CEMENT DUTY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 113, 14 May 1936, Page 17

CEMENT DUTY.

A NATIONAL ISSUE, i GOVERNMENT divided. I PROTECTION TO GO ? (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, May 8. Vext week the Federal Senate will decide either to accept the restoration of a duty on cement, supported by the House of Representatives, or to abolish tho duty as recommended by the Tariff Commission. It should ho explained that up to November last the preferential duty on British cement was 1/ per cwt. Under tho protection of the tariff the cement industry has flourished here and is now well established in six separate States, but tho board, however, having received evidence to tho effect that prices and freights here were too high, and that the industry is "inefficient," decided to remove" the duty. As to efficiency it is contended that our manufacturers can hold their own against any outside competition, and as to profits it is ointed out that our companies have not jn recent years made more than 4 per cent on their capital, while cement profits runninf as high as 20 per cent were recorded last year in Britain. Members of the House of Representatives were, of course, fully informed of the fact, and they realised that the admission of British cement duty free would positively destroy a progressive and flourishing Australian industry. Tliev therefore votvd for a duty of Od per cwt as a compromise between the.old and the new Griffs and a number of Nationalists defied the direction of the Government and supported the proposal. Naturally Mr. Lyons, both as party leader and as Prime Minister, was ndi-niant at this outbreak of insubordination' among his followers, and he was also obviously apprehensive about the effect that this refusal to accept the Tariff Board's recommendation would produce -at Home.. He seems to have persuaded himself that.-the action of the House was incompatible , with the terms of ! the Ottawa Agreement, and it was soon evident that on this point he had judged British opinion; correctly. He announced a little later that the Fcdeial Government had received a communication from the Imperial authorities on this subject, to the effect that the Government of the United Kingdom has "learned with regret" of the refusal of the House 'of Representatives to accept the Tariff Board's proposal about cement duties, a lid. that "in view of the provision* offc the Ottawa Agreement" it is confident ' that "ysteps. will be , taken by the Federal Government to secure that the recommendations of the Tariff Board shall be "put into effect."' Learned Counsel's View. It is easy to gather from these messages from what source Mr. Lyons derived Sis conviction that tho Tariff Board's free tracle in cement is a, "vital" questionl/of, policy, and that the insistence on/jfliposing a duty, is "an infringement of.the Ottawa Pact." It is well to mention Kere, liowevei*, that in point of law Mr./ Lyons and tho British Government are both taking up an indefensible position. The cement manufacturers of Australia have formed a powerful organisation 'in their own defence, and when they understood the situation at Canberra tljey .at once, appealed to four of the most eminent legal au&qritics in Australia.. ..The, lawyers P consulted S&fr. D.' Maughan, K.C., and Mr. G. Flannery, K.C., of-N.S.W., and Mr. Wilbur Ham, K.C., and' Mr. W. K. Tullagar, K.Ci, of Victoria. \ These four learned counsel gave the "-unanimous decision that the action of.'the House of Representatives could not be interpreted as a breach of the Ottawa Agreement,' for the terms of that {agreement simply bind tho Federal Government not to impose a new protective;duty and not to increase an existing duty without the concurrence of the Tariff Board.

But thp-# i« nothing in the relevant clauses t<s cover thcPcase that"lias n6w arisen. <Most people-, even those _ not learned in the law, will see the'T&tionality of As the "Bulletin" has pointed out; if the interpretation of the agreement imposed upon Mr. Lyons by the British Government could be upheld, it might.: easily mean "not*"only the abolition of one or two duties, on; British goods, but free admission of the lot." In other words, the total destruction of our secondary industries and the economic and financial ruiji of; the Commonwealth. i "

It is thus clear that the issues raised by the controversy over the cement duty are really "vital," though not precisely m sense which Mr. Lyons; intended. The fiscal side of the argument" is, as it happens, less important than its constitutional for the intervention of the British Government on a matter of internal policy and domestic administration is equally- unprecedented and Unjustifiable. Spnato]j§Leckie,..wlien the matter carne before 4ho Upper House, protested • vigorously" that the Imperial authorities have •li#. right to intervene In the processes of legislation in Australia, and tfia't "the Commonwealth should resent such a'n attempt to interfere' With our/deliberations. ' "Breach of Etiquette." A great - many people, who have toothing tp do with cement in a. commercial or financial way, feel, with Senator Leckie, that "it is a breach of etiquette between sister Governments that the British Government, with all its traditions of courtesy, should attempt to Influence members of this Parliament," and he urged that "this Government, instead of showing such ready complaisance should resent such an attempt to interfere with the deliberations : of the Senate." ; The "Bulletin," though strongly loyal to the Empire, is still in sentiment, and many Australians must have felt grateful to it/for the reminder that it has offered Britain this week, that "this Wnd of dictation may go down when the other party is Iraq or . Johore or Zanzibar—but Australia is • no vassal State." M • However. Mr. Lyons seems sufficiently overawed to allow the British Government to put in its word about "a Australian matter still under discussion." and to let it "assume" that ha. Prime Minister, will see to it that the decisipn of the Federal Lower House shall be; i over-ridden by the Senate. There is much evidence, however, tc show that the Prime Minister is by no means sure what course the Senate will take. The "Sydney Morning Herald" confidently expects that the vote of the Lower House will be reversed, and there is a rumour that some of the "rebels" who might : vote for the 6d duty may be induced to "save face" for themselves and the Government by accepting pairs, in place' of voting straight • out in defence of their leader-. The "Herald" has by this time abandoned the innocent fiction that -the cement duty would be

a violation of the Ottawa agreement and now appeals to' fnetnbers to consider not whether we can shuffle out of a contract, but whether we are going to keep or break a solemn pledge." In other words, it insists that we must maintain "the spirit of Ottawa" according to its own interpretation, even if the letter of the law is on our side and the concessions now demanded for Bi itain should ruin our secondary industries and drive our workers into the wilderness of unemployment again. "Political Trickery." Happily such a view of our obligations, whether commercial or moral, will hardly appeal to most Australians. It happens also that members of the Federal Parliament are just now in a state of intense exasperation at the tactics employed by those anxious to see British goods selling freely in our markets, no matter at what sacrifice or loss to oursalves. The body known as the Joint Committee for Tariff Revision has issued to the electors a circular containing a list of names of the members who voted against the recommendations of the Tariff Board, and concluding as follows: "If you feel that your member lias taken a course which is not in the best interests of the industries concerned, or of Australia as a whole, wo feel sure that you will know how to voice your disapproval in a way that your Federal representative will understand." This attempt at political blackmail was described by Senator Foil (Queensland U.A.P.) as "the filthiest piece of political propaganda and trickery" that lie liad ever seen, and as an effort at bludgeoning our political representatives into submission to outside forces and interests, it probably stands unrivalled in our annals. The attitude of the Federal Ministry toward the question does not inspire much confidence in either their political wisdom or their moral courage.

Mr. White, Minister of Customs, said weakly the other day that his opponents do not understand the question, but at least they know that British cement is being "dumped" here at absurdly low prices by firms that are making fabulous dividends at Home; that since the Tariff Board's new scale, came into operation 11,000 tons of British cement have arrived here (which, as Senator Leckie says,- is "equivalent to putting about 90 Australians out of work for twelye months") I ',- and that the British iiianufacturers simply declined to let their-' representatives appear before the Tariff Board to be cross-examined about tho conditions of their industry. All these things will lend a great deal of public and national importance and significance to the discussion of the whole matter by the Federal Senate next week.