Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Thursday, 23 April 1936


Senator COLLINGS (Queensland) . - In approaching the consideration of this bill I want to emphasize what I have said on previous occasions, namely, that the Opposition approaches all questions which come before the Senate from a point of view entirely different from that taken by the Government and its supporters. That applies particularly to proposals such as are contained in this bill in which basic principles are involved. I suppose that it is quite natural that opposing parties in this chamber should approach the consideration of these questions from entirely different angles. "We on this side recognize that there are two classes in the community.


Senator Sampson - Only two?


Senator COLLINGS - There are only two, and they could be described in different ways. I once heard it said - and this is not the definition I intend to use to-night - that the two classes in the community are those who do the work and those who " do " the workers. But I define the two classes as the well-to-do on the one hand, and on the other hand the working wealth producers who alone support them. This measure will no doubt be considered from two distinct points of view. In the first place, there is the national, or, if you like, the racial outlook. For my part, I propose to approach the bill as an Australian first, last, and all the time. I have no interest in the political life of this nation other than as an Australian. Any proposal that will assist Australia will always receive the whole-hearted support of the Opposition, and anything detrimental to the best interests of this country will be strenuously opposed by us. Australia has a history of which Ave are justly proud.

I do not desire to detract in the least from the glory of the histories of other countries, but I emphasize the fact that no similar number of people has, in so short a time and under such difficulties, brought about so much development as has occurred in Australia in the last century and a half. Some years ago, four emissaries from Great Britain, referred to as " The Big Four ", ' visited Australia to give us the benefit of their experience. One of them, Sir Arthur Duckham, said that his trip had been the most educative he had ever undertaken, and that if he had not come to Australia he would not have believed it possible for a country with a population of only 6,500,000 to have accomplished so much in so short a time. He remarked that he had found in Australia cities comparable with any in the Old World. He added that he could board a train at Perth and travel by rail continuously to Cloncurry in Queensland.


Senator Sir George Pearce - But Ave have six different railway gauges !


Senator COLLINGS - Of course. I understand that the Lyons Government intends some day to remedy that fault, to the extent of standardizing the gauges between the capital cities, as a measure for the relief of unemployment, but so far - it has done little to that end.

If there is one matter on which Australia has taken a definite stand, it is its fiscal policy, which is designed to give adequate protection to Australian secondary industries. Another great principle which is espoused by all political parties in this country is the White Australia policy. The Opposition contends that both those policies are right, because they' are essentially Australian. When the details of this bill are under consideration, the Opposition will resist every proposal which seeks to make it easy to bring into Australia the products of low-wage countries.


Senator Duncan-Hughes - How doesthe honorable senator define " Australian " ? The blacks were here beforewe were.


Senator COLLINGS - The honorable senator should remember that Ave haveemerged from the day of the blacks. I regret that the honorable senator is obviously still thinking back into the black: past. He should consider this matter in the light of happenings in the modern world. It may not be out of place for me to remind the Senate that, in the days before Christ, Aristotle stated -

When the time comes that the shuttle will weave and iron implements move of themselves, there will be no further need of masters and slaves.

The Opposition will strenuously oppose reductions of duties) no matter what plausible excuse may be given for them, if they result in throwing numbers of Australian workmen to the wolves of poverty and destitution. In this attitude we are strongly supported in this and in other countries. I shall quote from a recent pronouncement by King Edward, because his remarks have a bearing on the tariff policy I am now enunciating. Speaking at the beginning of this month at Buckingham Palace to deputations comprising about 500 persons, who brought from a score or more of privileged public bodies, representing all sections of the community, loyal addresses of congratulation to His Majesty on his accession, he concluded his address in these words -

With all sincerity, therefore, I not only join in your prayers that the future may bring peace and prosperity to this country, but I would assure you that my constant endeavour will be to promote the establishment of peace throughout the world, and a revival of that commercial and industrial activity, both in this country and abroad, that alone can provide the opportunity to work which it is the right of every citizen to enjoy.

I urge Ministers and all other honorable senators opposite to take cognisance of those words from the lips of our King. To-day, the workers of Australia have the right to work, but not the opportunity to do so. I believe that it is the definite opinion of the great majority of the people of this country that we should establish such fiscal arrangements as will enable employment to be given to those who are willing to work. We shall probably be told during the course of the debate that the Labour party supports monopolies, and desires to bolster up such great monopolistic undertakings as the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, and the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. That statement has been repeated ad nauscum. We shall no doubt be informed that as labour men we are in the wrong camp, because we support wealthy profiteers. If a ship required by Australia is built abroad, the wages and the expenditure on materials are lost to this country ; but if the construction takes place within Australia, our own people not only get the ship, but they also retain the money expended on wages and materials. If I may explain my attitude somewhat dramatically, let me say that, whilst I do not favour any action that would result in the public being exploited by the profiteer, if I had to choose between an overseas exploiter and robber and an Australian exploiter and robber I would prefer the latter, because he would at least spend his ill-gotten gains in this country.


Senator Hardy - How does the honorable senator know he would spend the proceeds in Australia? He might send the money abroad.


Senator COLLINGS - He might, of course, but that would be unusual. This Parliament is sufficiently powerful, and has the means at its disposal, to prevent profiteering and exploitation, and the growth of monopolies and combines.

It cannot be truthfully claimed that either in this chamber or in the other branch of the legislature, the Opposition has ever opposed any proposal for the benefit of a primary or a secondary industry. Honorable senators opposite must admit that Labour men always vote with the Government in favour of measures for the assistance of the primary producers, and we expect similar co-operation from the Government side in dealing with secondary industries, which are of vital importance to Australia. I propose to quote from the platform to which the Labour party is pledged. I refer to the printed policy to which every Labour candidate must subscribe. Dealing with the " New Protection " our platform provides -

(a)   Effective tariff protection of Australian industries, with measures to prevent profiteering and to assure industrial protection to workers.

(b)   Import embargoes to. assure the home market to Australian industries capable of fully supplying the demand, subject to control of prices and industrial conditions, Australian standard.

The platf orm of the Labour party in relation to industrial regulation provides that working hours shall not exceed 40 in each week. I am glad to notice that we have been able to convince the people of other countries of the necessity for a 40-hour week, and we hope that even the backward Lyons Government will accept the advice of its emissary to the International Labour Conference, Sir Frederick Stewart, and adopt this reform in Australia. At least the Government should set a good example by bringing a 40-hour week into operation, so far as lies in its power. Regarding this matter, the platform of the Labour party provides -

(a)   Working hours not to exceed 40 per week, and to be further progressively reduced so as to prevent displacement of workers by machinery.

(b)   Wage scale to be so increased as to provide a standard commensurate with the productivity, such standard to be increased progressively as the standard of productivity increases, and not to interfere with the standard of any States, or in any industry.

Labour also has a definite policy with regard to primary industries. This includes the following objectives : -

The institution of a Commonwealth shipping service for the purpose of securing cheaper freights on the carriage of products both interstate and overseas.

The establishment of Commonwealth agricultural implement factories for the purpose of providing primary producers with cheaper machinery.

A comprehensive system of water conservation and irrigation, with provision - in suitable areas - for the communal supply of water from artesian and sub-artesian bores and wells.

The encouragement of secondary industries, and the provision of cheap light and power in country districts, where practicable.

The extension of the benefits of civil aviation and wireless communication to country districts.

The provision of . better facilities for postal, telegraphic and telephonic communication.

Assistance and encouragement in the construction of railways, main roads, and in the development of the nearest ports as a means of bringing producers in touch with their natural markets by the shortest and quickest routes.

Utilization of the High Commissioner's Office overseas for the purpose of providing expert advice in the sale of our products abroad.

The provision of increased meteorological facilities for recording and publishing information in regard to weather conditions, rainfall, and river gaugings.

Representation of primary producers upon all Boards affecting the handling and marketing of their products.

Even at the risk of wearying honorable senators I put these principles on record, so that what the Australian Labour party and its representatives in this chamber advocate in connexion with the adequate protection of Australian industries, primary and secondary, shall not be later twisted and misrepresented. Recently a paragraph appeared in the anti-Labour press, headed " Labour's New Policy, Protection of Consumers and Workers." This pronouncement was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) in the House of Representatives -

We are determined to resist what appears to be a disposition on the part of certain groups of manufacturers to exploit for their special welfare what really is intended as a national policy for the national interest.

I desire to explain, for the information of honorable senators, that this policy does not represent a departure from the established policy of the Australian Labour party; that utterance does not mean that the party proposes to tinker with its policy of adequate protection. We do not waver from our attitude that every worthwhile Australian industry, should receive a full measure of support.


Senator Hardy - Providing that it is efficient.


Senator COLLINGS - Of course! This iteration and reiteration of parrot cries in regard to fiscal policy is becoming tiresome to one as old as myself. Remarks of this . nature were hurled against those of us who, being good Australians, believed, from the earliest days, in an adequate fiscal policy, in order to encourage the; development of industry within the Commonwealth. When I was much younger, nothing that we ate, drank, or wore was manufactured in Australia; all articles for personal use were imported, and even beer, cheese, butter, lollies and biscuits were brought into the country. Every time that a good Australian lifted his head and said, " I think we can do this job," some pessimist would ejaculate, " Yes ; but can we do it efficiently ? " Thereupon the enterprising citizen, being not so courageous as some of the latterday businessmen, said " Perhaps that is right. We might not achieve efficiency; therefore we shall not try." So they did not try. But gradually the Australian sentiment grew, and enterprising persons said, "We shall not be wood and water joeys for the rest of the world," with the result that to-day nothing that is required for human sustenance, happiness and progress cannot be produced in Australia as efficiently as it can be produced anywhere else if we set our minds to it. Food, clothing, liquid refreshment, and housing accommodation, all of the highest quality, are produced in Australia. Yet Senator Hardy, a young man with all his future before him, lolls back in his chair, and, when I am enunciating a good Australian sentiment, he interjects in his puerile fashion, "Does the honorable senator mean 'efficiently' ?"

A complex that has always interested me in this connexion is that, if an industry is a success, it is accused of being a monopolistic profiteering concern. If it is not a success, the honorable gentlemen who form the Government, and those supporting them, dub it a " back-yard industry," inefficient, and not deserving of support. The great crime of which most Australian industries are guilty is success. Immediately they can point to actual achievement and show a commercial profit they become suspect; until they can do that they are derided as " backyard industries." I emphasize that the Labour party advocates the adequate protection of secondary industries; but, so soon as profiteering occurs, that the Government should intervene. I understand that the Government denies that it lias the power to fix prices and to limit profits; that is not in accordance with my interpretation of the Constitution. Even if there are legal difficulties, I consider that the Government should take the necessary power. It should be supreme in all matters connected with the government of this country. That being so, it should be able to take the requisite steps to prevent monopolists from exploiting the public and making excess profits. Industries should be granted full protection, but the Government should fix the retail prices of their commodities, and set a limit upon their net profits. Through the industrial courts the wages, hours of labour and working conditions of the employees engaged in those industries should be -determined. I remind honorable senators that this Government has the power of levying taxation, and if any ade- quately-protected industry should unduly exploit the public, its profits could be taxed without raising any constitutional difficulties.

I have referred so often to the fact that Australia is not being governed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth that I feel almost guilty of tedious repetition; but I can see no way of escape from it if I am to make the attitude of the Labour party clear. Every time a problem presenting difficulties, often more apparent than real, confronts this Government, it appoints a commission or board of inquiry to take evidence and make recommendations, thus making a buffer between itself and public opinion. Members of Cabinet do not accept their ministerial responsibility for which they are paid by the taxpayers. I have always contended that Cabinet Ministers are not paid enough; but, in view of the fact that members of the present Government too often shift their responsibilities to boards and committees of inquiry, they will not have a strong case should they ask Parliament to approve of an increase of their allowance. "We have appointed a Tariff Board and made it, in fact, superior to Parliament. The creature of this Parliament is now greater than its creator. While that is bad enough, it is not the worst aspect. We have also become signatories to the Ottawa agreement, upon which I propose to make certain observations. I have not waited until this evening to form a critical opinion of it. I have before me a Ilansard report of a speech which I delivered when the Economic Conference at Ottawa was in progress. On that occasion I informed the Senate that the agreement would bodisastrous to Australia. I propose now to show that my prophecy has been realized. In that agreement it is laid down that the duties levied by this Parment shall be such as will give the manufacturers of the United Kingdom an opportunity to compete on equal terms with Australian manufacturers.


Senator Hardy - The agreement provides for " reasonable competition ".


Senator COLLINGS - From the point of view of a good Australian, that is infamous. As a result of that agreement, this Parliament is not governing the country, and even the Tariff Board is not deciding our fiscal policy. These issues are being determined by the manufacturers of the United Kingdom. The authority, whatever it may be, in Australia or abroad, which decides the fiscal policy of Australia, thereby determines the conditions under which Australians shall work, and the wages and the measure of prosperity that they shall or shall not enjoy are vitally involved in this surrender. Now is the time when we should take this matter into consideration.

In order to demonstrate how true it is that the fiscal policy of Australia is being determined by the manufacturers of the United Kingdom, I draw -attention to the fact that, on the 18th March last, a banquet organized by the importers' representatives and attended by 30 or more members of this Parliament was held at the Hotel Canberra. To their credit, some honorable members, who do not sit on the Opposition side, did not accept the invitation to be present. But at that function certain matters which we shall have under consideration in the course of the next few weeks were very largely decided. The fiscal policy of Australia, 1 repeat, is not determined by the people through their elected representatives, and democratic government is becoming farcical. Our fiscal policy is being directed from the other side of the world. Article 12 of the Ottawa agreement states, in effect, that no duty which is in excess of the recommendations of the Tariff Board shall be levied in this country on goods from the United Kingdom. How true and inescapeable it is that Australia is not governing itself! There is a good deal of misconception regarding the respective values of Australia's primary and secondary products, and that_ misconception has been deliberately fostered by vested interests speaking through the press. Probably Senator Hardy is more culpable in this respect than any other honorable senator iu this chamber. For instance, we are told that dairy produce is valued at so much, and included in that produce are butter and cheese which are, in fact, manufactured products. In the same way untreated tobacco leaf is a primary

[MOI

product, but the manufacture of that leaf into cigars, cigarettes, &c., is a secondary industry. It is criminally wrong to suggest that there must necessarily be any conflict of interests between primary and secondary producers. I assert that primary and secondary industries are inter-dependent, and that the welfare of the one involves the welfare of the other, but I cannot allow that one is more important than the other. Notwithstanding the continuous publicity given to our external trade, statistics taken from Commonwealth official bulletins prove that its importance is unduly exaggerated, as there has been very little progress, if any, made in its return per capita since 1901, the first year of the Commonwealth, as compared with 1933-34, although the population has nearly doubled itself. On the other hand, our greatest domestic industry, that of manufacturing, has remarkably increased its value to our growing community, advancing from £16 19s. per capita in 1901 to £49 10s. in 1933-34. I quote these figures so that honorable senators may understand that the Labour party, when pleading for adequate protection for secondary industries is actuated by a desire to do the best thing for Australia. If the future of our manufacturing industries is assured we shall achieve two things of first importance to Australia, increase of population, and national security. In 1929, there were actually 43,000 fewer people permanently employed in rural pursuits than in 1911. The 53,000 immigrants who arrived in Australia, the 1,500,000 persons accounted for by natural increase, and the 43,000 workers who left the land were all absorbed into, or obtained their living from, manufacturing, construction, or service employment.

I return to the Ottawa agreement. I do not usually indulge in the luxury of saying " I told you so ", though sometimes I am much tempted to do so. Because I am a Labour supporter, and am familiar with Labour principles, it was evident to me from the beginning that the Ottawa conference must fail, so far as any benefits to Australia were concerned, and I said so in this chamber when the agreement was first mooted. That the conference did in fact fail in this respect I now propose to show. In effect, the conference represented dad calling his sons together to discuss matters at a round table conference. When I was speaking on the matter at the time the conference was called, I pointed out that every one of the sons had pledged himself before leaving to come back with something in his pocket which was not there before. I said that I was not fool enough to believe that dad did not realize exactly what they were about, and I ventured the opinion that he was too wise to allow the boys to put anything over him. Time has proved the truth of what I then said, and it has now become evident that Australia was sold a gold brick. Both the manufacturers and the primary producers realize this. Some time ago, we sent the Prime Minister to London with an expensive entourage in the hope that he might be able to undo some of the mischief for which the Ottawa agreement was responsible, and now Dr. Earle Page is in London on a similar mission. The Ottawa agreement, after having been in operation for nearly three years, has failed to produce any tangible benefit to the Australian primary producer, while it has brought chaos to the secondary industries. I remind honorable senators that the people of Canada recently voted into office a government under Mr. Mackenzie King, definitely committed to the repudiation of the agreement. I remember that, at the time the Ottawa agreement was ratified in this Parliament, the then Leader of the Opposition declared that if Labour got the opportunity it would withdraw Australia's support of the agreement. I hope that that will yet be done. Recently, the New Zealand electors returned a Labour Government whose platform provides for the defence, in the first place, of the dominion's economic autonomy. The Lyons Government is apparently determined to follow its suicidal policy to the bitter end. Every Tariff Board report is acted upon without any effort being made to examine the recommendations in the light of Australia's actual internal economic position. This afternoon, when I suggested that members of the Government should cease to be theorists, honorable senators oppo- site indulged in a smile, but I am quite serious in suggesting that never was it more urgent that we should face facts as they are. Tariff schedule after tariff schedule has been brought down, most of them providing for substantial reductions of duties, but every effort made by the Labour party to secure proper discussion of the issues involved has been thwarted by the low tariff bloc dominated by Dr. Earle Page and the advocates of the British manufacturers. The Ottawa agreement should have been more reciprocal in character. The agreement was really an attempt to help the primary producers, but the benefits obtained have been negligible. This was evidently realized when the Prime Minister went to London in the hope of improving sales of Australian meat and wheat, but the" results on the whole were disappointing. The best assistance given to the primary producers has come from within Australia by the provision of a profitable home market, and by the payment of bounties. In the last-named way £12,500,000 has been allocated in recent years. Such aid was made possible only by reason of the fact that the protectionist policy has conserved the Australian market to Australian primary and secondary producers. In answer to the assertion that Britain purchases more from Australia than Australia buys from Britain, it is only necessary to point out that while Australian sales exceed Australian purchases by about £2,000,000 a year, not less than ten times that amount is paid to Britain for interest on borrowed money. That is a factor which should be taken into account, but which is too often overlooked.

An interesting light on the manner in which Britain regards the Ottawa agreement is thrown by a cabled extract from the News Letter, the National Labour weekly. The message is as follows: -

The Newsteller, the National Labour weekly, Ramsay Macdonalds mouthpiece, commenting on the Australian budget as a welcome sign of improvement in the Commonwealth, emphasizes that the reductions of duties were due to the Ottawa pact; therefore, they were the result of British policy. It hopes that further reductions promised at Ottawa would soon bc effected now that the Australian economic position was improving.

The bill now before us represents a further move in the carrying out of the policy which received Mr. Macdonald's blessing in 1933, and which is designed to benefit the manufacturers of the United Kingdom. Let me quote another opinion on the Ottawa agreement. This is what Australian Industry, a monthly review, published in Sydney, had to say in a recent issue concerning the betrayal of Australia by tory delegates to the Ottawa conference -

Until next year, Australia will continue to he burdened with the national betrayal known as the Ottawa treaty. Then will come the opportunity to get rid of it utterly. In the meantime (and in fear that the Lyons lot renews it), let us observe it as faithfully as we have observed it ever since Bruce and Gullett betrayed us into it, despite the fact that the nation, by a vast majority, is opposed to it now and never has been in favour of it.

I believe that statement to be undeniably correct. Recently the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) cited the improvement in Australian manufacturing industries as an example of the benefits obtained from the Ottawa agreement. He must know perfectly well that this improvement has nothing whatever to do with the Ottawa agreement, but is due entirely to changed internal conditions u> Australia. As a matter of fact, the improvement achieved has fallen far short of what it might have been without the Ottawa agreement. Last year imports valued at over £12,000,000 were admitted to this country under our protective tariff. Those products were all competitive with Australian manufactures, and their production locally would have provided employment for another 15,000 or 20,000 workers in Australian factories, and at least as many more in subsidiary occupations, such as the provision of rawmaterials and transport. All of these authorities cannot he wrong. The following news item is of a much more recent date : -

Canberra, Friday.

Disproving the claims that the Ottawa agreement lias benefited Australia, a return released by the Commonwealth Statistician, Dr. Wilson, to-day showed that while imports from Britain into Australia have increased, Australia's export trade with Britain has remained almost static, while the export trade of Denmark and the Argentine - Australia's principal competitors - has not suffered unduly, because of the " black pacts ", which Britain negotiated with those countries before the ink was hardly dry on the Ottawa agreement.

I call the attention of honorable senators to the tendency of the fiscal policy in the United Kingdom. In that connexion I quote the following : -

Sir JohnHandles, deputy chairman of the Eagle Star and British Dominions Insurance Company, arrived in Brisbane to-day by the

Otranto. Sir John,who has visited Australia on four previous occasions, is on the round cruise. For twenty years he was Conservative member in the British Parliament, representing West Cumberland and Manchester each for ten years. He is a retired ironmaster, and was chairman of directors of the Workington Iron and Steel Works, Cumberland, until it amalgamated with the United Steel Company, Sheffield. Industrial conditions in Great Britain were steadily improving as a result of the tariff, Sir John added, and unemployment had been reduced considerably. For years he had advocated the adoption of a protective tariff in Britain, and the wisdom of this policy was now being proved by the increased activity in industry.

I am not objecting to that increased activity in industry in the United Kingdom. All that I say is that if a protective policy is good for the United Kingdom - and the authorities which I have quoted prove that it is - it must be equally good for Australia, and we have no right to alter it in such a way as to increase unemployment. The United Kingdom, in common with many other countries, realized after the Great War that it had to make itself more self-contained than it had been previously, that it had to adopt a measure of economic nationalism, that it had to develop its own resources, and make itself increasingly independent of outside sources, Empire and other, for adequate food supplies. I quote the following from the Melbourne Star : -

Glasshouse building schemes which will mean the investment of more than £S00,000, the permanent employment of 1,200 more men, and the further elimination from British markets of foreign fruit and flowers are to be begun soon. By next spring Britain will have almost 00,000 acres under glass. The workers in this industry will number about 30,000, and they will be responsible for producing fruit and flowers to the value of more than £10,000,000, the London Daily Express says.

This " big push " in the glass house industry is the result of the tariffs placed on foreign horticultural produce in 1932. Since then £.1,800,000 worth of glass houses have been put down bringing investments in the business to more than £20,000,000.

I agree with that policy. The Government of the United Kingdom has also taken steps to protect the beet industry in that country. This is shown by the following quotation: -

Vor some time past Labour in Britain lias done in neil to expose the sugar ramp in that country. That its criticisms have been well founded is shown in a reference to the relations between the Government and the sugar interests in London Economist. Says that journal: "The Government's capitulation to the sugar beet interests is now complete. There has been no sorrier story in post-war B'ritish politics than that of the sugar beet subsidy. Since 1924 the State has spent £5u,0U0,000 in supporting an industry whose total output is worth less than the subsidy received. During this period the profits, financed by the subsidy, have enabled the beet sugar companies to repay nearly 18£ per cent. of their capital, to accumulate assets equal to nearly 27 per cent, of their remaining capital, to write off about 42 per cent, of their expenditure on fixed assets, and to pay gross dividends amounting to more than 83 per cent, of the share capital outstanding. In the face of these facts, the Greene Committee of Inquiry, in its report last spring, reached the only possible conclusion : that there was no ' positive justification for the expenditure of a sum of several millions per annum on an industry which has no reasonable prospects of over becoming self-supporting, and on the production of a crop which, without that assistance, would, at present sugar prices, be practically valueless.' "

I mention these facts to show that the United Kingdom, while justified in protecting .its own industries and making itself increasingly less dependent upon outside sources for its food supplies, is not considering either this or any other part of the Empire in the process. The following brief quotation is from the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures' Gazette of the 2Sth February last -

Protection for manufacturing industries has abundantly justified itself in Great Britain. No question is now raised as to the lowering of tlie tariff, and freetraders are compelled to accept the indisputable evidence that abounds as to the value to the nation of the new fiscal policy.

Yet during the next few days honorable senators will be asked to agree to proposals which.amount to a reduction of the protection afforded to industry in this country! I realize, of course, that in this matter there is now a somewhat unusual combination of interests in this chamber. The debate on the last tariff dealt with by the Senate makes wonderfully interesting reading. The United Country party was not then in alliance with the Lyons Government, a*"3 "7e listened to a verbal Donnybrook. I found myself in the pleasurable position of having many of my arguments supported by Senator Hardy.


Senator Hardy - Not in favour of high tariffs.







Suggest corrections