessary for us to develop all branches of primary production in Australia, and tobacco-growing provides an opportunity of employment for a great many persons. An important feature of the industry is that it is a large employer of labour. A young friend of mine, who recently began growing tobacco in the Ovens Valley, told me that, although he had been used to hard work, he had never previously encountered any job which made such demands on his dynamic energy as did tobacco-growing. Unfortunately, a man, after spending his days and a good part of his nights tending his crop, sometimes loses the whole of it. Tobacco-raising is even more risky than wheat-growing. Tobacco has many natural pests and diseases, and is quickly affected by climatic changes. In the Ovens Valley this year more than half the crop has been swept away by frost. The estimated crop was 4,500,000 lb., and of this 2,500,000 lb. has been lost overnight. Because of this everpresent danger of loss, growers find it necessary to plant a greater acreage than would otherwise be required. Last year. 12,000,000 lb. of Australian tobacco was sold, but over and above that, a considerable quantity was grown which was never marketed, because it had been damaged by blue mould and other pests. It is reasonable to assume that approximately the same acreage has been planted this year as last, yet it is estimated that this year's crop will bc only about 6,000,000 lb. I have studied the Tariff Board's report on tobacco, and it seems to me that it has recommended reduced protection, first, because it fears that high duties may encourage a rush of inexperienced growers from other primary industries, and, secondly, because the cessation, of imports may lead to a loss of about £2,000,000 in revenue. 'In the course of its report, the board states - Assuming the total requirements of leaf in Australia to be 20,000,000 lb. annually, and that there would still be approximately 4,000,000 lb. imported for blending purposes, particularly for cigarettes, this would leave a demand for 10,000,000 lb. of Australian leaf annually. Based on a yield of 800 lb. " per acre, it would require 20,000 acres of land to produce the 10,000,000 lb. annually. It will thus be seen that the demand is not very extensive. The loss of revenue previously collected on 10,000,000 lb. of leaf imported under the duty of 3s. per lb. would be approximately £2,000,000. If Australia can provide a market for 16,000,000 lb. of locally-grown leaf, let us produce that quantity, and let us make up the £2,000,000 in revenue from excise duty. It is a remarkable argument that production should be restricted so that we might swell our revenue by the duty paid on imported goods. I was pleased to hear the honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett) speak this afternoon in that clear incisive fashion with which we are familiar, but he looked at this matter entirely from his own point of view. He seemed to take a great deal of credit to himself for the altered position . of the tobacco-growing industry as a result of the reduction of duties which he proposed. The fact that the import duty has been reduced from 5s. 2d. to 3s. per lb., and. that the excise duty on manufactured tobacco is the same for imported as for Australian leaf, renders it practically impossible for the manufacturers of Australian leaf to put the finished article on the market at a price which will attract the public. Australians have for so long been used to smoking American tobacco, that the only chance of inducing them to turn over to the local tobacco is to put the latter on the market at prices which will attract them. If imported and Australian tobaccoes are sold at the same price, the unthinking portion of the community will continue to smoke the tobacco to which they have become accustomed. The Government has not taken adequate precautions to safeguard the growers' interests in regard to the disposal of the present crop. The honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson) said that there was a general belief that the manufacturers proposed to buy only bright mahogany and better grades, which constitute only about 40 per cent, of the crop. To say that the manufacturers are prepared to take 6,000,000 lb. of tobacco- Mr.Thompson. - The Minister has since corrected that, and said that the manufacturers have not stipulated any definite quantity. Mr. A.GREEN. - In reality, no arrangement has been entered into with the manufacturers for the purchase of the present crop. The Government holds the key to the position, and it would be nothing short of criminal to ratify these duties until an undertaking has been obtained from the manufacturers for the purchase of the present crop at a fair price - 2s. 3d. per lb. if necessary. There has been some irrelevant comment about Chinese being employed in the tobacco-growing industry. The fact that a handful of Chinese are engaged in growing tobacco does not weigh with me in the least. Only a remnant of the original Chinese growers now remain, and they have . been in the industry since the pioneering days. Surely they can be left to work out their declining years- without honorable members of -this. House trying to raise a racial issue on their account. In any case this does not concern the real issue. I trust that the amendment of the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) will be carried, because his proposal represents the only way of securing a satisfactory price for the growers. We all desire to see the industry established in Australia. In Western Australia, in the electorate of the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse), some very fine tobacco is being grown, which is hardly second in quality even to that being produced at Mareeba. I believe that, with greater care and experience, Australia will be able to produce leaf equal to that at present being imported from abroad. Mr. E.J. HARRISON (Wentworth) [5.15]. - I am glad to know that the Government intends to take a vote on this matter to-day. The Government has been particularly fair in dealing with the representations made from time to time on behalf of this industry. The consideration of the duties was postponed to enable additional facts to be presented, and a report has now been made which shows conclusively that, in reality, there were no new facts of any importance to be investigated. Certain honorable members endeavoured to strengthen the claims of the industry by saying that a deputation wished to place still further facts before the Minister. I have no doubt that the deputation has been heard, and, possibly, the case presented by it will have some influence on the judgment of. the committee. A number of peculiar arguments have been used to-day by honorable members opposite. Throughout the tariff discussions, it has been contended that members who support the Government take an unreasonable view of tariff matters in favouring the reduction of duties, and wish to destroy Australian industries by encouraging the use of goods manufactured in black-labour countries. Yet it now appears that the ridiculously high duties imposed by the Scullin Government have resulted in the employment of yellow labour in Australia. Mr.Forde- The Chinese, to whom reference has been made, have been engaged in the tobacco industry in this country for 30 years. Mr. E.J. HARRISON- Members on this side believe in the White Australia policy; but honorable members opposite ask for duties that will benefit yellow labour in this country. The position is Gilbertian. These Chinese are being exploited to the utmost in connexion with share-farming operations, particularly in the Tamworth district, and have had to pay absurdly high rentals for land that is said to be suitable for the cultivation of tobacco. " Mr.Gander. - If they were Japanese, the honorable member would stand up for them. Mr. E.J. HARRISON.- I still believe in the White Australia policy, and in the encouragement of Australian industries; but it seems to me, after weighing the facts impartially, that the action of the last Government, in encouraging extraordinarily high import duties on tobacco, caused an unhealthy boom in the value of tobacco lands, and gave encouragement to the production of leaf on unscientific linos and coloured labour. The conditions following this boom in tobacco lands approximate those resulting from the sugar-lands scandal in Queensland. Honorable members opposite are associated with' a party that excluded the kanakas from Queensland on the ground that they were taking the place of white men- Yet the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. A. Green) has declared to-day that he takes no notice of the Chinese who are now engaged in the tobacc'o industry in Australia. That the arguments of honorable members opposite are illogical is obvious. The report of the tobacco expert appointed by this Government shows that the unsold leaf was not of sufficiently good quality to justify its manufacture for use by Australian smokers, and the honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson) has told us that it was impossible for that officer to form a definite opinion on that matter. I refer honorable members to the report of the Australian Tobacco Investigation Committee, a semi-government body, appointed, I understand, in the first place, by the British-Australasian Tobacco Company, and eventually taken over by the Commonwealth Government. Referring to the results of- analyses of tobacco samples taken in all the States during the period from 1927-28 to 1929-30, the report of that committee showed that about 5 per cent, of the leaf examined was good cigarette leaf, 1$ per cent, fair cigarette, 15 per cent, good medium pipe, 22-J per cent, fair medium pipe, 17^ per cent, good heavy pipe, and 37-J per cent, poor, heavy, pipe tobacco. We are told by the Minister that the best tobacco grown in the Tamworth district was purchased, and that the residue, which consisted of about 90 per cent, of the total output, was unsuitable for manufacture. The honorable member for New England said that a chart compiled by the British-Australasian Tobacco Company was used by the expert, and insinuated that this company was not acting in the best interests of the growers; but I point out that this company, by its action, has endeavoured to improve the position of the Australian grower. Had it accepted low grade leaf indiscriminately, it . would have " destroyed the industry; but, by manufacturing only the best grades of leaf, it has encouraged the use of Australian tobacco of high quality. In the end, this will prove to be the best way to encourage an industry, which, in my opinion, has a bright future. It is a good revenue-producer, and the Government is preventing it from being ruined by. development on unsound lines. The Government's action will check the unhealthy boom in land values. When saturation point has been reached in the local production of tobacco leaf, those who have paid from £30 to £50 an acre for tobacco land will be sadder but wiser men. Only leaf of the best quality will be marketable, and those growers whose land enables them to produce only inferior leaf will be in the same position as those city manufacturers who have invested in businesses that are entirely uneconomic. I commend the Government for the action that it has taken in this matter. Mr.GEORGE LAWSON (Brisbane) [5.25]. - The matter before the committee is of great importance to Australia as a whole, and it affects one of the great industries of Queensland, which probably produces the best tobacco that is grown in Australia. I hope that the Government will take heed of the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan), and that a compromise will be reached, in order to allow the industry to be conducted on profitable lines. In my opinion, the tobacco-growers have not received sufficient consideration from this Government. Many of them have spent large sums of money in purchasing land suitable for tobacco culture. In Queensland, some thousands of men have invested their life's savings in acquiring tobacco properties, and, unless the protection afforded to them approximates that given by the Scullin Government, many of them will be thrown out of employment, and faced with financial ruin. The position in Queensland is not different from that in the other States. I am afraid that the Government does not fully realize the value of this industry to the Commonwealth. About 7,000 growers and their families are directly or indirectly engaged in the industry, and about 15,000 employees find work on the fields and in the tobacco factories. The value of the Australian crop in 1929-30 was £92,000, and in each of the two following years it was approximately £1,250,000. This indicates that the industry is deserving of all the protection that the present or any other government can give it. Had it not been for the duties imposed by the Scullin Administration, the big sums paid to the growers in 1930-31 and 1931-32 would have been sent overseas for the purchase of leaf grown in the United States of America, and elsewhere. The protection afforded by the Scullin Government resulted in the establishment of two new factories in Brisbane". These employ a large number of persons, and manufacture tobacco equal in quality to any produced in the Commonwealth. The honorable member for Kennedy quoted from some correspondence which he had received from an agent in New South Wales, in which it was stated that the Royal Agricultural Society of New South Wales had endeavoured to boycott tobacco manufactured solely from Queensland-grown leaf. I join with the honorable member in expressing resentment at the action of that society, which ought to do all it can to assist Australian primary production. I hops that the amendment moved by the honorable member for Kennedy will be accepted by the Minister, for, in that case, the industry will again be placed on a sound footing, and those engaged in it will be encouraged to continue their operations. I regret that the Minister has not seen his way clear to assure the committee that the" agreement entered into by his predecessor for the purchase of the Australian tobacco crop will be renewed this year. Because of that agreement, a considerable quantity of tobacco leaf was purchased from Australian growers, particularly those in Queensland, at reasonable rates last year. Should the agreement not be renewed this year, I fear that much of the Queensland crop will be left on the growers' hands; and if that happens, they will be ruined. If the Government cannot accept, the duties imposed by the Scullin Administration I 'trust that it will fix the. import duty at 4s. 6d. per lb. and the excise duty at 3s. per lb. Mr. HUNTER(Maranoa) [5.34].- - This discussion could have ended last night had the Minister been willing to tell the committee of the Government's intentions in regard to the excise duty* on tobacco. With that information before them, honorable members could either have accepted or rejected the proposal for a duty of 3s. per lb. on imported tobacco leaf. Those who urge the reduction of duties generally do so on the ground that it will mean a lowering of the price to the consumer; but in the case of tobacco that has not been the result. There is no difference between the price charged for imported tobacco to-day and that at which it was sold when the duty on imported leaf was 5s. 2d. per lh. Although the duty has been reduced by 2s. 2d. per lb., the price qf tobacco made from imported leaf is the same as formerly. The reduction of the duty has had a harmful effect on the smokers of Australian-grown tobacco, because it caused the excise duty to be increased from 2s. 4d. to 4s. 6d. per lb. The net result of the Government's ' action has been to increase the prices of tobacco made from locally-grown leaf. Had the margin between the prices charged for tobacco made from imported leaf and tobacco made from Australian-grown leaf varied according to the reduction of the import. duty ou tobacco, it could be said that the lower duties had done the grower and consumer no harm, but that margin has not been maintained, for the price of locally-produced tobacco is almost' equal to that of tobacco made from importedleaf. It is not permissible to raise the duty on imported tobacco, and, therefore, I urge a reduction of the excise duty on locally-grown tobacco in order that a cheaper product may be placed on the market. If local tobacco were cheaper, more of it would be consumed, and less of the imported, and in that way the Australian industry would be assisted. Over and over again it has been stated that the growers of tobacco seek only a bounty. They have not obtained the advantage of any bounty; those who have benefited are the smokers of locally-produced tobacco. Foreign tobacco leaf can be landed in Australia at 4s. per lb., including duty, exchange and primage. The local industry did not take advantage of the charges imposed on imported leaf. Tobacco is the only article produced in Australia under the protection of our tariff in connexion with which full advantage has not been taken of the protection afforded to it. The price of locallyproduced tobacco has always been considerably lower than the landed cost of imported tobacco. Any advantage received by the local industry has been passed on to the consumers of tobacco, with the result that there has been a greatly increased consumption of Australian-grown tobacco. That "Havelock" tobacco and other well-known brands of tobacco are no longer labelled " Pure Virginian" proves that in their manufacture Australian leaf is now employed. And since the manufacturers of those brands of tobacco have not reduced their prices, it is obvious that they are taking advantage of their position. No one contends that unsaleable tobacco leaf should be bought by the manufacturing companies. If an unsatisfactory product is left on the growers' hands, the manufacturing companies are not to blame. I ask only that an opportunity be given to the manufacturers of tobacco from Australian-grown leaf -to place on the market a cheap tobacco, in order that smokers may be led to acquire a taste for Australian brands of tobacco, and in that way develop this Australian industry. If the Government will announce its intention in regard to the excise duty on tobacco, a great deal of time will even yet be saved; otherwise, most of the arguments which have been advanced in connexion with the import duty on tobacco will be repeated when the excise duty comes before the committee. Mr. MARTENS(Herbert) [5.41].- Last evening the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson), speaking on behalf of the Country party, said that he would support the Government's proposals in connexion with the import duty on tobacco, leaf, because; of its promise in connexion with the excise duty on tobacco. I did not hear the Minister say that the excise duty on tobacco would be reduced. Nor have I any delusion on the subject. Mr. White.- I did not make any such promise. Mr. MARTENS.-I am under no misapprehension as to what would happen if this amendment were agreed to, for . I know that with the present Minister, as with many of his predecessors, the only question considered is that of revenue. In reply to a question by the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan), the honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett) said th.it living conditions had nothing to do with the price of imported tobacco leaf. That was a remarkable statement for a man of his intelligence to make, because it is generally known that living conditions govern all industry. The effect of the competition of cheap-labour products is to lower our living standards. The manufacturer who has to pay high prices for his requirements is. at a disadvantage when competing with the product of cheap labour overseas. The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. E. J. Harrison) charged, the Opposition with supporting an industry in which large numbers of Celestials are engaged. There are no Chinese engaged in. the growing of tobacco in Queensland. Mr. E.J. Harrison- I mentioned the Tamworth district. Mr. MARTENS.- The tobacco growers of Australia will not forget the honorable gentleman's remark. I remind the honorable member for Gippsland,, who said last night that the Country party would support the Government in connexion with the import duties on tobacco because of something which had been promised in connexion with the excise duty, that a promise given on another occasion to the honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson) was not honoured. So far as I am aware, the Minister has not given any promise to the committee in this instance. Mr. White.- Or to any one else. Mr. MARTENS.-The Minister said that the whole matter was being investigated. I take it that he wishes to ascertain how the revenue would be affected. No definite promise has been made by the Minister, and I have no doubt that whatever is done by the Country party in connexion with the import duty, any proposal for the reduction of the excise duty on tobacco will receive short shrift Atthe hands of the Minister. Mr. SCHOLFIELD(Wannon) [5.45].- This item has been thoroughly traversed, and it is high time that a vote was taken on it. The subject was also debated exhaustively when the duty was reduced from 5s. 2d. to 3s., and on that occasion a majority of honorable members favoured the reduction. Probably honorable members were influenced by the knowledge that the Australian tobacco industry was then receiving a foolishly' high protection - a fact that was admitted by at least one grower. When this Government assumed office, it was faced with an adverse financial position, and among other things it discovered that the amount of revenue raised from imposts on tobacco did not reach £6,500,000, as had been expected. Consequently, it reduced the duty on imported tobacco to 3s., on the assumption that that would bring about greater importation, which would yield the desired revenue of £6,500,000. The Government's anticipation was realized. It is generally admitted that tobacco is a legitimate object of taxation. Incidentally, the manufacturers paid the fixed average price of 2s. 3d. per lb. on something like 10,500,000 lb., instead of the 7,200,000 lb. which they originally undertook to purchase, and I suggest % that their heavier purchase account for the revenue exceeding the Government's estimate. Because of the reduced production of Australian tobacco this year, and the resultant diminution in excise collections, the revenue ' derived by the Government from the industry will be less than it was last year, and the Government would find itself in difficulties if it did not take steps to correct the position. I was sorry to hear the honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson) condemn the action of a responsible officer of the department: If the Government cannot depend upon its experts to supply unbiased reports, to whom is.it to turn ? Surely not to the statements of the honorable member for New England ! We should support the departmental officers, who are doing a great service to Australia, and are quite impartial. I firmly believe that, had the duties on tobacco not been reduced, the tobacco industry in Australia would have fallen into a chaotic condition. In a year it' increased its production from 2,000,000 lb. to approximately 13,500,000 lb. As our requirements of Australian tobacco are between 16,000,000 and 17,000,000 lb., it can easily be seen that, had the increase continued, our market would have been glutted with the local leaf, and as most of our industries appeal to the Government so soon as they find themselves in trouble, there is no doubt that the Government would have had to listen to a woeful story from the tobacco growers. I believe that the action of .the Government has been most beneficial to the industry, for it has eliminated | many who were producing from land which was quite unsuited for the purpose, together with others who rushed into the industry without any previous knowledge of it, grew an unsuitable variety of leaf, and marketed that leaf in anything but a proper manner. Since the protection sanctioned by the Parliament gave a stimulus to the industry, land for tobacco-growing has increased in price enormously. Some months ago I accompanied a grower on a journey through some Victorian tobacco country, and, as we passed an area of land that appeared to be of a heavy, clayey nature, I asked him what it would be worth, and was told, " Between £30 and £40 an acre." I also asked what the land had been used for previously, and my companion said, "For dairying." If people go out of dairying into tobacco-growing, it indicates that they know nothing about the latter industry. The action of the Government put a stop to that sort of thing. The honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) said that there is no land south of Mareeba suitable for the growing of tobacco. Mr. Martens.- I did not. I said that that statement . was made by Mr. Tregenna the New .South Wales tobacco expert. Mr. SCHOLFIELD.- I deny its truth, for there is quite a lot of land south of Mareeba that is suitable for tobacco growing, and, in saying that, I do not wish to boost the industry, for I realize the danger of allowing it to carry on quite uncontrolled, enjoying a high protection. I was pleased to hear the Minister's remarks regarding excise, and I shall await with interest his further statement on the subject next week. We must do everything possible to induce smokers to use local tobacco. Previously, we were discouraging its use by permitting the production and manufacture of tobacco that did not suit the palate of most smokers. Obviously, if each pipe smoker decreased his consumption of tobacco by 50 per cent., definite injury would be done to the Australian industry. The Government examined all of these matters, and its _ action has been of immense service to our growers. Mr.WHiTE (Balaclava- Minister for Trade and Customs) [5.55]. - I have received the deputation that was mentioned yesterday as being en route to Canberra, and I have listened caref ully to the debate, which has revealed nothing that is new, except a suggestion by certain honorable members that there should be a reduction of the excise duty on Australian tobacco. I said last night that that project would be carefully considered by the Government; but I made no promise that there would be any such reduction. Obviously, as the revenue of the country was involved, I could not do so offhand. Mr. E.J. Harrison. - So that the representations of that deputation did not affect the Government's attitude towards the item that is before the committee? Mr. WHITE.-No. The item has been postponed since the 28th March last, so that honorable members and others concerned have had ample time to bring forward any new proposals relating to it. It is apparent that, when submitting a case for the reduction of the excise duty on local leaf, honorable members must take into consideration importations over a number of years, if they desire to be fair to the industry. It is illogical to assume that because the importations of tobacco were high, say, last year, they will continue to be so in subsequent years. Those who support a reduction of excise also desire the displacement of imported leaf by the local article. Does it not follow that the greater the quantity of imported leaf that is displaced, the higher the excise duty on local leaf will have to be. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) pointed that out, but, unfortunately, he did not make himself very clear. The matter of excise must be left for separate consideration, when the excise schedule is introduced next week. I am glad that the honorable member for Forrest now agrees that a protection of 3s. per lb., amounting to approximately 300 per cent., in favour of the Australian industry is adequate. The only other matter which calls for comment is the reply of the honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson). I was glad that the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. Scholfield) took the honorable member to task for attacking the Government official who made an inquiry into the industry. That inquiry was held because complaint was made by the honorable member for NewEngland that tobacco-growers in his district were being victimized. As a matter of fact, the debate was adjourned la3t March principally to enable the inquiry to be made, and the official concerned submitted a quite impartial report, well written, and accurate in detail. Mr. Martens.- The report was made by an honest man. Mr. WHITE.-The honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) paid a high tribute to the official. The examination was not a cursory one, but covered the Tamworth, Manila, Gunnedah, Boggabri, Somerton, Scone, and Quirindi districts. Tn his report, Mr. Marks stated - I have endeavoured to give a true and unbiased view of the position, and where any doubt existed, I have given the grower the benefit of the doubt. How dare the honorable member for New England challenge an opinion of an expert given under such conditions, and claim that his words were inspired by the tobacco companies. Later, Mr. Marks writes - While on my tour, I inspected 05 per cent, of the growers with unsold leaf. If the honorable member for New England was eager that the inspection made by Mr. Marks should be facilitated, why did he not make the task of that official easier? Mr. Marks says that though he interviewed 95 per cent, of the growers who had unsold leaf, he did not receive much co-operation. That officer had no axe to grind, and he viewed the matter impartially. I contend that, having declared that all of the unpurchased tobacco in those districts was usable, the honorable member for New England was in a desperate position when this report was submitted showing that his contentions were groundless. The honorable member should have been a good loser and admitted that he was wrong. Mr. Thompson.- I have not yet lost, as the honorable gentleman will discover. Mr. WHITE.-In the districts I have mentioned 10,371 bales of tobacco were offered for sale, and the manufacturers purchased 5,565 bales, 4,826 being rejected. As I said last night, with no disparagement to the industrious Chinese, 52.28 per cent, of the rejected crop was produced by Chinese labour, the Chinese either growing for themselves, or on a 3hare-farming basis with Europeans. "The majority of these growers had been out of the industry for years, but were attracted back to it because of the glowing reports made by persons such as the honorable member for New England. They persisted in growing tobacco of the old dark type, although, for a number of years, they have been advised that that class of leaf is entirely unsuitable for manufacturing requirements. In support of my statement that large quantities of last season's leaf had to he rejected, I quote the following specific cases from the Tamworth district, which I have taken at' random from a list covering all districts: - England (Mr. Thompson) may inspect the complete list, if he desires to do so. The lesson that the list teaches is that if the growers produce the right kind of leaf they can sell it. It is of no use the honorable member for New England saying that his district has been victimized because of the wonderful fight that he i3 making for the tobacco-growers. As a matter of fact, it appears as though the honorable member is a danger to the growers. The report of the senior agronomist is unbiased and impartial, and his opinion should be sufficiently reliable for us to accept it. I have already made the statement that for this season the biggest tobacco company will buy all the yellow leaf that is available, and also the quantity of mahogany and dark leaf that it usually buys. Mr. GIBSON- At what price? Mr. WHITE.- The company has not announced the price, and we cannot get it to do so. At first it would make no arrangement at all for this year. It was only after a great deal of time had been spent in negotiations that the conditions that I have referred to were agreed upon. Mr. Hill.- That statement is enough to justify us in voting for higher duties. Mr. WHITE.-The honorable member for Echuca (Mr. Hill) is one of those who are constantly objecting to duties on secondary products, but, like the honorable member for Forrest, who is an agricultural1 protectionist advocate of the highest possible duties on primary products. I ask the honorable member to realize that the tobacco industry is already being protected to the extent of about 300 per cent. against tobacco produced by white labour in Canada. I appeal to honorable members to consider this duty apart from the excise duty. The excise duties will be considered next week, when the excise schedule is before the committee. The import duty which the Government is proposing is adequate. It will enable the growers to sell this year all their high-class leaf, which is usually about 30 per cent. of the crop. Mr. Forde.-What about the mahogany leaf? Mr.WHITE. - The proportion of that quality that is used annually will be bought this year.We must remember that last year one company bought two years' supply for maturation purposes. It, therefore, will not be able to buy so much this year. Unfortunately, in consequence of frosts and pests, the crop will be smaller this year. If honorable members will consider the facts, they will realize that the Government is protecting the revenue and also the producers of good-quality tobacco leaf. Its policy, therefore, will be in the best interests of both the growers and the consumers. Question - That the item be further postponed (Mr. Riordan's amendment) -put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Bell.) Ayes . . . ... 19 Noes . . . . . . 43 Majority . . . . 24 Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Item agreed to. Sitting suspended from 6.12 to 8 p.m. Group6. Amendments: made by the present Government which are supported by Tariff Board reports. Division 8. - Earthenware, Cement, China, Glass and Stone. Item 242, postponed sub-items (b) (c) 242. Glass, viz.: - (b) Sheet, viz.: - Plain Clear, per 100 square feet, British, 2s.; general, 4s.; and in respect to sub-item (b) a deferred duty as follows: on and after 1st June, 1933 - (b) Sheet, viz.: - Plain Clear, ad val., British, 40 per cent.; general,60 per cent. Upon which Mr. Gregory had moved - That sub-item (b) be amended by omitting " 1933 " with a view to insert in lieu thereof " 1934 ". Mr. NAIRN(Perth) [8.0].- The proposals before the committee are for duties of 2s. British and 4s. general on sheet glass, and deferred duties on and after the 1st June, 1933, of 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. respectively. I support these proposals, subject to any recommendation the Tariff Board may make after further investigation. The project for the manufacture of sheet glass in Australia was first launched in 1925. The duties at that time were 2s. and 4s., with deferred duties of 45 per cent, and 60 per cent., to become operative when the industry was sufficiently established to he able to supply a reasonable share of local requirements. Encouraged by this protection, the Australian Window Glass Proprietary Limited commenced the manufacture of sheet glass, and claims to have invested £300,000 in the enterprise. The ad valorem duties were further deferred from time to time, and were due for revision again in August of 1930. But in June of that year the Scullin Government, which had recently assumed office, put the deferred duties into operation without consulting the Tariff Board. The immediate result was an increase in the price of this glass. The Australian company was not able to produce a single sheet of glass for sale. Large stocks had been accumulated by importers, and upon these enormous profits were made. Mr. Watkins.- By the importers? Mr. NAIRN.- Yes ; but they included the Australian Window Glass Proprietary Limited. With almost uncanny prescience of the Government's intentions, the importers had accumulated enormous stocks of glass just prior to the deferred duties becoming operative, and they were able to charge whatever prices they chose. The cost to the public was enormous. The Tariff Board had calculated, apparently for a normal building year, that the added cost of the deferred duties would be about £150,000. That affords some idea of the magnificent bonus that was presented to those who had imported glass in anticipation of the operation of the deferred duties. The Australian company was quite unable to supply the market, hut for about two years it succeeded in stalling off the public by means which may be' fairly described as tricky and discreditable. In proof of that statement, I quote some of the examples given in evidence before the Tariff Board. An Adelaide firm placed an order with the Australian Window Glass Proprietary Limited in July, 1931. The manufacturers temporized in various ways, and did not deliver the goods until May, 1932. The quality of the glass when delivered was inferior, and unsuitable for the market. A later consignment received by the same firm was described as 'being of not better quality than the first. Another firm produced its correspondence to the board to show that for ten months it had been fooled by prevaricating statements issued by the manufacturer. A third witness gave evidence that delivery of its order had been delayed for nine months, at the end of which he accepted other goods in substitution for those he had ordered. For two years the public suffered great inconvenience and heavy cost. When the present Government came into office the matter was again referred to the Tariff Board, which, in a report dated August, 1932, declared that the local manufacturer was not in a position to supply commercially, nor was it clear when production on a commercial scale could be expected. The company protested, as it is protesting to-day, that the board's report was out of date, that since the inquiry had been held, the conditions had altered, and that if effect were given to the board's recommendations, manufacture would have to be discontinued, and many workers would be thrown out of employment. As a result of these representations the' Government imposed an embargo on imports and instituted a system of rationing pending a further investigation by the board. That inquiry was held at the end of November, 1932, and related to the quality, quantity and price of the Australian product. In regard to quality, there was a conflict of evidence. The company produced some customers and two architects who stated that the Australian product had improved and was substantially satisfactory. On the other hand, there was overwhelming testimony condemnatory of the product of the Australian company. Several customers from the country gave evidence of the shabby treatment to which they had been subjected by the company for many months, and Mr. L. E. Irwin, president of the Royal Victorian Institute of Architects, said that about 90 per cent, of the Australian product was unsatisfactory for building purposes, whereas the average rejection of Belgian glass was only about 10 per cent., whilst its f.o.b. cost was only one-third of the price charged for the local product. In its report, dated January of this year, the board found that there had been some improvement in the output of the Australian company, but that the proportion of defective glass was still unduly large. As to quality, the board concluded - Although there has been an improvement in the average quality, there have been considerable fluctuations and variations of the quality marketed, o The average quality of the glass produced up to the temporary closing down of the factory is far below the quality of glass imported into Australia in recent years, and is not such as to fill the demands of the building trade. As to the ability of the local factory to supply orders, the board came to the conclusion - . . that the Australian Window Glass Proprietary Limited has failed to meet the requirements of the building trade in the supply of suitable plain sheet, glass. In regard to cost, the board made a comparison between the Australian charges and the f.o.b. prices in Belgium and the United Kingdom. These show that for 16-oz. glass the f.o.b. price of Belgian thirds is 8s. 7d. per 100 square feet, and for British fourths, 12s. 1½d. whereas the price of Australian glass, which is inferior to the other two, is 27s. The board added - At present, in spite of the added cost of importing due to exchange and primage, 10-oz. glass, first bracket, can be landed into store from the United Kingdom at 23s. 10id. per 100 square feet, including 3s. duty and 2{5J per cent, exchange, and from Belgium at 21s. 7d. per 100 square feet, including 4s. duty and approximately 75 per cent, exchange. The board came to the conclusion that the Australian industry is not economic. The company is now claiming duties which would amount to prohibition. It has stated frankly that it will be unable to conduct its business satisfactorily unless it is given a complete monopoly of the Australian market. The board is of opinion that the granting of a monopoly is not justified, and could be made only at the cost of the public, and that, if the industry cannot carry on with the protection recommended, it should not be further encouraged. The history of glass-making in Australia is one of inefficiency from the commencement. There is a big market in Australia for sheet glass, and the company has had the most liberal protection; throughout the greater part of the period of its operation there has been control of imports by the Minister for Trade and Customs. Had the local company been in a position at any time to supply the local market, it would., under the conditions operating, have had the whole market to itself ; but, notwithstanding the fact that it has been in existence since 1925, it has failed to supply the requirements of the Australian trade. I understand that deputations and counter deputations have waited upon the Minister, and that the plea that was put up two years ago is now being put up - that the conditions have altered since the time of the Tariff Board's inquiry, and that the company is now in a position to supply the local market. If the request of the company were acceded to, and it obtained a monopoly of the market of Australia, it is certain that, as a result, the people of Australia who are obliged to use glass would pay for it three times the price charged to the people of European manufacturing companies for similar glass. It is not fair to ask the people to pay such a considerable subsidy to any local industry. If the board's recommendation is accepted, the rates of duty will be 40 per cent. British, and 60 per cent, foreign, which, having regard to primage and exchange, ' is equivalent to 80 per cent* British and 100 per cent, foreign, plus freight and insurance. If the Australian industry is not able to carry on successfully under those conditions, it is not worth protecting. I support the proposals as set out in the schedule. Mr. WHITE(Balaclava- Minister for Trade and Customs) [8.18].- This item of sheet glass is undoubtedly one of the most difficult in the whole tariff schedule. It is a legacy from the past, when we imagined that we could have a self sufficient, walled-in, domestic market, and that we could establish industries no matter how uneconomic they were, because we thought that the days of prosperity would always continue. The United States of America is the world's object Wesson in showing that a nation cannot be self-contained. With its enormous export trade, its immense resources, its wealth and investments, it thought that it had a monopoly of prosperity; but' that proved to be a fallacy. However much we may have supported high duties in the past, we are all beginning to realizenow that the flow of imports and exports must continue, and that customs duties must be only sufficient to enable a country's industries to exist protected from unfair competition from other countries. If a nation does not accept that view, and still persists in a policy of self -containment and economic nationalization, it invites retaliation. Australia has already had a taste of that; so has the United States of America. It has become more and more unpopular in the markets of the world, and is now paying for its folly. It has been proved that, no matter how high a tariff wall may be, it can be undermined and brought down by currency debasement, by one nation depreciating its currency so that its goods can enter a well-protected domestic market in another country. In connexion with the sheet glass industry, deferred duties were imposed some years ago, and their history is this: Under the 1921-30 tariff duties of 2s. per 100 square feet British and 4s. general were payable on plain clear sheet glass. Provision for deferred duties of l1/2d. per lb. or 45 per cent. ad valorem, British, and 2d. per lb. or 60 per cent. ad valorem, general was incorporated in the tariff on the 2nd September, 1925, as the result of an application by the Australian Glass Manufacturers Company for protective duties, and the deferred rates were scheduled to operate on and from the 1st July, 1926. Their operation was postponed from time to time on the recommendation of the Tariff Board. The last postponement was until the 1st August, 1930, but the company advised the Customs Department in March of that year that its works would be ready for production in August, and requested that the deferred duties be brought into operation on the 1st April, 1930, so that stocks of imported glass would not accumulate to the extent of closing the market for the Australian product when it was released. The previous Government had tabled a schedule in June, 1930, which provided for duties equivalent to the deferred duties, although the works were not then ready for production. It was not until November, 1931, that the company first announced to the trade its intention to commence production. On this announcement, orders were placed with local manufacturers by merchants and users throughout Australia, but the company was incapable of satisfying those orders. That cannot be denied. Last year I quoted a letter which the local company addressed to a firm asking it to cancel an order because it was not in a position to fulfil it. Had it not been for the fact that the building trade was experiencing a lean time, the increased duties on glass would have seriously affected employment in that calling. The Tariff Board has, within the past few months, furnished two reports relating to the duties on plain clear sheet glass - one on the 19th August, 1932, and the other on the 26th January, 1933. It was on the first report that the present Government took action in September last to reduce the duties to the 1921-30tariff level. The principal reasons behind the board's recommendation of August, 1932, were - (a) The local manufacturer was not in a position to produce commercially, nor was it clear when production on a commercial basis could be expected. (b) The rates of duty were so high that they would seriously add to the cost in Australia of an important commodity without commensurate advantages to Australia. The board stated that the high duties then obtaining would have meant an added cost to the community of over £150,000 per annum if the whole of the requirements were imported, and at that date glass had not been successfully manufactured in Australia. In view of the claims of local manufacturers that the position regarding local production had greatly improved since June - when the board held its first inquiries - the question was again referred to it on the 23rd September, 1932. The board was asked the following questions: - 1. The capacity of the applicant company to supply the Australian market with suitable glass in sufficient quantities ata reasonable price. 2. The rates of duty necessary for the protection of the industry, providing the industry is efficiently organized. Concurrent with the reference of the question to the Tariff Board a proclamation was issued prohibiting the importation of plain clear sheet glass except with the consent of the Minister. I may mention that delivery has been allowed of all the glass on order at the time the prohibition was proclaimed. The deliveries aggregated some 4,000,000 square feet, and they were kept in bond while the prohibition operated. Mr. FoRDE- When was the prohibition, with rationing, first applied? Mr. WHITE.- It was first applied by the honorable member, when Minister, at the time the high duties were imposed, was continued, and is still in operation. The Tariff Board held its second inquiry in November, 1932, and furnished its report on the 26th January, 1933. In the opinion of the board the justification for protective duties depends upon the ability of the local manufacturer to supply the needs of the Australian market, and the board was of the opinion that these three aspects must be considered - quality, supply and price. I am sure that honorable members will agree that the consideration of these factors is essenti.il in determining whether any industry warrants protection. The board concluded that although there has been an improvement iti the average quality of glass produced, there have been considerable fluctuations and variations of the quality marketed. It was also remarked by tie board that the average quality of the glass produced up to the temporary closing down of the factory was far below the quality of glass imported into Australia in recent years, and. was not such as to fill the demands of the building trade. After examining the volume of evidence submitted at the inquiry, the board considered that the local manufacturer had failed to meet the requirements of the building trade in the supply of suitable plain clear sheet glass. The board pointed out that the local manufacturers'' selling prices of the four brackets commonly ordered in 16-oz. and 21-oz. weights exceeded the landed costs of imported glass, excluding duty, but including exchange, by - British (16-oz.), 4s. 6d. per case of 100 sq. ft; (21-oz.) 7s. 6d. per case of 100 sq. ft.; and Belgian (16-oz.), 9s. per cass of 100 sq. ft.; (21-oz.) 13s. 6d. per case of 100 sq. ft. With regard to the local company's contention that, by doing the bulk of distributing itself, the cost to the public would be lowered, and that the high rates imposed by the Scullin Government would not affect the prices to the user, the board stated that, taking all factors into consideration, it was convinced that distributing costs would be increased, rather than decreased, by adding seriously to the first cost, of glass to the distributing trade. The board concluded that the current sailing-prices of Australian plain clear sheet glass would mean increased costs to users. Taking into consideration the nature of the industry, the limited Australian market, the difficulty of disposing of the large proportion of lower-grade glass, and the costs of production, as supplied by the company, the board conclude.? that satisfactory glass can be produced in Australia only at a cost that will detrimentally affect the building industry, and will thus tend to decrease employment. I think that it is admitted by the company itself that a great deal of its product is not of high quality and that much of it is so inferior that it has to go back into the furnaces. Mr. Riley.- Not a higher percentage than in oversea factories. Mr. WHITE-The oversea factories have a sale for inferior grades of glass. They can be disposed of in South America or in the East, whereas in Australia a fairly high grade is required by the building trade. In short, the board is of opinion that the industry is an uneconomic one, which can be supported only at a cost too groat to a dependent industry, such as the building trade. Mr. Hutchin.- Why protect it at all? Mr. WHITE.- This is a legacy of the past.. The company started operations because of the deferred duties. It has been in existence for several years and employs something like 240 men. Every aspect of the position must be considered. The questions asked of the board by the Minister, and the replies furnished by it, are briefly as follow : - Question 1. - The capacity of the applicant company to supply the Australian market with suitable glass in sufficient quantities at a reasonable price. Reply. - The company has failed to satisfy the board of its present capabilities on all three points, namely, quality, quantity, and price. QUESTION 2. - The rates of duty necessary for the protection of the industry, providing the industry is efficiently organized. REPLY - The reply to question 1 clearly shows that the board is of opinion that the local industry is not efficiently organized at present. If the company can bridge the gap between present production costs and selling prices, the following rates would be necessary to secure the market to Australian manufacturers, based on their promised selling prices: - 100 per cent. British, 175 per cent, general. If these duties were granted, most of the protection would have to be used in fixing the price of Australian glass, and the board was not prepared to recommend such high rates. The board recommends the present rates of 2s. per 100 sq. ft. British, and 4s. general, with provision for deferred duties of 45 per cent. British, and 75 per cent, general, such deferred duties to be either operated or terminated at the end of twelve months, according to whether it can or cannot be proved that such duties would be effective. 'The deferred rates now recommended are higher by 5 per cent. British, and 15 per cent, general, than those at present included in the schedule. If the deferred duty were applied, the ad valorem rate would be higher than previously. The board is of the opinion that, for the twelve months during which the deferred duty is held in suspense, importations should continue to be rationed under cover of the prohibition that now operates. Honorable members are aware that last year, when a large quantity of glass arrived in Australia, it was held in bond, and permits for its withdrawal were issued from time to time. The imports of glass into Australia within recent years have been as follow: - 1028-20.-10,000,000 sq. ft., valued at f 81, 000, of which the United Kingdom supplied 1,600,000 sq. ft., and Belgium 7.800,000 sq. ft. 1920-30.-19,000,000 sq. ft., valued at £152,000. 1930- 31.-1,949,000 lb., valued at £13.000. 1931- 32.-703,000 lb., valued at £4,000. 1932- 33. - 5,000,000 lb., which includes what was held in bond (8 months). The glass held in bond had to be sold, because bond charges were mounting up, and the local company was unable to supply the orders that it received. Mr. Forde.- What is the Minister's estimate of Australia's annual requirements ? Mr. WHITE.- The board estimates that the present annual consumption in Australia is 5,000,000 sq. ft. ; and it considers that three-fourths of that quantity should be permitted to be imported. The Government is prepared to accept the board's report if the facts are as stated by it. Since the board furnished its report in January last, however; the local manufacturers have represented that the position has changed considerably since the board took evidence and prepared its report. It is alleged that 240 persons may lose their employment if the recommendations of the board a£a adopted. The Government would be very sorry to see any person thrown out of work by reason of the operation of the tariff. Its tariff policy is calculated to assist both primary and secondary industries. The diminution of unemployment throughout Australia has shown that that policy is working satisfactorily. The Ottawa agreement also has been shown to be working successfully, making for greater economic 'unity, with resultant Empire prosperity, in which Australia is sharing. The Government does not always give credence to the threat that hundreds of men will be thrown out of work. It has heard those stories before, and knows that some vested interests will use the working lives of their employees more or less as industrial cannon fodder. The threat is held over the Government that if fiscally it takes this or that action, a number of men will lose their employment. It does not accept such statements without serious inquiry. In a certain notable instance, it was found that that was done merely for political purposes; the industry had not suffered in any way by reason of the operation of the tariff. Mr. Riley.- To what industry does the Minister refer? Mr. WHITE.-The honorable gentleman is well aware of the industry that I have in mind. The CHAIRMAN. - Any reference to an industry that does not come under the item that is now before the Chair, would not be in order. Mr. WHITE.-I merely mention that such threats have been made in the past. The manufacturers' conclusions in regard to quantity and quality have been seriously challenged. On the question of price, the company claims that, since manufacture commenced in Australia, the prices to the user, as distinct from the distributor, have been very considerably reduced. On the other hand, the importers, who also have been heard by way of deputation, contend that the board's recommendation for the continuation of the prohibition, and the rationing thereunder, is illogical, and is against the weight of the evidence and the conclusions to which the board has come. They point out - rightly, I think - that frequent changes have disorganized business to a very marked extent. It is but fair to say that the importers are prepared to accept the recommendation of the board, with the rationing suggested, although they question the feasibility of equitable rationing. The Government is not prepared to accept ex parte statements from either side. It is willing to afford an opportunity to those who make statements to establish their accuracy. There is now in Australia a sufficient quantity of glass to supply the requirements for at least a year, at the present rate of consumption. I have already pointed out. that some 4,000,000 square feet were cleared from bond at the beginning of the year. The local company claims to have 800,000 square feet of building glass in. stock. Therefore, on the Tariff Board's estimate that 5,000,000 square feet is sufficient to meet the Australian consumption, there should be ample stocks for this year. There are practical difficulties associated with the rationing of imports of glass, as distinct from the rationing of glass in bond. When a portion of that which is in. bond is allowed to be withdrawn at different times, the buyers know what they are getting; but when orders have to be placed overseas, different considerations arise. The board reports that the Government would have to decide as between importers what, quantity of glass should be allotted to each importer in the various sizes, weights, and qualities. It also says that the possibility of the substitution of sizes and weights would present further difficulties, and that the rationing of imports in ratio to the orders placed in any one of the last three years would be impracticable, as artificial conditions existed. The Government has, therefore, decided - 1. To adopt the Tariff Board's recommendations that the existing duties of 2s. per 100 square feet British and 4s. per 100 square feet general be maintained, and that provision be made for deferred duties of 45 per cent, ad valorem British and 75 per cent, ad valorem general. 2. To refer the matter back to the board for further consideration. 3. To retain the prohibition of the importation of plain clear sheet glass pending the receipt and consideration of the further report. 4. If necessity arises, owing to shortage of supplies, to permit the importation of any quantity shown to be necessary. I reiterate what I said at the outset - that this is undoubtedly one of the most difficult items in the tariff schedule. The industry has grown up in Australia, and a good deal of capital has been invested in it. I understand that figured, rolled and wired glass, as well as plain sheet glass, is being made. The Government is not desirous of crushing the industry for the sake of avoiding a further inquiry, which should not take long. It is only a matter of the Tariff Board investigating the latest statement that there has been a considerable increase in efficiency and in the quantity and quality of the article produced by the local company. The board will also examine the statement of the importers that the difficulties in connexion with rationing are great. The object of the Government is that the consumer may be enabled to obtain glass at a reasonable price, and that both the importers and the manufacturers shall be able to sell their wares. I intend to move an amendment to give effect to the recommendation of the board in regard to duties. The CHAIRMAN.- An amendment by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) is already before the Chair. Mr. Gregory.- With the permission of the committee, I withdraw the amendment. Amendment - by leave - withdrawn. Amendment (by Mr. White) proposed - That sub-item (b) be amended by adding the following : - " And on and after 19th May, 1933 - (b) Sheet, viz.: - Plain clear - per 100 square feet, British, 2s. : general, 4s., and in respect to sub-item (b) a deferred duty as follows: - On and after 1st February, 1934 - (b) Sheet, viz.: - Plain clear - ad val., British, 45 per cent.; general, 75 per cent." Mr. RILEY(Cook) [8.44] . - I am pleased that the Minister and the Government have come to a decision that will enable this industry at least to continue its operations during the difficult and pioneering stage. I confess, however, that I am disappointed at the failure of the Government to give effect to the decision of Parliament in 1925 and 1926, which was fortified by a recommendation of the Tariff Board made in 1925. I was privileged to be a member of this Parliament in 1925, and I have a vivid recollection of the debate that took place following the introduction of the Pratten tariff in that year. I especially recall that, apart from the opposition by several honorable members representing Tasmania and Western Australia to the duties on glass, there was littledisapproval of the proposed deferred duties. Honorable members who were in this Parliament at that time will remember that the recommendation of the Tariff Board was adopted by the then Minister for Trade and Customs (the late Mr. Pratten), and was supported by several who are still in this Parliament, and who, I submit, are in honour bound now to endorse the recommendations of the board on that occasion and the decision of that Parliament. It should not be necessary for me, as the representative of the electorate in which this important Australian industry is located, to appeal to this Parliament to support it; because the encouragement given to the industry in 1925 was directly responsible for its establishment. My immediate purpose is to endeavour to persuade those honorable members who were in this Parliament in 1925 and voted for the Pratten duties, to realize their responsibilities. A year or two ago, when the then Premier of New South Wales (Mr. Lang) announced his intention to take a certain course, there was an outcry in this Parliament, and a good deal was said about the evil effects of repudiation. I can imagine no action that would be more detrimental to the interests of this nation, no action that could more appropriately be described repudiation, than the present proposal of the Tariff Board and this Government to deny to the Australian sheet glass industry the protection given to it eight years ago on the recommendation of the Tariff Board as then constituted. As one who followed the debates very closely on that occasion, I declare emphatically that the industry is in existence solely as the result of the deliberate encouragement given by the then Minister for Trade and Customs and the Parliament of that time. I propose to place on record some the statements of the late Mr. Pratten who, I may add, was a Nationalist Minister in a Nationalist and Country party Government. Speaking in the House of Representatives on the 2nd September, 1925, Mr. Pratten said - I shall endeavour to set before the House the position in the same way as I would if I were a director responsible to my fellow directors and the shareholders of a business. After all, we are the directors of the national interests, and every individual in the Commonwealth is a shareholder, and is interested in and affected by the business of the country . Therefore, as the Minister responsible for the duty of laying upon the table of the House the tariff proposals of the Government, 1 propose to set out the principles which have guided us in arriving at the decisions made. The purposes for which the tariff schedule is created are not always thoroughly appreciated. It is generally thought that it has only two purposes, namely, the protection of primary and secondary industries and the raisins of revenue. There is, however, a further important purpose, for in addition to protecting industries and raising revenue, the tariff is the instrument under which agreements are made with oversea countries, in order to provide markets for our products. I have pleasure in reading that extract, because I am aware that during this debate some members of the Country party may remind us of the possible consequences to certain primary industries if we exclude Belgian glass. The late Mr. Pratten on that occasion told the committee that a tariff was intended, not only for thu protection of primary and secondary industries and the raising of revenue, but also as an instrument for the making of trade treaties between two or more countries. He went on to say - One of. the new industries which it is expected will be brought into operation because of the assistance provided in the motion- That, surely, was an admission that this protection was being given to encourage this particular industry - is that of the manufacture of sheet glass. This valuable industry is under consideration by a strong combination of local interests, and it is expected that, as a result of favorable parliamentary consideration, a further enterprise of considerable importance will be established. I repeat that, as the direct result of the tariff protection then given, this industry Was established and, I may add, it is now in a position to supply sheet glass equal to the output of any other country. The late Mr. Pratten added- I believe that £1 worth of value added to raw materials by the secondary producers is equivalent in economic wealth to the Commonwealth to £1 worth of production in any other direction, and that the surest way to keep secondary industries inefficient is to protect them inadequately. I contend that the proposals now before the committee will, if adopted, seriously injure this efficient Australian industry. Apart from the fact that I was "a member of this chamber when the deferred duties were adopted, as I represent the electorate in which the factory is located, and am, therefore, in close touch with those who are responsible for its development, I realize that it is my personal responsibility to do all in my power to see that the industry is properly safeguarded. I have in my hands a petition, presented by the 240 odd employees, not many of whom are known personally to me, who contend that if adequate protection is withdrawn their future employment will be endangered. Many of the employees, unfortunately, were on the dole before this avenue of employment was opened up to them, and I should be exceedingly sorry if, through any action of this Parliament, they were again thrown out of work. The industry, besides giving employment to a large number of adults, also provides work for scores of lads who, although fitted for other and, possibly, more remunerative employment, are very glad of the chance to work in this factory. At the present time we have over 60 employees engaged in the cutting of sheet glass which previously was imported. Mr. ArchdaleParkhill. - Who are "we "? Mr. RILEY.- I am addressing myself to this important question with all the sincerity at my command, and I remind the Postmaster-General (Mr. Parkhill) that I am speaking, not as a shareholder in this concern, but as one who is vitally interested in the development of all Australian industries. The Postmaster-General may laugh and snigger if that gives him any comfort ; but if he has anything to say against this particular industry, I invite him to say it at the earliest opportunity. Possibly the Minister adopts his present attitude because a few growers in his electorate may use horticultural glass for the growing of tomatoes, and consider that their interests are not so well served by the Australian glass company as they would be if they had a free hand to import the glass they require. If the Postmaster-General imagines that the tomato-growers are opposed to the local sheet-glass industry he is hopelessly out-of-date in his information ; the growers are completely satisfied as to price and quality. I prefer to discuss this item on purely national and economic grounds. Up to the present I have made no mention of the 3,000 shareholders who have invested their money in this concern. The adoption of the Tariff Board's recommendation will be tantamount to the repudiation of a deliberate act of this Parliament in 1925-26. In considering the future of this industry, we should pay regard to its probable effect on our various services. Its expansion will, I suggest, benefit our interstate steamship services, which will obtain revenue from the transport of Australian-made glass. If the industry were not in existence, the transport of imported glass to Australian ports would be carried out by overseas vessels. From the national point of view, is it not desirable to have an efficient interstate shipping service, giving employment to Australian seamen, profitably engaged in the carriage of Australian goods between Australian seaports, instead of having foreign goods conveyed in foreign vessels? Despite outside propaganda, the opposition to the - development of the sheet-glass industry in Australia is disappearing. It is now confined practically to overseas manufacturers and importers, who always have been opposed to adequate protection being given to this promising Australian industry. When the deferred duties were under consideration a few years ago, the opposition came principally from men who were interested in the distribution of glass. Objection from that quarter has practically vanished. Distributors are now quite satisfied that the local manufacturers can supply glass in quantity and quality equal, if not superior, to the imported article. It is not my intention to trespass unduly on the time of the committee in the discussion of this item, but I should like to read one or two of the sheaves of letters which I have received from users of Australian glass, all of whom express their entire satisfaction with it. It has been declared on oath before the Tariff Board that the principal opposition to this Australian industry comes from Belgian and British manufacturers, who are acting in concert to prevent its development. I propose to read a few of the letters that have been received from users of glass in the various States of the Commonwealth, and if any honorable member cares to challenge their accuracy, the letters will be produced for their perusal. Here is a letter from a firm in South Melbourne - As merchants distributing plain sheet glass, we regret the Federal Government's action in making reductions in the tariff on window glass, and sincerely trust that necessary action will be taken to ensure continuance of your activities, as wo are satisfied with your quality mid prices, and fully appreciate your efforts I'd serve us from time to time. The fact that your company is manufacturing locally obviates the holding of large Stocks, and helps trade generally, inasmuch as all sizes arc readily procurable. Another firm in Hawthorn, Melbourne, writes as follows: - We desire to record voluntarily our criticism on the article your company is producing. For the past six months we have been drawing supplies from your works, Alexandria, New South Wales. During that time we have found a steady improvement in the quality of glass we have been receiving, both as regards surface, thickness and cutting qualities, the latter being much superior to the foreign articles and similar to British. From the point of view of profit wo are unconcerned where webuy, hut for sentimental reasons we prefer to do our business with Australian manufacturers, and from our personal experience you have made a determined and progressively successful attempt to meet the requirements of this market. We trust means will be found to enable you to continue the manufacture of window glass in this country, and thereby assist in fostering the well-being and best interests of its people. A third letter states - We, the undersigned retailers of plain sheet glass, regret the Federal Government's action in making drastic reductions in the tariff on window glass, making it necessary for yon to close your works. We sincerely trust that necessary action will be taken to ensure continuance of your, activities; as. not only are we satisfied with your quality and prices, but we fully appreciate the service your "company has given us from time to time. Still another letter is in these terms - Your products, in our estimation, compare most favorably with similar imported glass. You can rest assured of our continued orders, provided the present standard of quality is maintained. In another letter, the following occurs : - In response to your request, we have pleasure in stating that the J-inch drawn sheet supplied by you is suitable for our requirements, and compares favorably with what we have received from overseas. Reshipment of quarter drawn plate glass wu received from you some days ago, we find, on inspection, that it is a very fair sample of glass, and compares favorably with supplies we have previously purchased from oversea suppliers. The cut is about the same, while the general appearance is satisfactory, and we are prepared to place further orders for this glass with you. I have a letter from a Brisbane firm which writes in these terms - We have been very satisfied with the service given by your company, both as regards quality and expeditious delivery of any orders for glass entrusted to your care. We have found the price right, and the fact of being able to obtain local supplies is a distinct advantage over having to import the manufactured article. Another Brisbane firm writes - The glass itself is good, and it would appear that your manufacturing problems have largely been solved, a fact upon which I congratulate you. The following testimonial also comes from Brisbane : - Ref erring to our conversation of yesterday, we wish to confirm the fact that we are very pleased with the quality of the glass supplied to us by your company, and much appreciate the promptness of the recent deliveries. Here is still another letter expressing satisfaction with the quality of Australian glass. It states - Following on our conversation to-day, we have pleasure in advising that the service of your company in the supply of figured rolled, and16 and 21-oz sheet glass has been quite satisfactory of late. Naturally, at the outset of supplies from the Australian works, certain little hitches did occur, but you were always quite willing to do your best for us, and your general service has proved all that could reasonably be expected from you. We trust that as time goes on the happy feelings that have existed between your company and ours in the past may be continued and developed. Mr. Thorby.- What date does that letter bear? Mr. RILEY.-The 27th April, 1933. Mr. Prowse. - Do all the letters bear the same date? Mr. RILEY.- No, and I resent the implication in the honorable member's question. Mr. Prowse.- Most of the letters the honorable member has read suggest that they have been written in response to requests. Mr. RILEY.- I cannot say whether that is so or not, but I know that the letters have been forwarded by responsible persons associated with joinery firms, and businesses engaged in the distribution of glass. Another letter states - In reply to your inquiry we have pleasure in advising that all our orders for both figured rolled and plain sheet glass have received prompt execution, and all glass supplied has proved very satisfactory, and up to all our expectations. A Brisbane firm, writing under date 14th September, 1932, states - Stocks of sheet glass I examined were of satisfactory quality, and show an improvement on what was available even as late as several weeks ago. While it is not to be expected that, in the short time that has elapsed since operations on sheet glass were commenced, an article quite equal to the imported could be made, it is reasonably certain that any defects at present in existence will be removed before long. Mr. Maxwell.- Have any of those correspondents given evidence before the Tariff Board? Mr. RILEY.- At previous inquiries by the Tariff Board some distributors opposed the application of the local company for protection, because they doubted its capacity to produce glass of satisfactory quality. Many of them have since expressed their complete satisfaction with the quality of the glass made in Australia. It is evident, from the letters I have read, that there can be no further doubt regarding the ability of the local manufacturers to supply an article of a quality equal to, if not better than, that imported from Belgium. Australian-made sheet glass was recently subjected to certain tests by the Electricity Department of the Sydney Municipal Council for the purpose of determining its light absorption properties. The result of the tests is recorded in the following report: - A test for light absorption carried out by the electricity department of the City Council showed Australianglass to be nearly 50 per cent. superior to imported glass in this very important point. That supplies an effective answer to the statement that Australian glass is inferior to the imported article. The Australian manufacturers have issued a definite challenge in support of the quality of their product, and in a statement to the Minister, have answered objections raised by the Tariff Board. They say that the decision of the Tariff Board conflicts with the evidence tendered, and that is a serious charge. Honorable members are sometimes too ready to believe that an imported article must necessarily be good, and an Australian-made one necessarily inferior. If they examine some of the glass used in the construction of the Hotel Canberra, glass which was imported, and passed by an architect before being used, they will see that much of it has waves or ripples in it. It is important that we should do everything possible to foster and encourage Australian industries which provide employment for Australians, and which, like this one, use in the process of manufacture up to85 per cent. of Australian material. The only alternative is to use glass composed of 100 per cent. foreign material. Honorable members may say that, by assisting this industry, we are encouraging a monopoly in Australia. This point was raised by the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) among others. In -my opinion, it is better to have a monopoly consisting of one factory capable of supplying the whole of Australia's re- quirements, and turning out an efficient article, than to have two or three inefficient factories. Just as the industry was encouraged in 1925-26 by the then -Minister for Trade and Customs, so it. should be encouraged and fostered now. The concentration of business interests has not always been regarded by honorable members opposite as something to be discouraged. The honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett), when Minister for Trade and Customs, delivered a speech at a luncheon given by the Sydney Chamber of Manufactures, and was reported as follows: - He thought that the great inrush of oversows goods was due to decreased costs of production in other countries, due to amalgamations and mergers. He hailed with delight the recent developments in the Australian rubber industry, aud urged other manufac- Iurers to go and do likewise. Get the small manufacturing units to merge themselves into more powerful organizations, and with improved plant and reduced overhead, meet foreign competition with increased efficiency and better organization. AH that the Government could do to assist would be done. Though I am not a champion of monopolies, I would rather have a monopoly in Australia than be at the mercy of one overseas. An Australian monopoly is, to some extent, under the control of the Government, and the hand that gives protection can take it away. Glass Distributors (New South Wales) Limited is a monopoly comprising foreign and British interests, and is controlled from overseas. This organization has, at times, refused to supply the Australian trade with its requirements in plate and sheet glass. I have some particulars here showing what it has done. [Leave to continue given.~\ This organization, which represents both British and foreign manufacturers, has blacklisted, and severely punished, reputable firms in Australia for their failure to conform with the rigid rules of Glass Distributors Limited. Mr. White.- Has the honorable member proof of that ? Mr. RILEY- I shall give the committee some facts which justify my statement. Mr. P. J. Cottell, of Bondi Junction, was a member of Glass Distributors Limited at its inception. Subsequently, for selling glass at a lower price than that fixed by the committee of Glass Distributors Limited, the balance of his share money, namely, 19s. in the £1, was called up. Subsequently, he was sued for the amount, a verdict was obtained, and judgment was entered against him. Eventually he was sold up - thanks to the operations of Glass Distributors Limited, which represents, as I have said, both British and foreign manufacturers. Another firm, Bromley, Simpson and Company, was fined £10 for doing business at lower rates than those fixed by Glass Distributors Limited. A. W. Anderson was fined lis. 3d. for selling glass at prices lower than those fixed by this organization. He also had his supplies of plate glass cut off. The Australian Window Glass Proprietary Limited had its supplies of plate glass cut off for selling plate glass to firms other than members of the Glass Distributors Limited who are licensed to buy plate glass, and who are approved of by members of the committee. Viner and Waters were fined £1 for a technical breach, namely, selling below list prices. Shores Limited, for selling below the prices fixed by this organization, had uncalled capital' amounting to £475 called up. The matter was contested in court; but, eventually, Glass Distributors Limited were successful, and costs amounting to £250 had to be borne by .Shores Limited. Hoffnung and Company Limited, a firm which has been in business in Sydney for the best part of a century, was regarded at one time by Glass Distributors Limited as an approved house. This recognition carried with it the privilege of being able to buy at 10 per cent, discount; but this right was recently withdrawn, because the firm sold Australian sheet glass at prices less than those stipulated by Glass Distributors Limited. This organization blacklisted a firm which has been established in Pitt-street, Sydney, for 80, years or more. The report of the Tariff Board, to which the Minister has referred, is six months old ; but, in view of the announcement by the Minister that the matter will be sent back to the Tariff Board, I shall not spend time unnecessarily in dealing with the observations of the board. A period of about six months means a great deal to a new industry, which has experienced the difficulties that this industry has encountered in its pioneering stage. Although the local company has to do certain things, it is in a position to-day to challenge the Tariff Board, the overseas interests, or any local user of frankly admitted that it has been unable glass, to prove its inability to manufacture glass that will be entirely satisfactory both as to quality and quantity. I regret that we have not received from the Tariff Board a report that represents the present position of the industry. I feel that there is some justification for the action that the Minister has taken, and, as a wellwisher of the industry, I welcome the opportunity that will be afforded to it to prove its bona fides, and show the developments that have taken place in connexion with its operations. In view of the statement made by the Minister, there does not appear to be any danger of the board's recommendation as to rationing being carried out. The board estimates Australia's requirements of glass this year to be 5,000,000 square feet, and proposes to permit the importers to supply 3,750,000 square feet, allowing the local manufacturers to provide only 1,250,000 square feet, although they have expended over £300,000 in establishing their industry. I ask myself : Can that be the recommendation of a board of Australians that has been given power by this national Parliament to do a job? I wonder exactly where we stand. I am not anxious, at this juncture, to do anything that would prejudice the industry. I care nothing for political kudos; I would sooner remain silent if by doing so the interests of the industry would be better served. But. I was amazed to read some of the recommendations of the board. Although its report is six months old, the Minister has at his disposal reports by a special investigator from the Customs Department; and through the courtesy of the Minister I have had an opportunity to peruse about four of them. I find from the last report of this investigator that, since the company recommenced production in January last, after rebuilding, repairing and relining its tanks,- it has sold and delivered 1,150,000 square feet of glass, and has accumulated stocks amounting to 1,160,000 square feet, of which over 75 per cent, is of a quality suitable for builders and for picture-framing. Yet the board deals with this industry so contemptuously that it is prepared to allow the importers to supply 3,750,000 square feet, and the local manufacturers only half of the quantity they have produced since they restarted operations in January last. There is no justification for that recommendation. I must challenge the reference of the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) to "prevaricating statements" by the local manufacturers. I have been associated with those interested in the local industry from the commencement of its operations, and since the day when the first load of bricks was delivered at the factory site I have taken a special pride in seeing the industry develop. I know something of the difficulties that have had to be surmounted, and of the work done by those men, because of their earnest desire to establish a useful Australian industry. They engaged experts from Belgium and the United States of America, but subsequently found it necessary to dispense with their services, and carry on as best they could without them.. To-day, they have overcome all their difficulties, an achievement for which they should be heartily commended, especially when it is realized that the factory staff is 100 per cent. Australian, and if they were not dependent on the Tariff Board and this Parliament, I should say that their confidence in their ability at the present time to supply Australia Avith an excellent article would justify their being absolutely defiant. They have every confidence in themselves, and they knowexactly the class of article that they can produce. But, unfortunately, the industry is iri the hands of the Tariff Board and this committee. Action could have been taken to remove all doubt as to the success of the industry, without any risk of conflicting with the spirit of the Ottawa agreement, article 10 of which reads - His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia undertake that during the currency of this agreement the tariff shall be based on the principle that protective duties shall not exceed such a level as will give United Kingdom producers full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of the relative cost of economical and efficient production, provided that in the application of such principle special consideration may be given to the ease of industries not fully established. The article which I have just read is surely intended to provide for industries such as the one under discussion. The industry is deserving of the most sympathetic consideration, because this Parliament deliberately encouraged it to spend over £300,000. If I have an opportunity later, I propose to reply to some of the points that will probably be raised; but, in the meantime, I express a certain amount of pleasure in knowing that the industry is to be given a chance to prove its bona fides. I have no doubt that the local company will welcome an opportunity to demonstrate, not what it proposes to do, but what it has already accomplished. Mr.R. GREEN (Richmond) [9.27].- I have no doubt that many honorable members failed, as I did, to grasp fully the details of the Minister's proposals, and, therefore, I intend to repeat them, the Minister having courteously permitted me to take a note of them. The Government has decided to adopt the Tariff Board's recommendation that the present British preferential duty of 2s. per 100 sq. ft., and the general tariff of 4s. per 100 sq. ft., be maintained, and that on and after the 1st February, 1934, deferred duties of 45 per cent., ad valorem, British, and 75 per cent. general, be imposed. It is also proposed to refer the matter back to the Tariff Board for further consideration; to retain the prohibition of the importation of plain clear sheet glass pending the receipt of a further report from the Tariff Board, and, if the necessity arises, owing to shortage of supplies, to permit the importation of any quantity shown to be necessary. Most honorable members will recognize that this is a most difficult subject. It is admitted that only one factory is engaged in the manufacture of sheet glass in Australia. This matter has been before Parliament on several occasions. It was first raised when the Pratten tariff was introduced in 1926, following a recommendation by the Tariff Board that certain deferred duties be brought into operation. I am among the members of this committee who occupied seats in this Parliament at that time, and we all acquiesced in the imposition of the deferred duties. That promise of Parliament led to the establishment of a company in 1925 to manufacture plain clear sheet glass in Australia. With the passage of time, that company developed to such an extent that it asked the then Minister for Trade and Customs to put the deferred duties into operation. Those duties were entirely different from the Minister's present proposals; instead of being on the basis of 100 square feet, they were fixed on a weight basis - 11/2d. per lb. British, and 2d. per lb. foreign. With other members, I acquiesced in the inclusion of those deferred duties in the tariff schedule in 1925. The company started to manufacture glass, and on the 30th June, 1930, the then Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Forde) brought the deferred duties into operation. Since that time several attempts have been made to alter the duties, notwithstanding that Parliament had given a promise that, if the company did certain things, it would be granted a fair measure of protection. The company, believing in the good faith of Parliament, commenced operations; but now, before it can stand by itself, the protection given to it is to be removed. The proposal to remove that protection brings to my mind that ugly word " repudiation ". What is it but repudiation if Parliament does not keep the promise it made to the company in 1925? I remind the committee that because of the repudiation of an agreement - its treatment as a " scrap of paper " - the world suffered a tremendous upheaval not many years ago. With other honorable members in this chamber, I tried to prevent that repudiation. I felt strongly then regarding that act of repudiation; to-night I feel strongly about this attempt to break an agreement. I sincerely hope that Parliament will not repudiate the promise which it gave to this company. Only because Parliament bad passed a tariff schedule granting protection to this industry did the company decide to commence operations. I cannot believe that Parliament will do other than honour its promise. The making of glass is a natural Australian industry; the bulk of the rawmaterials used are obtainable locally. In ease any member of the Country party feels disposed to deprive this industry of protection, I draw attention to the last policy speech of the Leader of the Country party (Dr. Earle Page). While discouraging the establishment of exotic industries, the right honorable gentleman then advocated the protection of natural industries. The Australian Window Glass Company spends large sums of money in Australia. Among the items of expenditure each month are - coal, £1,321; coke, £19; gas, £47; electricity, £272; sulphate of soda, £155; lime, £174; water, £220; sundry manufacturing materials, £77 ; nails, £35 ; cardboard and paper, £20 ; silicat, £S1 ; dolomite, £107 ; Australian timber, £128; clay, £70; refractory bricks, £72; maintenance materials, £550; family endowment tax £.100; insurance and workers' compensation, £84; rates and taxes, £20; and wages, £4,S48. From this one factory the State Government receives each month the following amounts : - Payment for coal supplied, £284 3s. 4d. ; unemployment relief tax, £204 14s.; family endownment tax, £100 18s. 9d.; a total of £589 16s. Id. The company employs about 240 mcn who, but for this industry, would probably be in receipt of the dole. It will, therefore, be seen that this factory is an asset to the country. Mr. ArchdaleParkhill. - How can the company do all these things, and still make a profit on its £300,000 capital? Mr. R.GREEN.- Had the Postmaster-General been present at a deputation which waited on the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) last week, he would have heard the managing director of the company answer a similar question. I shall be pleased to supply the information to the Postmaster-General later. I have been asked to state the price of the glass manufactured by this company. I have not been able to obtain figures for the years prior to 1925, when the Tariff Board made its first inquiry. At that time, sheet glass .was not manufactured in Australia. According to figures which were tendered in evidence before the Tariff Board in 1925, British 16-oz. glass then cost 27s. and Belgian glass 23s. per 100 sq. ft. In 192S, after the deferred duties had been put on, but before the Australian factory was built, imported glass was sold in Australia for 27s. 6d. per 100 sq. ft. At that time, the exchange rate was normal, and there was no primage duty. The f.o.b. price of glass in 1925 remained practically constant till the Forde duties were imposed in 1930. At that time the Australian company had not commenced to manufacture glass. In 1932, British glass was offered at about 12s. and Belgian glass at about 8s. 6d. per 100 sq. ft. f.o.b. A recent quotation gave Belgian glass as 7s. 6d. per 100 sq. ft. f.o.b., but I do not know whether it can be obtained at that price. The price of British glass is now about the same as it was in 1932. The only figure with which we should be concerned is the cost of glass to its actual users. As I have said, British glass was offered at 12s. per 100 sq. ft. f.o.b. in 1932. At that time, Australian glass had not come on to. the market to any great extent. The glass merchants in Australia charged 56s. (id. per 100 sq. ft. at that time, but shortly after the Australian Window Glass Company commenced operations, it offered glass at 28s. 3d. per 100 sq. ft. - exactly half the amount charged for the imported glass - notwithstanding the primage and other duties on imported soda ash. Mr. Holloway.- There was no Australian monopoly then. Mr. R.GREEN.- If there was, it reduced the price of glass by 50 per cent. The price of imported glass to-day is 56s. 6d. less 33-;\ per cent., less 5 per cent., or a net amount of 35s. per 100 sq. ft. It is evident that the Australian community has been exploited. Prior to the establishment of the Australian company, glass which was valued at 12s. per 100 sq. ft. f.o.b. British ports, cost 56s. 6d. in Australia. The present price of Australian glass is 28s. 3d. per 100 sq. ft., compared with about 30s. in New Zealand, where glass is admitted duty free. These figures must convince the committee that the establishment of the Australian Window Glass Company has conferred a material benefit on Australia. Honorable members must be surprised at the condition of affairs to which the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Riley) drew attention. I am reliably informed that, as the result of a merger, the firm of Pilkington Brothers Limited is the only large glass-making company in Great Britain. There was also an arrangement between that firm and the Belgian and American companies to form a combine, and, given the chance, those organizations would again exploit this country as they did in the past. Our only safeguard is the existence of a glass factory in Australia. In the 1932 report of the Tariff Board, Mr. Norbury is quoted as saying that " sheet glass can only be made economically in large quantities ". With that honorable members will agree; it is for that reason that there is only one glass factory in Australia. The Australian Window Glass Proprietary Limited has invested £300,000 in its business, and, with the assistance of protective duties, has formed what may be termed a combine. But is it not better to have a combine which we can control rather than to be subjected to the operations of an overseas combine which is beyond our control, for we can control the local combine by reducing or withdrawing the duty, also through the medium of taxation. As to the prices charged, the Australian Window Glass Proprietary Limited has arranged for the distribution of builders' quality glass in the country at 38s. a single box of 100 square feet, or in 25 box lots, at 303. a box. Imported glass of a similar quality is being sold in Australia at 56s. 6d. a box. The -company has also protected the public from exploitation in regard to figured rolled glass. At a recent deputation the Attorney-General asked a question similar to that asked of me to-night by the Postmaster-General. I point out that the manufacture of figured rolled glass is a sideline, without which it is doubtful whether the company could carry on under existing conditions. I sincerely hope that the committee will accept the proposals of the Minister, which, after all, will merely mean deferring the matter pending the receipt of a report from the Tariff Board. I hope that on this occasion that board will he asked to report on the quality and price of the local article, also the quantity that can be manufactured. Some samples of the Australian product have been placed on the front Opposition bench, and 1 urge honorable members to compare them with the glass that may be seen in the doors of the corridors at the Hotel Canberra, an imported article which was passed by our architects as first-class builders' glass. Mr. Prowse.- Is it first class? Mr. R.GREEN.- It certainly is not, although it was sold as such. There should be no difficulty in the way of the Tariff Board thoroughly examining the 1,000,000 square feet of glass which is now in stock at the factory of the Australian Window Glass Proprietary Limited, whose product is sold on the guarantee that it is equal to or better than the imported article. Regarding quantity of production, Australia's annual requirement of builders' glass is 5,000,000 square feet, and the Australian Window Glass Proprietary Limited is capable of manufacturing 12,000,000 square feet per annum. That company has not asked this Government to share any of the burdens borne by it as a result of the depression in the building and associated trades. It regards them as a business risk. All that it asks is' that the Government should honour the promise, on the strength of which its factory was erected. In turn, it will fulfil the obligations that it undertook and produce the whole of Australia's ' requirements, guaranteeing satisfaction in regard to both quality and price. Mr. HUGHES(North Sydney) [9.55]. - In his opening remarks, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) said that the Government had found that the rates of duty on plain sheet glass presented many difficulties. I can quite believe that difficulties are created by the very nature of the industry, and by the experiences through which it has passed. But the issue that we have to decide is perfectly clear; whether we intend to encourage an Australian or a Belgian industry. The Ottawa agreement do*? not come into the matter. A close examination of the position proves conclusively that, while there are British glass manufacturing firms, they are under the control and part of the Belgian combination. In order to indicate how Belgium controls the sheet-glass industry, let me quote from a brochure that was issued by the International Labour Office at Geneva in 1933, an entirely impartial review, which deals with " Methods of providing rest and alternation of shifts in automatic sheet-glass works," and states, at page 23 - Thus, the sheet-glass industry is highly concentrated. Not only do powerful firms like the Societe des brevets Fourcault, and the Compagnie Internationale pour la fabrication mécanique du verre own the rights of working the Fourcault and Libbey-Owens patents, as the case may bc, but undertakings using the same process are frequently under a common management. In Belgium, for example, firms equipped on the Fourcault system, originally separate undertakings, combined on the 31st December, 1930, to form the Union des verreries mécaniques beiges S.A. a.t Charleroi, and production is thus definitely concentrated from the administrative, technical and commercial points of view. Belgium has 194 Fourcault and 18 Libbey-Owens machines, a greater number than is possessed by all the other glassmaking concerns in Europe put together. The industry is highly concentrated, and is completely controlled by a monopoly which has its head-quarters in Belgium. In 1930, the International Labour Office submitted a questionnaire to the .Australian Government, in which it ' was asked whether- automatic glass manufacture was established in the Commonwealth. The reply was in the negative. Since then, of course, conditions have changed; I merely point out that the International Labour Office was given to understand that no automatic glass manufacture was established here. The extent to which mechanization has been carried in the industry is indicated by the following paragraphs which appear at page 27 of the brochure: - One large sheet-glass works has only twenty glass workers properly so-called out of a total staff of TOO. The hours of work in the glass factories of Belgium are 56 weekly; in those of Czechoslovakia, 48; and in those of France, 48. The conditions in the Belgian factories are bad. This industry is so highly mechanized that out of 700 employees only twenty are skilled mechanics. As the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) has pointed out, the f.o.b. price of Belgian glass in 1925, before the Australian industry was established, was 23s. per 100 sq. ft., whereas it has been quoted recently at 7s. 6d. per 1Q0 sq. ft. This shows the extent to which the Belgian monopoly had been profiting by its Australian trade. The Minister has said that the world has been compelled to recognize that no nation can live for itself alone. That is quite true, but nations must live. The question is: How shall they live? We must find some happy medium between isolation and promiscuity. Britain has been forced to recognize that she must look after her own industries. While other nations have been living for themselves alone, Britain has been living for others. In these days, however, nations must look after themselves. While Britain Was neglecting this duty her industries were SlOWlY sinking to ruin. The only British industry which Was able to maintain, itself through the darkest days of the slump was the motor industry, which Was sheltered by the Safety of Industries Act. Another question Ave have to ask ourselves is: What effect will the policy of the Government have upon employment and prices on the sheet-glass industry, and on the investment of money in industry generally? Then, too, it is a truism that we must prevent imports rising above a certain level. Otherwise we shall be back where we were at the end of 1930, and be compelled to resort to the drastic expedients applied by the Scullin Government to correct the position. It is undeniable that our imports of glass come from a country to which we owe no allegiance whatever. If we were to give to every country what it deserved, we should give very much to Great Britain and absolutely nothing to Belgium. Belgium owes a great deal to us. There are more Australian soldiers lying in graves in. Belgium than there were Belgian soldiers killed in Belgium in the Great War. So I say that Belgium owes a very great deal to us, and we owe nothing whatever to Belgium. Belgium has control of the glass-making industry, and proposes to keep control of it. The report of the Tariff Board on this industry is not so convincing as we would desire. The honorable member for Richmond epitomized the report in the concluding words of his speech. He said that three points had to be considered: Can this industry produce the quantity of glass required; is the quality of the glass good, and is the price of the product satisfactory? These are all matters of fact in the determination of which we should exercise our own intelligence. The evidence given before the Tariff Board was from highly prejudiced parties on both sides. The manufacturers and the importers alike wore out to present the best case they could for themselves. Looking at the glass manufactured in Australia, I am bound to say, as an uninitiated layman, that it seems to be quite good. The" honorable member for Cook (Mr. Riley) said that some of the glass in Hotel Canberra supplied by the Belgian combine had a ripple in it, and so was not good. I do not know that the Tariff Board is able to express an expert opinion on this subject. What more does it know about glass than honorable members do? We have also to consider the effect that this change of duty will have upon this industry, and upon employment generally. The Minister has advanced the board's suggestion that employment in the industry should be rationed; but the general manager of the company has pointed out that that is an absurd proposition. The capacity of this firm is 12,000,000 square feet per annum, and it now has S00,000 square feet in store. To ask it to confine its production to* 1,250,000 square feet per annum is ridiculous. If glass is to be turned out from this factory by its* highly mechanized process at economic prices, the plant must be kept in continuous work throughout the year. Otherwise, it cannot produce cheap glass. It would be better for the factory to close down than for it to limit its production of glass to 1,250,000 feet per annum. We must say either that the factory shall close down, or that the industry shall be protected and encouraged. There can he no half measures. We must determine whether we shall support the Belgian or the Australian industry. The Australian industry is conducted under good conditions and its employees, receive good wages; whereas the Belgian industry is conducted under bad conditions, and its employees receive poor wages. We must further ask ourselves what effect this reduction of duty is likely to have upon the investment of money in industry in this country. We should encourage people to invest their money in industry. The trouble to-day is that people are afraid to do so. There is plenty of money in the banks, but people will not invest it in industry, because they have no assurance of a fair return. The sum of £300,000 has been invested in the Australian glass manufacturing industry, and the industry is being conducted at a high pitch of efficiency. Not even the Tariff Board can quite gainsay that. I have no doubt that before this sheet glass, manufacturing company began operations in Australia it was given some undertaking that it would be supported. The general manager of the company has made it clear that he' was given to understand that the policy of Australia was that Australian industries would be protected and encouraged. When I was in London, some years ago, a representative of Babcock and Wilcox Limited, waited on me and asked whether I could give give him an assurance that if his firm established itself in Australia, suitable duties would bc provided to protect it against outside competition. I said that I could not give him that assurance, but I could assure him that the policy of Australia was the encouragement of Australian industries. The result was that the firm began operations in Australia. No doubt the company which embarked upon the manufacture of glass in Australia was given a similar assurance that Australian industries would be protected. But the Government now proposes to change that policy. Such a change of policy will certainly deter people from investing their money in Australian industries. The Minister stated that the Tariff Board had reported that a continuance of the duties that existed at the time it made its report would increase building costs; but the only evidence that I can find in the board's report to support such a statement is that given by Mr. Smith, that the extra cost of the glass required for a six-roomed house was only ls. 6d. That trifling possibility surely should not affect us in our judgment. We are confronted with certain facts which, I admit, are capable of many interpretations; but, as I stated this morning at a deputation, we are as capable as the members of the Tariff Board of making a decision on the facts. The board does not deny that this industry is thoroughly efficient and capable of turning out good glass. It is not. denied that tha company has turned out or can turn out sufficient glass for our requirements, nor that the Government lias some measure of control over an Australian company. If the company were to exploit the public, regulations could bc framed to meet the position. No regulations within the legislative ambit of the Commonwealth could prevent exploitation by foreign importers. In all the circumstances, I can see no reason why the present conditions should not be allowed to continue - at least, until the Tariff Board makes its final investigation of this industry. Every investigation of the board apparently brings it nearer to the point at which it will be able to give the company a clean bill, of health. After its first inquiry t he board reported that the Australian product left, something to bc desired. That can be easily understood. It applies to any industry in the early days of its existence. The board has since reported that the Australian product has been wonderfully improved. In the circumstances, I suggest that it is reasonable to ask the Government to hold its hand until the board rnakes the investigation that has been promised. I am strongly averse to striking a blow at this industry. It appears to me that we are determining to-night something more . than the fate of this particular enterprise. We arc determining whether we shall support Australian or foreign industry. It is not a. question of the encouragement of trade between Australia and Great Britain. If it were, I should look at it through different eyes. The question is whether we shall encourage an Australian or a Belgian industry. I have no hesitation in declaring on which side I shall array myself. While I am willing to make many concessions, and to go a long way to help British industry, I am not prepared to go a yard to help Belgian industry, or the industry of any other foreign country. Our clear duty is first to our fellow citizens, next to our kinsmen overseas, and then to the world at large. This being so, I propose to register' my vote on behalf of my fellow citizens. Mr. FORDE(Capricornia) [10.15].- The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) is to be commended for having taken the trouble to visit the factory of the Australian Window Glass Proprietary Limited. As a result of his investigation of every phase of the industry, he is prepared to give it his whole-hearted support. If other members of the Country party would follow his example, and acquaint themselves with - the wonderful development that has taken place in Australian secondary industries, they, too, would be more ready to do justice to them. I am pleased that the Government has decided to extend the embargo against the importation of glass for a period of twelve months without any rationing, so long as the stocks in Australia, are sufficient to supply requirements. I do not think there will be much doubt that adequate supplies will be available. It is estimated that 4,000,000 square feet of sheet glass is stored in the warehouses, whilst the Australian manufac.turers have over 1,000,000 square feet in stock, and during the period of the embargo will, be able, if working only half time, to supply at least another 5,000,000 or G,000,000 square feet. These quantities in the aggregate will be sufficient to supply the Australian demand for probably two years. I believe that, as a result of further investigations by the Tariff Board, the Australian manufacturers will bo able to satisfy that body in regard to the quality, supply, and price of their product. The honorable member for Cook (Mr. Riley), in whose electorate this efficient factory is located, has read testimonials from representatives of the building trade and the tomato-growers that the quality of Australian sheet glass is all that can be desired. I am particularly impressed by the testimony of Mr. H. E. Ross, representing the Institute of Architects of New South Wales - My examination was quite impartial in that respect, and it was comparative ... In making this comparison, I would like to say that I regarded the Australian-made glass, which I investigated in sheets in the works - sheets picked at random, and in many cases covered with dust, the accumulation of some weeks - as being distinctly superior to the average of the not identified imported glass. The manufacturers guarantee the local glass to be equal, if not superior, to the corresponding glasses imported from abroad. At an earlier inquiry by the Tariff Board the representative of the principal British manufacturing company condemned in unmeasured terms the Fourcault process used by the Australian manufacturers, and said that they would not bo able to produce by this means a glass good enough for this market. This process, which originated in Belgium, was copied by the manufacturers at Pittsburg, United States of America, and has since been adopted by the English company, whose representative in Australia had previously condemned it. The Minister stated to-night that the Australian manufacturers would not be able to get rid of the large proportion of reject glass in their output, whereas manufacturers abroad had the whole world in which to sell their output. The prices of Belgian and British cheap glasses are, per 100 square feet, 8s. 6d. and 12s. 6d. respectively. If the Minister's contention is correct, how will Great Britain he able to sell its reject ;:lass in competition with the cheaper product of Belgium? The manufacture of glass is becoming highly specialized, and through the adoption of improved methods the proportion of reject glass is steadily declining. As far back as five years ago glass of 70 Der cent. quality was being turned out. A rejection of 20 per cent, would not be considered' phenomenal in glass production generally. The Australian Glass Company - the parent of the Australian Window Glass Proprietary Limited - is to be commended for its enterprise and efficiency. We hear it condemned as a monopoly, but I would prefer a monopoly which gives employment to Australian people, and over which we can exercise some control, rather than be at the mercy of a foreign organization operating in other parts of the world aud able to impose its will on Australia. It is a combine with world-wide ramifications that is resisting the establishment of sheet glass manufacture in the Commonwealth. Pilkington^, who have an absolute monopoly in Great Britain of the manufacture of 'both sheet and plate glass, are allied with the big Belgian companies; in fact, the English and continental interests are linked, and one at least, of the most powerful American companies is working in conjunction with the Belgian manufacturers. When the Scullin Government was in office it found that the Australian Glass Company could not commence operations with the duties still deferred. Importers were accumulating large stocks of glass from overseas, sufficient to meet Australia's requirements for at least twelve months ahead, and while this continued no market, could be found for the output of any Australian factory. Before the local glass could be sold the accumulated stocks in the warehouses had to be disposed of, and action had to be taken to create conditions under which a market would be possible when local manufacture began. On the 19th June, 1930, the Scullin Government, after satisfying itself that there was sufficient' sheet glass in the country to meet all demands for at. least a year ahead, introduced a tariff proposal, that abolished the deferred provisions and imposed, the full rate of duty recommended by the Tariff Board in 1925, and approved by the Bruce Page Government, but deferred from time to time. The action taken hy the Scullin Government was the only means of checking the importations which were maintaining warehouse stocks to such an extent as to prevent local manufacture. When I was Minister for Trade and Customs this industry gave me a great deal of concern. We were confronted with" the problem of widespread unemployment, and as the establishment of this industry presented an opportunity to increase employment, I make no apology for having decided to give preference to Australian capital and labour over manufacturers in other countries. The Australian Glass Company, having £300,000 of capital to invest, could have undertaken the manufacture of sheet glass in Belgium or Great Britain or some other country where labour is cheap, but it bought the Australian rights in the Fourcault process and proceeded to establish a new enterprise in this country. Having invested its money, it was entitled to expect that it would get adequate protection against importations of foreign or even British glass. Now it is employing 240 persons. The representative of the workers- at a deputation to the Prime Minister said that he had been on the dole for twelve months, and that a number of his fellows had been on the dole for two years, but were now in employment. Are we going to continue their employment or to send our orders to overseas manufacturers, who prior to the action taken by the Scullin Government, had been exploiting the Australian market? The factory of the Australian Window Glass Proprietary Limited is admitted by experts to be one of the most up to date in the world, and it is manufacturing plain sheet, opal, figured rolled, milled rolled, roughcast, wired cast, and opalescent glasses. This is not an industry for a small struggling company. It requires the resources of a big organization such as the Australian Glass Company. This parent organization has nine factories - four in New South Wales, two in Victoria, and one in each of the other States, except Tasmania: it has a capital of £2,000,000, is employing 2,400 persons, and will soon be employing 3,000 persons if the protection is continued. Inquiries made by the Trade and Customs Department, when I was Minister, elicited the fact that immediately the increased duties were imposed importing and distributing firms raised their prices by an amount equivalent to the higher duties. Huge stocks had been imported by these firms, and the duty paid thereon was at the nominal rates of 2s. and 4s. per 100 square feet. The difference between the former duties and the increased duties was taken from the pockets of the people by the importers who protest loudly that their hearts bleed for the users of glass. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) said that some encouragement must have been given to the Australian Glass Company to embark upon the manufacture of sheet glass. The Bruce-Page Government, in which Mr. Pratten was Minister for Trade and Customs, told this, company that it would refer the matter to the Tariff Board for investigation and report. The matter was referred to the board, and the board recommend-sd deferred duties which the Bruce-Page Government put into the- tariff schedule, and which were, subsequently, put into operation by the Scullin Government. The fact that the Bruce-Page Government put the deferred duties into the tariff schedule was an earnest to the company of the Government's intentions. Mr. GREGORY- Why was not the Tariff Board asked to report before the deferred duties were made operative? Mr. FORDE.- I shall deal with that matter in a moment. I am now dealing with the Tariff Board's report of 1925. Although half of the members of the Cabinet at that time were members of the Country party, the Government inserted in the schedule deferred duties of 1-1 d. per lb., British, and 2d. per lb., foreign, or the alternative ad valorem rates. Surely this company with its intelligent advisers, knowing that the policy of this country was to provide adequate protection for Australian industries, had reason to believe there was no need for it to plead or beg for protection. The fact that this industry when established would give employment to our own people, and would supply a market which was formerly supplied by foreigners, was quite sufficient to merit the granting of adequate protection to it. In 1925, when Mr. Pratten introduced Lis proposal for a deferred duty on sheet, glass, he quoted from the Tariff Board's report the following statement : - It is very desirable to have established in the Commonwealth industries whose products arc in general demand by our population and which permit of production on a large scale, as by this means Australia's capacity to absorb a larger population and to make possible greater immigration was considerably increased. In addition, there is the advantage of adding to the domestic consumption nf primary and other products by the consequential greater population. The Tariff Board of 1925 and the Minister of the day were strong protectionists. That cannot be said of the board as constituted to-day. As a result, of conversations with the representatives of the Government, this company went ahead with its proposal to expend £300,000 in building an up-to-date factory. The present Minister, in the course of his speech this evening, said that when I was Minister I prohibited the importation of glass. If the Minister will, refer to the officials of his department, he will find that that was not the case. According to the Tariff Board's summary of happenings in connexion with duties on glass, its recommendation to lower the duty from Hd. per lb. British, and 2d. per lb. foreign, or 45 per cent, and 60 per cent., respectively, to 2s. per 100 sq. ft. British, and 4s. per 100 sq. ft. foreign, was given effect to by customs tariff proposals No. 6, tabled, on the 1st September, 1932. The summary also shows the following : - On the 23rd September, 1932, which is also the dato on which the matter was again referred to the board, a proclamation was issued prohibiting the importation of plain, clear sheet glass unless the consent in writing of the Minister for Trade and Customs had first been obtained. That action was taken, not by me as Minister in the last Government, but by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Perkins), Assistant Minister for Trade and Customs in the present Government. Subsequently, steps were taken by the present Government (o ration imports. So far as I can remember, imports of glass were not prohibited in any way by the last Administration, but it made operative the deferred duties put into the tariff schedule by the Bruce-Page Government. When the duties of l£d. per lb. and 2d. per lb. were in effect, and glass was being sold in Sydney at 56s. 6d. per 100 sq. ft., the Australian Window Glass Company cut the price in half, and sold its product to the user for 28s. 3d. per :100 sq. ft. That company has been criticized because it imported and sold window glass before it commenced to manufacture that commodity here. But there was good reason for that. Following upon the decision of the company to undertake the manufacture of window glass, it engaged in the importation and sale of window glass manufactured overseas by the Fourcan lt system. It showed wisdom in doing that, because it wanted to establish not only a trade in this commodity but also a selling organization and goodwill, so that when it started to manufacture window glass in Australia by this process there would be a steady demand for it. It is quite natural that there should he strong opposition to this company from the overseas manufacturers who for many years had had an unrestricted business in Australia. The local company employs Australians, and has plant and equipment capable of supplying the whole of the Australian demand. The importation of window glass by the Australian Glass Company has been referred to as an attempt to exploit the Australian public, but any impartial person must admit that the importations were made to enable the company to build up a connexion with clients in glass of a class similar to what it intended to manufacture here. The company did not increase its prices. Any increase that took place was made by the importers, who held large stocks in warehouses in Australia. For a time, the local company was severely criticized for _ not manufacturing glass, but, naturally, it was waiting for a demand for its goods, and that was not likely to eventuate while huge stocks were held in the warehouses. The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) has asked why the Scullin Government . put the deferred duty into operation on the 19th June, 1930,. when, in the ordinary course, it would not have become operative until the 1st August of that year. The reason is that glass was being imported at such a rate that, unless the importations were checked, the Australian market could have been supplied for at least two years ahead. The stocks in hand at that time were sufficient for twelve months supply, so that when the deferred duties were put into operation, there was no danger whatever of any shortage taking place. Had the local company waited until the stocks were depleted, it could not have obtained a footing in the Australian market. Mr. Gregory.- The Tariff Board Act provides that the board must submit a report before deferred duties are put into operation. Mr. FORDE.-Why should the Government have subordinated itself to the Tariff Board at a time of great national crisis, when this country had an adverse trade balance and hundreds of thousands of people were out of work? The government of the day had to assume responsibility by taking decisive action to stem the tide of imports. In the circumstances, there was no necessity for it to wait for the report of the Tariff Board, and I make no apology for the action of the Scullin Government at that time. The" present Government is continuing the embargo for twelve months, but all that the Scullin Government did was to put into operation the deferred duties which had been placed in the tariff schedule by the Bruce-Page Government. The Postmaster-General (Mr. Parkhill), at the time I was Minister, showed great concern for tomato-growers. He said that they were being mulcted to the extent of hundreds of thousands of pounds because of the duties placed on imported glass. What is the actual position? Since the local manufacturer has been supplying the Australian market, the price of glass for horticultural purposes has been reduced from 50s. to 25s. per 100 square feet. The tomato-growers have now no difficulty in obtaining their requirements in Australia. As the Minister for Trade and Customs has decided to impose a total prohibition on imports for a period of twelve months, and to refer the matter back to the Tariff Board for investigation, I arn confident that, in view of the increased efficiency of the company, its capacity to supply Australian requirements, and the reasonable prices that it is charging for its product, it will have no difficulty in convincing the Tariff Board of its need for protection, and that the board will make a favorable report. In the circumstances, the Opposition in this chamber is prepared to let the matter stand over for the present. I regret that the Government did not see fit to give adequate protection to the manufacturers of cut crystal , glass, which, of course, is a luxury line. With proper protection, the Crown Crystal "Glass Company would employ 300 additional hands. When the Scullin Government introduced its tariff schedule, this company was employing 200 hands, butsoon afterwards, the number increased to S50. I am sorry that the present Government has failed to give adequate protection to that branch of the glass industry. In view of the fact that the matter is being referred to the Tariff Board, I feel confident that the industry will be able to justify itself, and that the men employed in the. window-glass factory will not be dismissed. 1 Mr.JENNINGS (South Sydney) [10.44]. - I quite agree that this item, upon which so many varied opinions 'have been expressed, constitutes one of the most difficult problems facing the Government. I have a knowledge of many aspects of the glass industry, and have endeavoured to analyse the position in order to come to a fair decision. I venture to say that most of the troubles of this industry have arisen because of a battle royal which has waged between the local manufacturing interests on the one hand, and the importing and distributing interests on the other; but it is not too late now for them to come together in order that the large amount of money which has been invested in this national industry should be conserved, and some hundreds of Australians kept directly and indirectly in employment. It has been suggested inside this chamber, and I think outside of it, that the local manufacturers have exploited the public. It has been stated that the Australian Glass Manufacturing Company, when an increased duty was mooted, stocked its warehouses with importations and, after the passing of the Scullin Tariff, unloaded its stocks on to the public at greatly enhanced prices. That is a most damaging statement, which has undoubtedly inflamed the minds of the public. If any honorable member can bring evidence to prove that commercial immorality of this description has been practised by this firm, I am prepared to withdraw my support of the protection given to the industry. The recently submitted report of the Tariff Board may be regarded as out of date, in view of the considerable progress that has been made in the production of Australian glass during the last six months. In 1925, Parliament decided to give adequate protection to this industry, and, as a consequence, a capital of £300,000 was invested in it. If tha report of the Tariff Board is given full effect, the industry will be annihilated, with the result that capital to the extent of £300,000 will be lost, many hundreds of Australians will be thrown out of employment, and the plans and organization for the manufacture of Australian glass, which is the product of Australian brains, and is approved of by the Australian people,will be rendered abortive. The present Australian requirements of glass amount to 5,000,000 square feet per annum, and the Tariff Board proposes that permission be granted for the importation of 3,500,000 sq. ft. Importations to that extent would throttle the local industry. The present position is, that the Australian glass manufacturers have four months' supply on hand; that they can manufacture up to 12,000,000 sq. ft. per annum ; and that, if given three months' notice to enable them to manufacture the necessary machinery in Australia, the production can be raised to as high a figure as 20,000,000 sq. ft. Therefore, the industry is able to produce far in excess of Australian demands. I have before me two small sheets of glass, one a piece of imported plate glass and the othera piece of thick Australian sheet glass. The imported plate glass of a kind not manufactured here carries a revenue duty of 15s., while the duty on plain sheet glass, such as is manufactured in Australia, is 4s. I doubt if any honorable member can say which is the Australian sheet glass and which the imported glass. I can tell the difference only because it has been pointed out to me by an expert. The revenue duty definitely increases the cost to the user to the full extent of the duty; yet imported plate glass is to be found in tens of thousands of buildings in Australia to-day, and no complaints are made. The imposition of the protective duty proposed under the latest tariff, however, will not add materially to the cost. The Australian sheet glass used in a six-roomed cottage would cost only 1s. 6d. more than the price charged for imported glass paying the old duties three years ago, when exchange was normal, the additional1s. 6d. being made up by primage duty and exchange on the raw material used in the manufacture of the glass. As the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) has stated, the price of imported glass three years ago was 27s. 6d., while to-day the price of Australian sheet glass is 28s. 3d. I contend that a case has been made out for the continuation of this industry. It has justified its existence so far as price and supply are concerned, and from the many letters that I have perused I am convinced that there is no doubt in regard to quality. If a similar position existed in any other country, in view of the economic conditions adequate protection would be given to an industry of this character. Until world conditions change, Australia must act in like manner. Mr.PATERSON (Gippsland) [10.50]. - In regard to the duties on sheet glass, I believe that the Government has come to the only possible decision, namely, to accept for the time being the recommendation of the Tariff Board to leave the duty at 2s. British and 4s. general, per 100 feet and to refer the matter back to the board, so that the advice that it tenders may be based on the very latest information available. If the big advance claimed has been made by this industry during the last few months, it is only fair to the industry that the Tariff Board should be informed of it. There is one point to which I would allude which has not been mentioned by those who have already spoken; that is, the very heavy capital expenditure in the industry. It appears to me that this enterprise is hopelessly over-capitalized, considering the possibilities of output in a country like Australia. We are told in the Tariff Board's report that capital to the extent of some £300,000 has been invested in the industry. At 6 per cent., the amount, needed for interest alone would be £18,000. I assume, also, that 6 per cent. is a moderate amount to allow for depreciation in an industry which, the Tariff Board says, has to close down for overhaul for a few weeks every six months. That would represent a further £18,000, making £36,000 for interest and depreciation on a capital of £300,000. Assuming this company produced the whole of the 5,000,000 square feet of glass required at the present time in Australia, interest, on capital and depreciation would absorb 14s. per 100 square feet. Mr. Scullin.- The honorable member is not aware that, with the same plant, this company is also making rolled and figured glass. Mr. PATERSON.-According to my calculation, the industry is over-capitalized. If it is to sell at a reasonable price, and make interest on its capital, that capital will have to be very drastically written down. Mr. Fenton.- Five million square feet is not the normal Australian requirement. Mr. PATERSON.- Even under normal conditions, Australia is not capable of taking such immense quantities as would provide reasonable interest and working expenses in an industry that is so hopelessly over-capitalized, and I can see no escape from a very heavy writing down. The 14s. which is necessary to produce 6 per cent. interest and 6 per cent. depreciation with an output of 5,000,000 square feet, is greater than was the cost of Belgian glass landed in store, free of duty, before the exchange rate rose, and represents half of the company's present price of 28s. per 100 square feet. This must give any one reason to pause, in considering the future of this company. A good deal has been said to-night concerning importing monopolists, and the opportunity that has been taken by glassdistributing firms to raise their prices under the very heavy duty imposed two years ago by the previous Government. The Tariff Board admits that advantage was taken of that duty by certain firms, and that, when the opportunity was given to them, they raised their prices to a replacement cost basis. But I would point out that, while profiteering of that kind is undoubtedly possible under very heavy duties, or the operation of an embargo, it is not possible in this particular industry when normal imports are permitted, because any person requiring from twenty boxes upwards can indent them himself. I admit that that does not get over the difficulty of a monopoly on the other side of the world manipulating the price. The fact remains, however, that in normal times the buyer in Australia is not at the mercy of local distributing firms. That is made clear in the report of the board, which at page 10 says - This was made plain by Mr. A. F. Duff, representing Brooks Robinson Proprietary Limited - Question.- Can any considerable user get the right to order under that basis? Answer.- Any one. We will take indent orders from any man that wants to order twenty boxes or more; not less than twenty boxes. He can buy as cheap as the cheapest buyer. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) spoke of 3,000 workers being employed in the glass industry. He must have included those who are engaged in the glass bottle industry. Mr. Forde.- I said that 2,400 were employed at present by the holding company, and that 3,000 will be employed shortly in the whole of the industry, which embraces nine factories - four in New South Wales, and one in each of the other States except Tasmania. Mr. PATERSON.-We are dealing only with the window glass industry, which employs only one-tenth of the numbers quoted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) said that we owe nothing to Belgium; but that Belgium owes us a great deal. He also stated that he would be prepared to make some sacrifice in dealing with Great Britain in trade matters, but not in dealing with a country like Belgium. It is perfectly true - in a sense other than the one intended by the right honorable gentleman - that we owe nothing to Belgium, and that Belgium owes us a great deal. According to the latest figures that I have in my possession, during 1928-29 Belgium purchased from us goods to the value of nearly £10,000,000, while the value of our purchases from Belgium was only about £1,000,000. The question arises, how are they going to pay us if we do not take from them some of the goods which, in the past, they have exported? Mr. Fenton.- The right honorable gentleman was speaking in a wider sense. Mr. PATERSON.- Doubtless he was. That country owes us, on the figures I have quoted, about £10,000,000 per annum for Australian goods purchased. Are we to deny her the opportunity to pay us? Mr. Scullin.- Belgium's unfavorable trade balance with Australia is balanced through other countries from which we buy. Mr. PATERSON.-I am aware of the usual procedure for the balancing of international trade accounts; but the fact is that Belgium buys from Australia about ten times as much as Australia buys from Belgium, and I think it was unwise on the part of the right honorable member for North Sydney to speak disparagingly of that country. The right honorable gentleman also asked what would be the effect of this deferred duty upon this new Australian industry. We might very well ask how the extremely high protective duties in this tariff will affect Belgium which, in 1928- 29, bought from Australia £5,686,000 worth of greasy wool, £750,000 worth of scoured wool, £263,000 worth of zinc concentrates, £686,000 worth of pig lead, £250,000 worth of wheat, and nearly £500,000 worth of frozen beef, as well as very many other commodities, all of which were admitted duty free. May I remind the committee that Belgium has a very substantial tariff on a number of the commodities which, in the year mentioned, were brought from Australia? For example, the duty on frozen beef is 30 francs per 100 kilogrammes; on scoured wool it is "15 francs; on pig lead it is 12 francs; and there are varying rates on many other goods which Australia supplies. Is it reasonable to expect that Belgium will continue to keep our products on the free list if we approve of the attitude of the right honorable member for North Sydney? There are two sides to this question. Many honorable members, I think, forget that in an endeavour to do something for Australian trade in one particular direction we may, perhaps, be closing existing markets to Australian trade in another direction. If Belgium imposed a duty of only 1 per cent, on the wool which she imports from Australia, the amount involved would bo much greater than the total value of the glass industry to this country. Mr. Rosevear.- Does Belgium buy our" wool merely to help us? Mr. PATERSON.- I have no doubt that Belgium buys our wool because she needs it for her industries. But that is no reason why we should not, in our tariff policy, pay some regard to the interests of such a valuable customer. I shall support the Government in accepting, for the time being, the recommendation of the Tariff Board, and in referring this matter back to that body for further inquiry. Mr. STACEY(Adelaide) [11.5].- ! am pleased to know that the Minister (Mr. White) intends to refer the duties on sheet glass back to the Tariff Board for further inquiry. I feel sure that the board will find the position to be very different from what it was six months ago. In the early part of last year I was receiving almost daily communications from Adelaide merchants and private individuals who were in urgent need of glass for glass-houses, tomato-growing, and building purposes, and complaining pf the delay in having orders fulfilled. Finally, merchants and others were obliged to place orders overseas; but when consignments reached Australia, the Government, acting in the interests of the New South Wales company, withheld permission to clear the whole of the stocks from bond. Consequently, owing to the shortage of supplies, many glasshouse frames in South Australia were not covered, and could not be used for the purposes intended. A great deal of evidence was tendered to the board by representatives of both merchants and users, showing that they were unable to obtain supplies. The board has published a statement read by Mr. J. M. Harvey, on behalf of Clarkson Limited, Rundlestreet, Adelaide, one of the largest distributors in that city. This shows that immediately the Australian Window Glass Proprietary Limited commenced manufacturing, Clarkson Limited placed a small order to test out quality and delivery. The order was given on the 2nd November, 1931, for 112 boxes of sheet glass for November-December delivery, and delivery was made in the following order: 17th June, 1932, 5 cases; 20th June, 21 cases; 30th June, 30 cases; 11th August, 43 cases; 19th September, 10 cases; 8th September, 10 cases; making a total of 119 cases. Mr. Harvey presented to the board the following summary or the transaction : - 20th October. 1931 - The Australian Window Glass Proprietary Limited wrote promising delivery of sheet glass, NovemberDecember. 2nd November, 1931 - Clarkson Limited ordered 112 boxes sheet glass, NovemberDecember delivery. 28th November, 1931 - Clarkson Limited wrote intimating stocks exceedingly low, and asking for frank statement of their position. 1st December 11)31 - Australian Window Glass Proprietary Limited replied, intimating that shipment would be made on 28th January. 1932. 8th December, 1.931 - Clarkson Limited wrote pointing out that our stock of sheet glass was reduced to danger point, and that we had postponed importing in view of their promise. 16th January, 1932 - Australian Window Class Proprietary Limited wrote stating they were drawing glass on 18th January, 1932, and would send immediately a representative shipment so that we could judge quality. Several other communications passed between Clarkson Limited and the Australian Window Glass Proprietary Limited, and finally on the 9th June, 1932, Clarkson Limited wrote stating that they had been compelled to send an order overseas. It was not until the 8th September that the firm received the last ten cases to complete the order placed on the 2nd November of the previous year. I went to the trouble on Friday of telephoning to some of those mentioned in the Tariff Board's report, and asking them whether they had got into touch with the Sydney factory. I spoke to the principal of Messrs. L. G. Abbott, Limited, who stated that he had paid a visit to the factory, and had been surprised to observe the headway made. He was convinced that the factory was now in a position to supply all the requirements of the trade; indeed, to supply all the glass the Australian market could absorb. The quality, he said, was satisfactory both for building and horticultural purposes. He was open and frank with me on the subject of the Tariff Board's recommendation, saying that, in his opinion, the proposed duties were inadequate to meet the situation. I believe with him that it would be possible for the company to carry on under duties of1d. British, and l1/2d. foreign. I believe that, when the item again goes before the Tariff Board, find the members of that body are acquainted with the measures the company has taken to meet requirements, they will make a different recommendation to Parliament. I am pleased that the Minister has consented to refer the item once more to the board. Mr.WATKINS (Newcastle) [11.13].- I was pleased to hear the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Stacey) speak in defence of this industry; it was most refreshing after having had to listen to so many anti- Australian speeches. The most remarkable feature of the Tariff Board's activities is that, in respect of this industry and the pearl shell industry, it has usurped the prerogative of Parliament by recommending certain scales of duties, not on the merits of the industries concerned, but because certain foreign countries buy our products. Plate glass is not made in this country, and sheet glass is; yet there is a revenue duty of 10s. British and 15s. general per 100 sq. ft. on plate glass, and a duty of only 2s. per 100 sq. ft. on sheet glass. Now we are being asked to agree to reduced duties so that Belgium may supply three-quarters of the Australian market, and the local industry the other quarter. I have always stood for the protection of Australian industry so that employment may be provided for our own people. Mr.DEIN (Lang) [11.15].- The glass manufacturing industry in Australia has had a checkered career. Undoubtedly a mistake has been made by the Tariff Board in one or other of its recommendations regarding it. According to the 1925 report, the manufacturers were to be given a guarantee that, if the industry were established in Australia, it would receive at least sufficient protection to enable it to carry on. Another report was submitted later reversing the previous recommendation, and practically threatening to crush the industry altogether. Since the Scullin Government, in 1930, gave effect to the recommendations of the Tariff Board's 1925 report the enterprise has expanded enormously. [Quorum formed.] Not only has the number of employees been increased to 240, but the quality of the glass produced is now admittedly good. The output is sufficient to meet local requirements, and the price has been cut by half. The board evidently felt a difficulty about making a recommendation, because in one paragraph it suggests that the rates now operating, namely, 2s. British, and 4s. general, remain in the schedule for twelve months, and that they be terminated or continued after that period according to whether or not it can be shown that they have been effective. The deferred duties of 45 per cent. British, and 75 per cent. general, are higher than those previously recommended by the Tariff Board, namely, 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. The board states that, in order to give the industry effective protection, 100 per cent. British and 175 per cent. general would be necessary, but that it was not prepared to recommend duties so high. However, it went to the other extreme, and recommended duties which were unreasonably low. It should be possible to fix upon some rate between the two which would conform to the requirement of " reasonable " stipulated in the Ottawa agreement. This industry needs a reasonable amount of protection, because of its high labour costs. In Belgium, there are no arbitration courts, and the overhead charges are not nearly so high as they are in Australia, where factory legislation necessitates considerable expenditure in the provision of proper ventilation, lighting and sanitation. The duties recommended by the Tariff Board would result in the destruction of this industry, and enable Glass Distributors Limited to adopt, even more rigorously than in the past, the methods that it has employed to keep traders under its heel, or to drive them out of business. Those who have investigated the practices of this organization will admit that it is relentless, ruthless, and rapacious. I have a good deal of correspondence before me showing how it has kept its clients well under its thumb. As the Government has decided to refer the matter again to the Tariff Board, I shall not give details of the letters before me; but I shall read the following t clause of the agreement, which the clients of Glass Distributors Limited are asked to sign : - The company, by its directors, from time to time, and it' and when it considers it desirable, may fix the price at which all glass so ordered bv the principal, sha.ll he retailed by the principal to its customers, and the principal shall he bound by the price so fixed. In cases where firms have sold glass at 3d. under the amount stipulated in the price-list issued by this organization, fines have been inflicted. In other instances, calls on shares have been made to the extent of £300 or £400, with the result that more than one trader has been forced out of business. Such practices should not be permitted. So strongly did I feel on this matter last year that, in August, I wrote to the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham), asking if the federal authorities had any power to deal with this organization. One paragraph of the reply that I received is as follows: - The position is, it is understood, that the company named has made arrangements with British makers of glass whereby it controls all British glass imported into New South Wales. The situation is no doubt similar to that existing in Queensland under the activities of a company called Glass Distributors (Queensland) Limited. Investigation was made last year as to the position in Queensland, and the matter was referred to the Commonwealth Crown Law authorities for advice as to whether the Commonwealth could take action. The department was advised that it did not appear that any prosecution could be successfully launched against the company under Commonwealth law. If the Government has not power to deal with such practices the law should he altered to enable it to do so. The question that this committee must decide is whether the local industry shall live and continue to employ Australian workmen, or whether Glass Distributors Limited shall be allowed to continue its nefarious practices at the expense of our workmen. Prior to the establishment of the industry in New South Wales, the local company approached the Belgian manufacturers for the right to manufacture under their process, and the sum of £80,000 was paid for this privilege. The local company has shown that, with Australian labour, it is able to produce glass of good quality at a reasonable price, and the result has been that the Belgian manufacturers who were paid the.s £80,000 are taking all possible steps in conjunction with Glass Distributors Limited to crush the Australian industry. Because I consider that every member of this Parliament should make it his business to acquaint himself with the nature of the activities of Australian industries, about nine months ago I visited the factory in New South* Wales, and, recently, having read of the improved methods that had been adopted by the local manufacturers, I paid a second visit. I was convinced of the increased efficiency of the industry. .1. saw glass of excellent quality being made, and a huge quantity in store. It proved conclusively to me, at any rate, that the industry is capable of doing all that it claims to be able to do. Motion (by Mr. Ward) agreed to - That the question be now put. Amendment agreed to. Sub-items, as amended, agreed to. Group7. - Items amended by the Scullin Government which are not supported by Tariff Board Reports. Item 180, postponed sub-item (i) (Dry batteries and dry cells). Motion (by Mr. Guy) agreed to - That the sub-item be further postponed. Item 204, postponed sub-item (b) - (b) Aluminiumware and enamelledware n.e.i., but not including stoves and baths, ad valorem, British, 50 per cent. ; general, 70 per cent. Upon which Mr. Guy had moved - That the sub-item be amended by adding the following: - "And on and after 19th May, 1933- (b) Aluminiumware and enamelledware n.e.i., but not including stoves and baths, ad valorem British, 40 per cent..; general, 60 per cent. Mr. MAKIN(Hindmarsh) [11.29].- I strongly protest against the action of the Government in reducing the duties on these goods. I am not so well acquainted with the enamelware industry as I am with the manufacture of aluminiumware. Australian manufacturers of aluminiumware have treated the public fairly. They have made available to purchasers articles of first-class quality at reasonable prices, and have treated their employees well. Yet little consideration is given to them. The rates provided in the previous schedule were: British 50 per cent., and foreign 70 per cent. It is now proposed to reduce those rates to 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. respectively. That the importations of aluminiumware and enamelware were consistently high prior to 1930 indicates that the duties of 40 per cent. British and 60 per cent. general, which operated prior to the tariff schedule introduced in November, 1929, were not sufficiently protective. If honorable members will review the figures for the period that I have mentioned, they will find that the importations were then so excessive that the local industry could not hope to survive if faced with similar competition again. The rates now proposed will bring the position back to what it was prior to November, 1929; it will leave the door open for excessive importations of these goods, to the serious disadvantage, and possibly the collapse, of the Australian industry. Most of the aluminiumware imported into Australia cornea from the United Kingdom and Japan. That the Australian industry has doubled the number of its employees during the depression is evidence of the expansion which may be expected when conditions generally improve. In anticipation of better times, and of tariff security, Australian manufacturers of these goods have purchased land, and have on hand the capital necessary for the erection of further buildings. Every class of aluminium cooking and kitchen utensil required for domestic purposes is now made in this country. That Australian manufacturers are able to supply 344 different lines of hardware in this metal is an indication of their willingness to meet the full requirements of the Australian public, and to provide employment for Australians. The workers in this industry are skilled, and it would be unfair to throw them out of work. Prior to the imposition of an effective barrier against imports by the Scullin Government, considerable quantities of aluminiumware entered this country from Japan. The reduction of the duties opens the way to a repetition of those imports. Japanese manufacturers of aluminiumware employ both girl and child labour, to whom practically no wages are paid. I am informed, on reliable authority, that many Japanese workers are willing to give their services in return for shelter in the factories, and the barest subsistence. If the local industry is obliged to meet competition of that kind, it will have to dispense with the services of the men now employed, and engage girls. Some years ago, when I went through an aluminiumware factory in one of our cities, I saw a number of girls buffing aluminiumware, riveting the handles, and doing other work not suited to females; but as the industry developed it dispensed with female labour and engaged men for that class of work. That, of course, involved a higher expenditure for wages. If the industry has to meet Japanese competition, it will be forced to employ girl and boy labour. It is most undesirable that married men, with families dependent on them, should be displaced by boys and girls. The Government should realize that it is not merely a matter of providing means for the continuation of this industry in Australia; it must also ensure that proper standards of labour are observed, aud that there shall be no exploitation of female and child labour, which is foreign to the ideals of our country. The restraining influence of the Australian manufacture of aluminium has been most beneficial in the matter of prices. When the local industry was established the retail price of an imported set of five saucepans, the most popular assortment, was 37s. 6d. As a result of competition from the local manufacture, the price of that set has fallen to 10s. 9d. lt would be most unfair indiscriminately to expose this deserving industry to competition from overseas, and particularly from the East. It was felt by those engaged in the industry that the duty of 50 per cent. British and 70 per cent, general, provided in the Scullin schedule, was insufficient, and it sought duties of 60 per cent, and 85 per cent, respectively. It was only the prohibition on these goods that enabled the Australian industry effectively to secure the local market. I urge the Government to have the position further reviewed by the Tariff Board, and to realize that the local industry is exposed to the dumping of goods from foreign sources, particularly Japan. The standards set up by the Australian industry are superior even to those obtaining in Great Britain, both as regards gauge and the general quality of the article. I impress upon the Minister and the Government the desirability of doing everything to save from ruin this admirable industry, which has reduced prices, supplied a first class article, and placed in employment many who would otherwise be workless. Mr. WHITE(Balaclava- Minister for Trade and Customs) [11.47]. - Honorable members engaged in a full debate on this item last week before it was postponed. Mr. Makin.- Oh, no. Mr. WHITE.-The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) spoke fairly extensively on the subject, as did other honorable members, and 1 gave a long explanation. The item was postponed because an adequate number of copies of the report of the Tariff Board was not available. I can add practically nothing to what I then said. I remind the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin) that 87 per cent, of the raw material used by the Australian industry is imported from Great Britain, also that the bulk of the competition is not from Eastern countries. If the honorable member will examine the Tariff Board's report he will find that nearly all of our imported aluminiumware and enamelledware comes from the United Kingdom. Wolverhampton and the surrounding "black country" are admirably suited for the production of this ware, which, because of the proximity of the necessary raw material, can be produced on a most economical scale, against which we are unable to compete. The Tariff Board has inquired carefully into the matter, and has endeavoured merely to regulate the duties and admit at a reasonable rate those articles which we are unable to supply cheaply, or for which we have not dies. As I have said in connexion with other items, the Government will do everything possible to prevent dumping. I ask the committee to accept the amendment as it stands. Mr. HOLLOWAY(Melbourne Ports) [11.50]. - I appreciate the explanation which the Minister has given. I agree that the raw material from which we manufacture these goods comes from Great Britain; but the report of the Tariff Board shows that in the five or six years that we have been manufacturing aluminium goods we have been able to reduce the value of the imports from £101,000 to £1,000. Why, therefore, should we disturb this industry? The works at Burnley, in Victoria, are most up to date; the goods are being produced at a low price ; the market for aluminium ware in Australia is limited, and the little extra value afforded by the Australian market would make very little difference to the British manufacturers, whereas if it were lost to the Australian manufacturers the local industry would be ruined. For these reasons, I regret that the Minister has seen fit to propose this reduction of duty. Our industry is being conducted on modern lines, and it is necessary for its preservation that the whole of the local market shall be retained for it. The local manufacturers have installed plant capable of producing, not only immediate requirements, but also those of a considerably larger market which they hope will be available in the future. This applies, of course, to other manufacturing industries that have been established in this country. Manufacturers have invested their capital in plant and equipment in the hope that the market for their products will grow. The reduction of duties now proposed will mean next to nothing to the British industry, whereas it may mean death to the Australian industry. The Burnley works are turning out these goods as though they had been engaged in such operations for 50 years. Mr. Makin.- That is also true of the works at Thebarton, in South Australia. Mr. HOLLOWAY.- Aluminium ware has become a necessity in the modern kitchen. It is much less costly than the ware formerly used in kitchens. The industry gives employment of a light character to people who are not able to do heavy work. The danger in giving this small additional degree of preference to Great Britain is that the Australian industry may be destroyed. Amendment agreed to. Sub-item, as amended, agreed to. Division 14. - Vehicles. Item 359, sub-item (f), postponed paragraph (6) - 359. Vehicle parts, viz.: - (f) (6) Devices for catching or fastening motor car doors, excluding handles - (a)Remote controlled, each - British, free; general, 4s.; or ad val. - British, 40 per cent.; general,60 per cent. (whichever rate returns the higher duty). (b ) Other, each - British, 9d. ; general,1s.; or ad val. - British, 40 per cent.; general,60 per cent. (whichever rate returns the higher duty). Mr. CASEY(Corio) [11.55].- I move - That the paragraph be amended by adding the following: - "And on and after 19th May, 1933 - (6) Devices for catching or fastening motor car doors, excluding handles, ad val. - British, 20 per cent.; general, 40 per cent." The short history of this item is that until June, 1930, the duties were 40 per cent. British, 50 per cent. intermediate, and 55 per cent. general, under tariff sub-item 359 (f) 1, " Vehicle parts n.e.i.", Under the schedule introduced by the Scullin Government, the item was subdivided into " (a) remote control, and (b) other", and relativelyhigh fixed rates of duty were added as alternative to the existing high ad valorem rates. The Tariff Board reported upon this sub-item last month. It appears that only two firms attempted the manufacture of motor car locks; but because of the variety of types and sizes, and the relatively small number of each type and size required, both businesses failed. No one appeared in defence of the existing high duty at the Tariff Board inquiry either in Melbourne or Sydney. TheFord Motor Company and General Motors-Holden's Limited manufacture motor car door locks for their own requirements, but not commercially. So far as the Tariff Board could ascertain, such locks were not manufactured commercially in Australia. I do not think it necessary to discuss the question of costs and prices, because it is fully dealt with in the Tariff Board's report. My information is that the Ford company is making locks for its own cars at a price of 2s. 7d. each, and that the price of equivalent imported locks is about 5s. each. I have been in communication with the Ford Motor Company, and I understand that under the rate of duty that I now propose, namely, 20 per cent. British, and 40 per cent. general, the company will continue to make locks for its own cars. The amount of labour required for this purpose is very small. At the Ford works for instance, only two men are employed in this work. Probably not more than five or six men are engaged in such work throughout the Commonwealth. There is no real protection given by this duty,because, apart from the operation of the Ford Motor Company and General Motors-Holden's Limited, there is no demand for the product. The present high duty must be regarded solely as a revenue duty, and, as such, represents an unjustifiable impost on transportation in Australia. The commercial manufacture of such locks has not been and will not be stimulated by a heavy duty. At this late hour I do not propose to speak at any length on this subject unless it becomes necessary by any opposition to my proposal. The situation is briefly and clearly set out in the Tariff Board's report. I ask the committee, therefore, to agree to my amendment. Mr. WHITE(Balaclava - Minister for Trade and Customs) [11.58]. - The consideration of this item was postponed at the request of the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Hutchinson), who pointed out t hat no request had been made for high duties. The honorable member for Corio (Mr. Casey), who has closely inquired into this subject, has informed us that, apart from the locks that are produced and manufactured by the Ford Motor Company, and General Motors-Holden's Limited, such locks are not commercially manufactured in Australia. The Government is prepared to accept the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. 1933-05-18 Division 6. - Metals and Machinery. Item180, postponed sub-item (i) (Dry batteries and dry cells). Mr. WHITE(Balaclava- Minister for Trade and Customs) [12 midnight]. - The Tariff Board has recently inquired into the manufacture of dry batteries. This industry has grown considerably, and now employs hundreds of workmen. At first, the quality of the Australian product was not all that was desired, but the fact is now realized that most of the locally-made batteries, being of more recent manufacture, are superior to the imported. The Tariff Board pointed out, however, that high profits are made in the industry, and recommended that the duties should be reduced. Mr. Holloway. - Those profits are not general. Mr. WHITE.-They may not be general. There are five Australian companies engaged in the industry, and internal competition results in price-cutting. But it is obvious from the Tariff Board's report that the profits are excessive, and are not fair to the community. At the same time, the Government has to recognize the difficulty, on the figures in the report, of accepting the opinion of the board that the local industry could make a profit on a 35 per cent. duty. The Government also takes into account the fact that, the establishment of the local industry has resulted, notwithstanding the high rate of profit, in decreasing prices very substantially, and in providing a considerable volume of employment, direct, and indirect. It appears to be clear that if the recommendation of the board were accepted, and immediate action thereon were taken, imports would at once destroy the local industry, as it is at present organized, and serious unemployment would result. The Government proposes, therefore, to allow the present duties to stand until the item is dealt with by the Senate, and to give the local industry an opportunity meanwhile to reconsider its costs, including retail and distributing charges, as well as its profits, and to place before the board a considered statement. The board will be asked to submit a further report on these matters before the item is finally dealt with. Mr. SCULLIN(Yarra) [12.4 a.m.].The Government has done right in adopting the duties now shown in the schedule pending a further inquiry by the Tariff Board. It would be unreasonable to order a fresh inquiry, and, meanwhile, by reducing duties, allow a flood of imports which would throw hundreds of persons out of work. The principal point made by the Tariff Board in its report is that the local manufacturers are making excessive profits. I have examined the balance-sheet of one company that was charged with making excessive profits, and I find that on a typical battery that is retailed at 18s. the profit is 8d. That cannot be regarded as an excessive profit on the turnover. There are certain classes of business in which very little capital is employed, but which have a big turnover. I know of an indent agent who made an income of £1,000 a year on a capital of £2. He required only his own labour. There are other industries of that kind, and if they can work on a system of overdrafts, employing bank money, and not charging goodwill and similar overhead costs, an impressive balance-sheet can be produced. The manufacturing company to which I have referred, has this year taken from the Postal Department a contract at a price which will represent a reduction in profits of almost 50 per cent. in comparison with the profit made last year. These contractors to the Postal Department have treated the Government well. Their goods have to conform to a very high standard set by the technical experts of the department, and the prices charged are not excessive. For a type of cell used for telephones, they are now charging ls. 7d., whereas the price formerly was 2s. 3d., and earlier, 2s. 6d., and, before Australian tenders were accepted, 3s. lid. A typical battery which represents 50 per cent, of the total business is sold for 18s. plus. Sd. sales tax. Prior to the imposition of high duties, a similar battery landed in Australia from the United States of America, at 10s. 6d., was retailed at 25s., including 14s. 6d. for distribution. There was then practically no Australian competition, but after the high duties and prohibitions were imposed, and the local manufacturers were producing on a large scale, they insisted that the cost of distribution should be reduced. Accordingly, when the factory price was 10s., the retail price was 20s. Now the factory price is 9s. and the retail price is 18s. If the manufacturers are making exorbitant profits, what is to be said of the profit made by the importers? I find that, on the duties recommended by the Tariff Board, a British firm could land a battery, duty paid, at 6s. 4d., including profit. The Australian factory price of a similar article is 9s. on which the profit would be 7d. to 9d. If the Australian company worked without a profit, it would still be undercut by about 2s. a battery. If the Tariff Board's report had been put into operation, the new duties would have applied immediately they were dealt with in this chamber, and within six weeks the country would have been flooded with imported batteries and a large number of Australians thrown out of employment. I hope that the board upon reconsideration of this industry, will realize that a great injury would have been done to Australian manufacturers and workers, had the duties been reduced as recommended. Motion (by Mr. Waed) agreed to - That the question be now put. Sub-item agreed to. Preliminary matter and prefatory notes agreed to. Resolution reported. Standing Orders suspended and resolution adopted. 1558 miscellaneous 1558 That Mr. White and Mr. Guy do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution. Bill brought up by Mr. White, read a first and second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate. Report adopted. 1558 1558 12:12:00 KZR Balaclava UAP Minister for Trade and Customs 1 0 WHITE, Thomas Mr WHITE . - I move - That the bill be now read a third time. At the conclusion of this tariff schedule I wish to thank honorable members for the good hearing they have given me as a new Minister. In taking over the portfolio from my predecessor on account of his unfortunate illness, and plunging immediately into the intricacies of a lengthy schedule and the implementing of the Ottawa agreement, I, naturally, felt that I had a great responsibility, and 1 appreciate the fact that I have not been unduly delayed in piloting this measure through the House, incidentally without a single defeat on any item. Without the willing co-operation of the Assistant Minister (Mr. Guy), the debate would, undoubtedly, have been of longer duration, and I cannot speak too highly of the loyal and indefatigable service of the officers of my department, who have so ably assisted me. Their duties imposed a great strain upon them, and necessitated strenuous work at all hours, which was always gladly undertaken. As I stated at the outset, I hope that, with the passing of the schedule, some tariff peace will be given to the commercial world, and I earnestly trust that it will prove a stimulus to industry and assist prosperity generally. 1558 12:14:00 KIX Indi 0 0 HUTCHINSON, William Mr HUTCHINSON . - My few remarks will, I believe, express the opinion of all members of the House. I congratulate the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) on the conspicuous ability which he has shown in piloting the .tariff schedule through the House. He took over his portfolio possibly during the most difficult period in the history of Australian tariffmaking, but he soon got into his stride and gave lucid and logical reasons for, and explanations of, the various duties. It is only right that we should record at this stage our great appreciation of his work, andwe congratulate him on his success as a new Minister. 1559 12:15:00 KZO Kooyong UAP Attorney-General 1 0 LATHAM, John Mr LATHAM . - I am sorry indeed that, being engaged upon other matters, I was unable to speak first in saying some words of appreciation of the manner in which the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) and the Assistant Minister (Mr. Guy) have discharged a difficult task. As all honorable members are aware, the tariff is a highly controversial subject, and no Minister can expect to have an entirely easy time in piloting a schedule of this magnitude through the House. It is hoped that we shall, for the first time for a long time, if the Senate accepts the schedule, have a statutory tariff in the full sense on the statute-book. I sincerely hope that it will be of benefit to Australia as a whole. The work of the Minister has been particularly arduous. It has been seldom indeed that a Minister at the outset of his career has been faced with a task of such magnitude and complexity. He has handled the Government's tariff proposals in a most admirable manner, and, I think, has won the respect of all honorable members for the work that he has done. In making these remarks I speak on behalf of the Government. 1559 12:16:00 F4U Capricornia 0 0 FORDE, Francis Michael Mr FORDE . - As an ex-Minister for Trade and Customs, I quite appreciate the difficulties with which the Minister (Mr. White) was confronted when he assumed the great responsibility of his present office, and on behalf of the Opposition and on my own behalf I wish to congratulate him on the manner in which he has handled the tariff in this House. While I disagree with many of the decisions of the Minister and the Government affecting the tariff, I must give to the Minister a great deal of credit for his courtesy and the considerate manner in which he has explained the different items. At times I probably gave him some trouble, as did other honorable members, but it must be remembered that in a tariff discussion feelings usually run high. I can assure the Minister, and I think that I speak for every member of the Opposition, that we do not carry that feeling with us outside. I congratulate him on the manner in which he has handled the tariff, and on the industry and skill which he has applied to his task. I hope that there will be no further inroads on the protectionist policy of Australia. 1559 12:18:00 KXT Gippsland 0 0 PATERSON, Thomas Mr PATERSON . - I, too, wish to congratulate the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) on having completed the tariff. I realize that it has been a big task, and we cannot but admire him for the way in which he has carried it out. I cannot congratulate him on the extent to which he has accepted suggestions, particularly those of the Country party, in connexion with the tariff; but I do not intend to go into that matter at this stage. I should like to say that, for a gentleman of a naturally pugnacious disposition, he has held himself wonderfully well in check during the debates which have taken place during the last few weeks. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. 1559 adjournment Hotel Employees at Canberra -Fuel Oil from Coal. Motion (by Mr. Latham) proposed - That the House do now adjourn. 1559 12:20:00 JOM West Sydney 0 0 BEASLEY, John Mr BEASLEY . - I wish to refer to a matter which is of considerable importance to a number of workers in the Federal Capital Territory. This matter was brought forward by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) last week. I have now been requested by the secretary of the organization in Sydney to press further the claims of employees of the Government who are associated with the Federated Liquor and Allied Trades Employees Union of Australia. The facts of the case of these employees of the Government in hotels and other places are as follow: - On the 4th January, 1929, representatives of this union met representatives of the Federal Capital Commission - Mr. Gibson, the Industrial Officer in the Federal Capital Territory, and Mr. Farrar, the officer in charge of the Commissariat Department - to discuss a log of wages and conditions. As a basis of settlement, they agreed that adult males should receive £4 12s. 6d., and adult females £2 16s., for a week of 44 hours, with margins added for the different classifications of work performed. At that time, the lowest rate paid to an adult male in the Federal Capital Territory was £5 a week, and the reason for the acceptance of less than that amount was that the commission agreed to pay their employees double time.for work performed on holidays, twelve days' annual leave on full pay, and one week's sick pay over a twelve monthly period. The Minister has denied that annual leave and pay for holidays was agreed to, but the organization claims that he is wrong. In a letter sent to the Minister, the following' memorandum from the Federal Capital Territory Branch of the Department of Home Affairs, to the house manager, Hotel Canberra, is quoted - Please note the undermentioned alteration to the 1929 agreement with the Federated Liquor and Allied Trades Employees Union of Australasia, to come into operation from 9th November, 1031 - " Annual holidays. - On the completion of twelve months9 service, .all employees shall bo entitled to a holiday of twelve working days with full pay. Should any employee not complete twelve mouths' service, he or she will be granted a -pro rata rate of one day's pay for each completed month's service on the termination of his employment." The organization submits that memorandum in proof of the fact that holiday pay was agreed to. But the principal point made is that the men agreed in 1929 to take less than the base wage, on the understanding that these concessions would be given to them, but they did not receive any holiday pay until 1931. Either the Minister or the department claims that at that time there was no such thing as a base wage in the Territory. The reply of the union to that is that £5 a week was the lowest wage then paid for ordinary labouring work in the Territory. As every honorable member is aware, the lowest wage paid for ordinary labouring work is regarded as the base wage. There were no means of determining a base j wage in the Territory in 1929, because no tribunal for that purpose was operating; therefore, it cannot be disputed that the organization is entitled to consider that £5 a week was the base wage, and that these employees are justified in assuming that they should receive as much as those engaged in ordinary labouring work. The department raises the objection that it did not agree to annual leave being granted. That is disproved by the memorandum that I have read. These employees, who for a period agreed to accept lower than the prevailing wage, have been penalized, because they have not had either that wage or the annual holidays. Their organization later went before the tribunal in the Territory, in an endeavour to have the conditions in regard to holidays embodied in an award. The tribunal would not agree to that being- done in the case of a single organization, on the ground that it might give rise to dissatisfaction in the ranks of other unions. This organization then requested the tribunal to hear a general claim with respect to all employees in the Territory, and the tribunal agreed to do so. A general claim was submitted, but it was rejected. The organization at a. later date again endeavoured to have the question of wages further discussed by the tribunal. A letter that I have received from the secretary of the union shows exactly what happened. It says - You will take notice that the members of the board fixed the minimum wage for adult male employees at £4 5s. per week, and the female adult rate at £2 12s. per week. The next, paragraph shows how these employees have been treated. The award which fixed the rates mentioned was gazetted on the 9th February, 1933. The letter goes on to say - Since the award was made, they have applied the Financial Emergency- Act- That is to say, the Public Service Board came along after the award had been made, fixing the minimum wage for adult male employees at £4 5s. per week - and brought the base rate to bc paid to adult males down to £3 14s. per week, and adult females down to about £2 5s. per week. The letter mentions that all other employees of the Government working under awards are paid a weekly wage of at least £4 0s. 3d. a week. The secretary of the organization appealed to the Minister, asking that, if there was to be any cut at all in wages, the Government might at least maintain the level of £4 Os. 3d., which is what I suppose may he regarded as the base rate for labouring work in the Territory. The men and women concerned were penalized for nearly two years, and were paid a wage lower than the base rate in the Territory until the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Blakeley), as Minister for Home Affairs in 1931, issued a memorandum on the subject. He granted them twelve days annual leave, which was less than they claimed they were promised. There were eight public holidays that they might have had ordinarily; therefore, in reality they were given only four days. Their case is one that should certainly receive sympathetic consideration by the Government. A week of 44 hours, and twelve days' annual leave, are embodied in the award, but the wage question is still in dispute. The circumstances under which they work are such that their time is spread over as long as thirteen hours a day. Some of them may start at 5 o'clock in the morning, work until 8 or 9 o'clock, and then be given a couple of hours off duty. That may continue throughout the day. Rationing has also to be considered. Then, too, they have to pay for their board, which works out at about £1 2s. a weekTaking all these facts into consideration, it appears to me that the least the department' can do is to give these men the benefit of the ruling rate which applies generally to labouring work in the Territory, namely, £4 Os. 3d. a week. This matter could also be discussed from the point of view of private employers in the Territory, but I wish to confine my remarks to the representations made by the organization concerned. I submit that they have made out a strong case. They proved their case before the tribunal, but then the Public Service Board stepped in and, under the powers of, the Financial Emergency Act passed three years ago, reduced an award which was made in February, 1933. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) has already referred to this aspect of the matter; but, as I have been requested by the organization to press the claims of its members, I deemed it desirable to bring the matter under the notice of the Minister in the hope that the employees will get a fair deal. 1561 12:32:00 KX7 East Sydney 0 0 WARD, Edward Mr WARD . - There are one or two other aspects which might be brought to the notice of the Minister in connexion with the subject that has been raised by the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley). It must be obvious to all visitors at the Hotel Canberra that the establishment is very much understaffed, with the result that the attention given is by no means what it should be. This is not the fault of the staff, because, as I have stated, it. is numerically insufficient to cater for the number of people now patronizing the hotel. There are, I understand, 120 visitors there at the moment, and, because of the shortage of staff, people have to wait half an hour in the dining-room before their requirements are attended to. Unless an addition is made to the staff I suggest that the authorities consider the advisability of providing the employees with an improved mode of transport, such as scooters. As the' honorable member for West Sydney has stated, hotel employees are on duty for a period of thirteen hours daily, and my information is that the girls at the Hotel Canberra are so overworked in the early hours of the day that, in order to be equal to the demands made upon them in connexion with dinner at night, some of them have to go to bed or rest during the afternoon. Such a state of affairs should not be allowed to continue in the Territory. Employees of all these government hotels are entitled to much better treatment than they are getting. Another matter which should have the attention of the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) is the pay of employees at what are now known as the private hotels. All hotel employees are working under an award; but I .understand there is no- power to enforce its observance in the case of government hotels that have been leased to private individuals - a policy which this Government has been fostering recently in the Territory. I have been informed that recently one hotel lessee offered a male employee 24s. a week and keep. If this state of affairs has the approval of the Government, Ministers should say so to-night. 1562 KXQ 0 0 PARKHILL, Robert Mr Archdale Parkhill - Did the honorable member say that the wage' mentioned was offered by a lessee of one nf the private hotels? 1562 KX7 0 0 WARD, Edward Mr WARD - Yes, and I am anxious that the Attorney-General should take steps to correct the position. It should be possible for some tribunal to enforce all industrial awards in the Territory. The Government, which is responsible for fostering private enterprise in connexion with these hotels, should see that decent wages and decent conditions of labour are observed by all lessees. I hope that the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Perkins) will give attention to the matter mentioned by the honorable member for West Sydney, and that the Attorney-General will see what can be done to enforce the observance of industrial awards in the Territory. 1562 12:36:00 KJQ Hunter 0 0 JAMES, Rowland Mr JAMES .- I desire to bring under the notice of the Government the biennial conference to be held at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, United States of America, in November, of this year, to consider coal treatment processes for the extraction of oil. An invitation has been given to the governments of various countries to send delegates, and I hope that Australia will be represented at that important gathering, because the rehabilitation of the great coal industry of New South Wales is urgently demanded, and it is likely that the conference will make recommendations of far-reaching importance to all coalproducing countries. I mentioned this matter two years ago, during the regime of the Scullin Government, and suggested the appointment of one of the Lyon brothers who have, at Wallsend, demonstrated the practicability of extracting oil from coal in commercial quantities, .but I regret to say that no action was taken. Recently, the New South Wales Government appointed a committee to investigate and report on the coal treatment process developed by Messrs. Lyon Brothers. The committee comprised the following : - Professors Henry Barraclough, of the Faculty of Engineering at the Sydney University, and F. A. Eastaugh, Professor of Technology; Messrs. H. J. Swain, head of the engineering branch of the Sydney Technical College; 0. J. Matthews, a representative of the Government on the Commonwealth sugar committee; and Mr. F. S. Mance, under-secretary of the New South Wales Department of Mines. The report presented by these gentlemen is a valuable one. It reads as follows : - The committee appointed to investigate and report on the coal treatment process of Messrs. Lyon Brothers, and their appeal for Government assistance, has held five meetings, at one of which evidence was taken from J. R. Duggan, B.Sc, B.E., formerly of the Fuel Research Board (England). It has the honour to present the following report, which embodies its unanimous view: - In the first place, the committee desires to place on record its appreciation (a) of the work Messrs. Lyon Bros, have done on fuel processing, (6) of their capacity as coal technicians and their knowledge of the literature relating to the subject, and (c) of the persistency of their efforts. In order to remove any misapprehension, the committee points out that the Lyon process is not concerned with the production of hydrocarbon oil from coal. It is a low temperature carbonization process, involving no new principles, and may be briefly summarized as follows: - Owing, it is claimed by Messrs. Lyon Brothers, to the almost unique properties of Maitland coal, processes which have proved uneconomical abroad may be financial successes in New South . Wales. It is therefore proposed to subject Maitland coal to destructive distillation at a low temperature. By their process, Messrs. Lyon Brothers have obtained from one ton of Maitland coal (<*) a quantity of rick gas, (6) 40 gallons of tar, and (c) 13 dwt. of solid fuel or coke. Their plans for the utilization of these products are - Gas. - To bottle and use in place of reti culated town gas, as is being done in America with special gas, or dilute and use locally, or pipe to centres of consumption. Tar. - The 40 gallons of tar, by suitable fractionation, yield 25 gallons of a lighter distillate, which it is proposed to use in place of imported liquid fuel in heavy motor vehicles, after modification of such vehicles. Coke. - It is claimed that when a combus tion catalyst is incorporated with this coke, it has exceptional properties as a fuel for gas producers. Their proposal is to popularize the use of producer gas in tractors, and similar power units by the utilization of this activated fuel. Messrs. Lyon Brothers appeal to the Government for funds to erect an experimental plant on a commercial scale for the production of the above products, and ask for a finding by a committee as to the scientific basis and the commercial and economic soundness of their proposals. The committee is of opinion that the proposals are scientifically sound, and that the claims in respect to the yields of products obtained by Messrs. Lyon, are wot extravagant. The committee considers . that the commercial aspect, that is, the demand for and disposal of these products, is insufficiently demonstrated, particularly as experience abroad raises a serious doubt on these points. As it is unreasonable to undertake production before the demand for the products has been thoroughly investigated, the committee does not recommend the erection of a subsidized production plant, and considers such a proposal premature. The committee favours, however, the granting by the Government of funds for the purpose of proving the utility of, and the possible wide demand for, the products; the justification for such a grant is an increased demand for coal to take the place of imported liquid fuel. lt is recommended that any grant made should bc expended under suitable control, and for the following purposes: - The production in the present small plant of Messrs. Lyon Bros, of sufficient liquid fuel and activated coke for the purpose of the test. The manufacture and installation of accessories to plant needed for trials with tar distillate in place of petrol. The manufacture and installation of a producer and accessories for trials of the activated solid fuel. Any expenses incidental to the conduct of such trials. The committee recommends that the sum of not Jess than £500 be provided for this purpose. As in the past Messrs. Lyon Bros, have found that certain transport regulations have hampered them in their experimental work, it is suggested that all possible facilities of that nature be granted during these trials. The committee further recommends that, in the event of any portion of the above grant being made to Messrs. Lyon Bros., they be required to give an undertaking not to sell or otherwise dispose of any patent rights or any secret processes that may result from the proposed experiments without first liquidating moneys paid to them. Although not definitely in its terms of reference, the committee desires to express the opinion that a co-ordinating committee to deal with all matters relating to the welfare of the coal industry would be of permanent value to the industry and to the State. I hope, in view of what I have said, that the Government will consider the appointment of a representative to take part in the discussion at Pittsburg. It is essential that our views should be placed before that gathering. We have spent many thousands of pounds upon other overseas delegations, and I submit that, as the decisions of the Pittsburg Conference may be vitally important to Australia, this country should be represented at it. 1563 12:39:00 KXY Eden-Monaro UAP Monaro- Minister for the Interior 1 0 PERKINS, John Mr PERKINS .- The subject mentioned by the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) is not a new one. It has evidently had consideration, from time to time, in the life of three parliaments, during which time the honorable member himself was a member of a government, and it has probably had the attention of no less than five Ministers. However, I shall have inquiries made, and see if anything can be done in the direction indicated by the honorable gentleman. At the same time I am not hopeful of anything being done in regard to wages for some time. The firm mentioned has been in touch with me, but I have not been approached by any local residents. They appear to be well satisfied. 1563 JOM 0 0 BEASLEY, John Mr Beasley - They must speak through their representatives. 1563 KXY 0 0 PERKINS, John Mr PERKINS - Evidently they were contented during the regime of the Labour Government, because, according to the honorable member, this condition of affairs obtained as far back as 1929. The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) complained of under-staffing at the government hotels. It may be true that just at the moment the Hotel Canberra is understaffed, because there are 120 guests staying there, but on Saturday there may be more domestics than guests. That has been the case ever since the hotel has been opened. There are generally two or three busy days in the week, particularly during a tariff session, when many visitors are in the city, but for the rest of the week the hotels are slack. If we engaged extra employees, there would not be enough work to keep them employed all the time, and if they were rationed, honorable members would complain. In the circumstances, there is no real shortage of staff. I come in contact with the staff a good deal, and my impression is that they are genuinely pleased to see that things have brightened up, and that the hotel is busy. The honorable member mentioned that workers in the private hotels were not covered by an award. I answered that objection on Friday afternoon last, when the matter was brought up on the adjournment, and stated that the Government was giving the subject its consideration. I remind the honorable member, however, that the sin, if any, is not on the conscience of this Government alone. The same condition of affairs obtained while the Labour Government was in office, and applies not only to hotelworkers, but also to those engaged in other occupations as well. 1564 12:45:00 KZO Kooyong UAP Attorney-General 1 0 LATHAM, John Mr LATHAM . - The honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) raised the question of fuel development in connexion with the Third International Conference on bituminous coal held at Pittsburg from the. 10th to the 21st November, 1931. The Government realizes the importance of the subject, and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research is maintaining a close and continuous contact with the British Department of Scientific Research, the Fuel Research Board in England, and the British Fuel Research Station at Greenwich. The Government has specially employed the distinguished Australian scientist, Mr. L. J. Rogers, M.Sc, for the purpose of advising it on the subject of fuel research. He is at present visiting Europe and America in connexion with inquiries into fractionating and cracking units for the shale oil industry. I shall raise the matter with the Minister in charge of Development, and if it can be arranged for Mr. Rogers, without any great additional expense, to attend the forthcoming conference, and if it is thought by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Reseach that it would be of value for him to do so, the necessary action will be taken. I do not think, however, that Mr. Rogers will be away so long. It is not worth while sending a man away especially to attend the conference, because, on the last occasion, we obtained at small expense a full report of the proceedings, and we shall do the same again. I do not think that the Government would agree to hold up the development of the shale oil industry for the purpose of enabling Mr. Rogers to attend the conference. However, the whole matter will be thoroughly examined with a full recognition of its importance. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 12.47 a.m. (Friday) 1564 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - 1564 1564 KXD 0 0 WATSON, William Mr Watson n asked the Attorney-General, upon notice - As the Civic Administrator and the OfficerinCharge of Lands in the Federal Capital Territory have admitted publicly the invalidity of titles to certain lands in the Territory, will the Attorney-General inform the House when action will be taken to validate such titles ? 1564 KZO UAP 1 0 LATHAM, John Mr Latham - I would invite the honorable member's attention to notice of motion No. 3 appearing on to-day's notice paper. Commonwealth Bank Premises at Adelaide. 1564 KYH 0 0 PRICE, John Mr Price e asked the Treasurer, upon notice - Is it proposed to build up-to-date bank premises in Adelaide? » Have plans been drawn for a building to be erected on the present Commonwealth Bank site in King William-street, Adelaide? Has a decision been arrived at; if so, will the work be put in hand at an early date ? 1564 F4O UAP 1 0 LYONS, Joseph Aloysius Mr Lyons - Inquiries are being made from the Commonwealth Bank, and replies to the honorable member's questions will be furnished as soon as possible. Trade Treaty between France and Canada. 1564 KYI 0 0 PROWSE, John Mr Prowse e asked the Minister for Commerce, upon notice - Has he seen a press report of the 15th instant relating to a trade treaty between France and Canada, wherein the latter is to receive certain trade advantages, especially in wheat; if so, will he endeavour to make similar arrangements with France and other countries with which Australia enjoys a favorable trade balance? 1564 KV7 UAP 1 0 STEWART, Frederick Mr Stewart - I have seen the press report referred to by the honorable member. Copy of the- text of the treaty mentioned is now on the way to Australia, and when it is received the question raised by the honorable member will receive consideration. 1565 1565 KX7 0 0 WARD, Edward Mr Ward d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - Does the Anglo-Argentine trade treaty contain the following provisions: - If it should become necessary, in order to secure a remunerative price in the British market, to reduce various categories of Argentine meat below the Ottawa levels, the effect upon the price level desired shall not be negatived by replacing these reduced imports from the Argentine by increased imports of meat from other countries, including the British dominions? Britain undertakes not to restrict imports of Argentine frozen beef, mutton and lamb, in excess of those specified in scheduleB of the Ottawa agreement unless the dominions' imports are restricted? Imports of Argentine chilled beef will not be reduced more than 10 per cent. below the imports for the year ended the 30th June, 1932, unless imports of chilled beef or frozen meat from all meat exporting countries, including the British dominions, are also reduced by a percentage equalling the percentage reduction made in Argentine chilled beef below 90 per cent. of the imports in the corresponding quarter of the year ended the 30th June, 1932? If so, does the Anglo-Argentine trade treaty take priority over the Ottawa agreement? 1565 F4O UAP 1 0 LYONS, Joseph Aloysius Mr Lyons - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follow : - The principal provisions of the treaty were outlined by the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Stewart) in the statement he made to the House on the 3rd May last. The full text of the agreement will be received at an early date. As soon as it has been examined, the information the honorable member asks for will be supplied. No. 1565 1565 JOM 0 0 BEASLEY, John Mr Beasley y asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - Whether he has received a letter from Mr. W. R. Garrett, secretary of the Melbourne Air Convention Committee, requesting that a royal commission beappointed to inquire into pant aviation expenditure on the grounds that- the Auditor-General has repeatedly recommended an investigation and criticized departmental administration ; and the inter-departmental committee which recently investigated aerial transportservices did not perform the functions of a royal commission, because no attempt was made to investigate past expenditure, extra vagance, and administration? Will the Prime Minister indicate the attitude of the Government to this matter? 1565 F4O UAP 1 0 LYONS, Joseph Aloysius Mr Lyons - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follow : - Yes. The Auditor-General in his report has referred to the large expenditure on air subsidies, but has never in his criticism suggested that there is anything improper or corrupt either in the past or present expenditure. The Auditor-General did not suggest inquiry by a royal commission, and the Government can see no useful purpose that can be served by such an inquiry. The inter-departmental committee, in framing its report, had regard to the results of past methods and amounts of subsidies. It may be added that the Government will see that an opportunity is afforded both Houses of Parliament either on a supply bill or by some other means to discuss civil aviation generally before tenders for the new services are accepted.