House of Representatives
26 November 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- TARIFF BY-LAWS
PAPER
QUESTION
- CUSTOMHOUSE HOURS
QUESTION
- COST OF PRINTING
QUESTION
- ADDITIONAL SITTING DAY
QUESTION
- TARIFF
ADJOURNMENT
- Christmas Adjournment

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 7727

QUESTION

TARIFF BY-LAWS

Sir MALCOLM McEACHARN:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask th e Minister for Trade and Customs when the departmental by-laws referred to in the Tariff will be issued; and if be is aware that owing to such by-laws not having been issued, certain machine tools which, under item. 74 of the Tariff, are free of duty when specified in departmental by-laws, are being charged 25 per cent. ad valorem duty?

Mr KINGSTON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– The by-laws are in course of preparation, and will be ready for issue so soon as item 74 has been passed in the committee.

page 7727

PAPER

The Clerk laid upon the table

A return showing the imports of farm, dairy, orchard, and allied products.

page 7727

QUESTION

CUSTOMHOUSE HOURS

Mr KIRWAN:
for Mr: Hughes

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether, in view of the very great inconvenience said to be caused by the recent change in the Custom-house hours, he will either revert to the old system or sanction only such change as will not prejudicially affect the shipping community generally ?

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– Inquiry does not establish the existence of any inconvenience necessitating the change referred to.

page 7727

QUESTION

COST OF PRINTING

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

When the return respecting the cost of printing for the Commonwealth, ordered by this House on 10th October last, is likely to be ready for presentation ?

Mr DEAKIN:
Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– A return has been presented, but as it did not appear to be as complete as was desired, it has been returned in order that further additions might be made to it. I am informed that it will be ready almost immediately in its complete form.

page 7727

QUESTION

ADDITIONAL SITTING DAY

Mr. DEAKIN (Ballarat- Attorney-

General). -I move -

That, until otherwise ordered, this House do meet at half-past two p.m. on Monday in each week in addition to the present sitting days.

That on each sitting day, until otherwise ordered, Government business do take precedence of general business.

It has been intimated to honorable members that probably it may be necessary to sit beyond the time at which we have been accustomed to adjourn on Fridays. That may not in every case be necessary, but an intimation was given to honorable members to be prepared for sitting if necessary five nights in the week.

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– Yes ; and it may even be necessary, although we hope not, to ask the House to meet at half-past ten o’clock on every day of the week.

Mr Watson:

– No; that is too much. We cannot sit late at night and early in the morning.

Mr DEAKIN:

– If it is a question between sitting late at night and early in the morning it is only fair that honorable members should be offered their choice. If there are many honorable members who would rather meet (or the extra hours in the morning than sit late at night I may say that the latter course would suit Ministers very much better. If such a proposal is submitted it will mean practically the almost entire abandonment of administrative duties while the House is sitting. That is a very undesirable and inconvenient state of affairs, and, therefore, it is to be hoped that no such emergency may arise. It is with the greatest reluctance that even this proposition is submitted, and submitted, it is to be hoped, to a cordial acceptance, and fora short time only.. If honorable members cast a glance back upon what this session has already achieved they will perceive that it is of necessity absolutely unprecedented in its character, and will, I think, prove to have been equally unprecedented in its duration, and in the importance of the work performed. What we have undertaken to essay in this session has been to create a complete administrative organization for the whole Commonwealth - a work in itself of immense importance and great intricacy. We have also sought to establish.the cardinal principle of a white Australia as a permanent condition upon which the development of this country is to take place ; and now we are engaged in the task of blending into one the whole of ‘ the producing and commercial interests of the hitherto separated States, placing them upon a national basis, providing for that interlacing of business and other interests, which must prove the surest foundation for the structure now being reared. Even to essay these tasks in a single session means a session of inordinate length of prolonged sittings and of immense undertakings. Consequently, honorable members will realize that the plea put forward to them to make the further sacrifices demanded by this motion is one that springs from the extraordinary nature of the situation, and the extraordinary demands now mode upon us. I think they will realize that at the point in this session which we have reached it becomes a public duty for them to make a still further sacrifice We are day by day proceeding, in Committee of Ways and Means, to consider the first Tariff of the Commonwealth. Upon the revenue re- ‘ suits of that Tariff depend the expenditure of the Commonwealth for this year, and the degree to which it will be possible to cope with the demands which arc being made from all sides upon its various departments. Further, every State of the union finds its capacity to deal with its financial situation suspended temporarily during the discussion of the Tariff. It is scarcely too much to say that Government expenditure throughout Australia is limited, or locked up, pending the consideration of the Tariff. Until something like an approximate estimate of its returns can be formed, there is no Treasurer in Australia who will feel free to unloose his purse strings to the calls which are being made upon him. Therefore, in the interests of the Commonwealth itself, and of all its States, it ber comes incumbent upon us at the earliest possible moment to determine, at all events as far as we can, the lines upon which the Tariff is to be laid down. In addition to the public obligations there are very large private interests involved. There can be no doubt but that many commercial operations are being delayed, and many others restricted, in various parts of Australia, in consequence of the uncertainty still prevailing as to the adoption of certain items of the Tariff. Although complete freedom of action is not to be expected on the part of commercial mcn until the Tariff is finally settled, there is no doubt that its passage through this Chamber will be taken as involving a pretty sound indication of what it will ultimately be.

Mr Conroy:

– It has to pass the Senate yet.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Business men will be able to draw their own conclusions as to what the Tariff is likely to be, and, after it has passed this House, will feel free to some extent from the restraint under which they labour at the present time. Considering all these private business and public interests, it becomes a matter of the greatest urgency that we should dispose of the Tariff as soon as possible. I venture, therefore, to submit to the House that we are compelled to shoulder this burden as best we can, and must endeavour to deal with the remainder of the Tariff as expeditiously as possible. If I may be permitted to add a single word, I would remind the House that no one can say that the Government have exhibited any ; undue haste in pressing the consideration of this question upon them. The House first, and the committee afterwards,, have had an absolutely free hand, and the proposals now made will increase the opportunities of honorable members for discussing the details of the Tariff. May I be permitted to urge upon honorable members that by abstaining from interjections, by ignoring interjections that are made, by the condensation of remarks, and by our agreeing tacitly to accept, on each side, a single statement of each argument of importance, permitting minor arguments to make their own way, we can - without curtailing any privileges, or involving any unfair sacrifices on the part of honorable members - so hasten our proceedings as to dispose of the Tariff within a reasonable time. I would ask honorable members not only to excuse the proposal, but to accept it, and to unite in so expediting our proceedings that we may arrive at a conclusion as speedily as possible. In conclusion, it appears to me that if we are able to conclude this Tariff in time for the holidays, there may reasonably be a demand on the part of honorable members for a little leisure. If, however, we cannot conclude the Tariff by that time, the circumstances are so exceptional that we shall require to ask honorable members to be content with the shortest possible adjournment. We must complete the Tariff which the Commonwealth Treasurer and the State Treasurers and the public generally are so eagerly awaiting.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

– I take it that this is not a party question. The Government in their wisdom have decided in view of the urgency of public business that more time should be devoted to it between now and the adjournment for Christmas. I do not intend to take it upon myself to express an opinion for honorable members on this side of the House. As far as I am personally concerned, owing to the absence of the leader of the Opposition, I have made arrangements to be present continuously until we adjourn. I am also deeply anxious that we should dispose of the Tariff as soon as possible ; but I feel that we have an arduous and very lengthy task before us. I had hoped that such changes would have been made in the proposals as would have enabled us to very much simplify and shorten the work; but when we go into Committee of Waysand Means, Ishall have todraw attention to a state of affairs which justifies the complaint of absolute breach of faith on the part of at least four of the Ministers. I refer to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister in charge of the other Chamber, and Sir Philip Fysh, who is a pronounced free-trader. This Tariff will have to be reviewed by another Chamber, which equally represents the people, in the light of our consultations. While that Chamber is practically coordinate with us, it is a Chamber of review, and I take it ‘that its conclusions will be largely framed in the light of the work we do. Therefore, so far as I am personally concerned, I am willing to agree to the proposal of the Government, which will afford us more time for consideration. So prohibitive have some parts of the Tariff become, and so necessary is it to consider each item in all its bearings, that we shall require to make the closest possible investigation, line by line, and item by item. I agree with the Attorney-General that it is impracticable to take away all the time of the Executive Government. If we were to sit in the mornings, we should also sit fairly late at night, and that would’ impose too great a strain upon members of the Ministry, as they would probably have to compress a whole week of Executive work into one day. I am prepared to make the sacrifice now asked for in order that we may have the fullest possible time for the consideration of a question, which is not merely one of ordinary legislation, but which, if settled in undue haste and without the fullest consideration, and upon existing lines, may have an injurious effect for the next century upon the peopleof Australia.

Mr O’MALLEY:
Tasmania

– I should like to ask the Attorney-General if he could not agree to the House meeting on four days of the week at ten o’clock in the morning. We might meet at ten o’clock in the morning, and sit until eleven o’clock at night for four days in the week. That would enable honorable members from New South Wales and South Australia to get to their homes; but tocome hereon Mondays also and sit until late at night is nothing less than parliamentary sweating. It means sweating the Hansard reporters, and also the newspaper reporters ; and the Commonwealth Parliament ought not to begin a course which it should be the aim of our legislation to prevent on the part of others.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

Mr POYNTON:
South Australia

– I also should like to have some information from the Attorney-General. I wish to know whether, if the House agrees to an extra sitting day, it is the intention of the

Government to keep us up after eleven o’clock at night? I have a distinct objection to late sittings. If we sit from half -past two until half-past eleven, and rise in time to enable honorable members to catch their last trams, that is a fair thing. As to the Christmas adjournment, I do not care whether it is long or short. The Queensland representatives a little while ago wanted a long adjournment, but evidently they have changed their minds. I am willing to fall in with any arrangement on that subject, but I object to sitting here every night until after the trams and trains have gone, when honorable members are put to the expense of hiring a cab or walking two or three miles.

Mr McDONALD:
Kennedy

– I do not agree with what has been said as to the time in the early part of the session having been wasted. I hold the contrary opinion. I do not know of any Parliament that has got through so much work in so short a time. The Bills brought before the House have been very long and contentious, and it has surprised me that they havegone through so quickly. While I agree that it is a good thing at the present time to sit on an extra day, yet, as a rule, it is not a good thing to sit more than three days a week. do not care who the member is, or what his abilities may be, he cannot give due and honest consideration to the work he is expected to do, if Parliament sits more than three days a week. But on the present occasion, certain legislation is required to be settled as early as possible, and under those circumstances I agree that we ought to sit on Mondays. But I also agree with the honorable member for West Sydney, in wishing to know whether we are to have a long or a short adjournment over Christmas. If we are to have a long adjournment we shall get well into the latter end of the financial year before the session closes. 1 should like to have an adjournment for about ten days only to get over the holidays, and then I should like Parliament to set to work earnestly to get through the various measures that are urgently required. But if we are to have a six weeks’ or two months’ adjournment, I certainly object to the extra day’s sitting being granted.

Mr. SYDNEY SMITH (Macquarie).I intend to vote for the motion, because we are all anxious to expedite business as much as possible, but I desire to make a few remarks as to the statement that the

Opposition are largely to blame for the delay that has occurred in connexion with legislation. It is all very well for honorable members on the Government benches, mostly representingVictorian constituencies, who are able to live at home and attend to their businesses, to ask for longer sittings. But honorable members representing other States have to neglect their homes and their businesses in order to attend to legislation. We have already been here for six months, and have certainly done a good deal of work. It has been said that the additional sitting day has been necessitated by the action of certain members on the opposition side. They have said with considerable unfairness that much of the time that has been devoted to discussion here has been occupied by honorable members of the Opposition. I have taken the trouble to go through Hansard, and I think that some honorable members on the Government side of the House will be inclined to wish that Hansard was burnt when I give them a few particulars of what it shows. I have looked through Hansard up to the 15th inst., and endeavoured to ascertain the number of speeches made by honorable members on both sides of the House, and I have made the interesting discovery that while 1,898 speeches were delivered by free-trade members, there were 3,115 speeches from the Government side. Our average is 57 per honorable member who has spoken, while the average for the Government side amounts to 78. The total average for the Opposition side is only 57, while the average for all members is 69. In view of the criticisms of honorable members opposite, I have also examined reports of second-reading speeches on various measures. I find that the Defence Bill was read a first time on the 5th June last, and although it has been brought before us on several occasions, it is still in committee. There are 222 columns of Hansard devoted to speeches by honorable members on the Government side of the House upon the second reading of that measure, and only 165 columns occupied by speeches delivered by honorable members of the Opposition. The Inter-State Commission Bill has been brought forward on several occasions to fill in time ; and while there are84 columns occupied by speeches of honorable members on the Government side upon this Bill, there are only 58 columns of speeches delivered by honorable members of the Opposition . In view of the charge that honorable members of the Opposition had wasted time, I felt it was necessary for some one to come forward andshow who has been responsible for the delay. I admit that the flood of eloquence on the PostalBill was largely developed on this side, because while honorable members on the Government side had delivered speeches upon it occupying 51 columns of Hansard, the speeches delivered by honorable members of the Opposition cover 56 columns. Then we have the Public ServiceBill, upon which speeches occupying 158 columns were made from the Ministerial side, while those from the opposition side occupied only 58 columns. The speeches on the Customs Bill delivered from the Government side take up 68 columns, while the speeches upon it from this side of the House occupy only 32 columns.There are 122 columns devoted to speeches from the Government side of the House on the Immigration Restriction Bill and 95 to those from the opposition side. The address in reply was a very important matter, and I admit thathonorable members of the Opposition devoted a good deal of time to it. The importance of the matter is illustrated by the Tariff which has since been submitted. I find that the Opposition speeches take up 427 columns, while those from the Government side occupy 341, which is not -a very great difference. If we take the address in reply, the Postal Bill, the Customs Bill, the Defence Bill, the Inter-State Commission Bill, the Public Service Bill, and the Immigration Restriction Bill, we find that while speeches from the Government side upon those various matters occupy 1,046 columns of Hansard, those delivered by the Opposition cover only 891 columns, or a difference in our favour of 1 55 columns.

Mr Watson:

-Is the honorable member going to give us another four hours’ speech?

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– The honorable member refers to my speech on the motion of censure. Honorable members know that I spoke at a disadvantage on that occasion. An attempt was made to crush out debate.

Mr Deakin:

– No.

– I have no objection to an extra sitting day being taken, but I would ask the Government, in regard to the duration of the Christmas adjournment, to consider the convenience of honorable members from Western Australia and Queensland. It takes a fortnight to make a visit to Western Australia ; therefore an adjournment of less than five or six weeks would .not do us any good. I should be quite satisfied if it were only a fortnight, if the business of the session could be finished early next year. I trust that whatever the decision may be, it will be announced early, so that honorable members may be in a position to make their business arrangements. It takes fourteen or fifteen days before one can get a reply to a letter to Western Australia.

Mr. DEAKIN (Ballarat - AttorneyGeneral). - May I say, in reply to the honorable member for Robertson, that the pro.posa.1 has no.t been submitted with the idea of taking any such advantage of the committee as he seems to suppose. On the contrary, it will be the desire of the Government for their own sake as well as for that of the House, to which they owe every consideration, not to sit later than can reasonably be required to complete the discussion of public business. The same remark applies to sitting on Friday evenings. We hope that it will not be necessary to prolong that sitting beyond the usual time ; but the intimation was given so that honorable members might not regard it as a fixed rule which could not be broken if the necessity arose. In regard to the adjournment at Christmas, of course the wish of the Government is naturally that it should be for as short a period as possible. There has been a request from many sides for an extension, but I feel bound to point out that unless the Tariff be disposed of, so far as we can dispose of it at this stage, it would be absolutely necessary to have only the shortest possible adjournment at Christmas. Even if it were disposed of, we should still be able to rest only for a short time, although the same restraint would not be placed upon us. The Government is desirous in this matter, and in every every other, to meet the wishes of honorable members, and I have no doubt that we can arrive at a common agreement, which will, of course, strike as nearly as possible a happy medium between those who desire a long adjournment, and those who prefer a short one. The interest of the Government is the shortest possible adjournment, because that is the interest of public business. While it is impossible to have anything but the shortest adjournment, if we have not finished with the Tariff, there may be a few extra days available if it has been passed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 7737

QUESTION

TARIFF

In Committee of Ways and Means : -

Consideration resumed from 22nd November (vide page 7726).

Item 11. - Biscuits, per lb., l1/2d.

Mr KINGSTON:
South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

– On further consideration, we are inclined to the idea that a duty of1d. is sufficient. Therefore, I move -

That the words”and on and after the 27th November, 1901,1d.” be added.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

– So far as this item is concerned the reduction matters very little one way or the other, because there is practically no importation. We might almost as well put a duty on baker’s bread as on biscuits. A very small duty of this kind yields practically no revenue, and it looks farcical to calculate, as the Government have calculated, a revenue of £92 from this source. Perhaps I might be allowed at this stage to make a few remarks, which, I think, would facilitate the transaction of public business. I am just as anxious as are the members of the Government that the Tariff should go through as speedily as possible. It is possible that when we meet from week to week there may be new aspects to discuss, and it is not unreasonable, I think, for the Ministers in charge of the resolution, and for myself, as representing the leader of the Opposition, who will be absent for some time, to be able to say something with regard to the general trend of the business. I feel myself in a very peculiar position with regard to the Tariff. We have passed an item on which there was a considerable struggle. We have been asked by the Government to take as test questions certain votes, and not to repeat, day by day and hour by hour, the same essential arguments. Honorable members will recollect that we had a strong fight upon the question of bacon and hams. We asserted that the proposal of the Government was absolutely prohibitive. I have since worked out figures on the basis of the Government estimates, with results which will probably surprise my honorable friend the Minister for Home Affairs.

Mr McCay:

– I rise to a point of order. I ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, whether the honorable member is in order in discussing the item of bacon and hams, which has already been passed by the committee? We shall never get through the Tariff if we are to discuss matters at large in the way the honorable member for Wentworth is now doing.

Sir William McMillan:

– My only desire is to be clear whether the Government understand the exact effect of what we are doing with regard to this and other items. Some of the items awaiting our discussion are in even a greater degree objectionable from the prohibitive point of view, and, therefore, I desire as a matter of fairness and justice to those who are here under the pledges of Ministers’ manifestoes—

Mr McCay:

– I would ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, as to whether the honorable member is in order?

Mr CHAIRMAN:

– Honorable members are well aware that discussion must be confined to the item before the committee ; the honorable member for Wentworth was not in order in going beyond that.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– I shall defer my remarks until we come to the next item, and shall arrange for the publication of the figuresIhave referred to with reference to this item. I do not care very much, one way or the other; but the duty is ridiculous, because, according to the Government’s own showing, it will produce only £92 in the shape of revenue. On general principles, therefore, it would be better to strike it out altogether.

Mr KIRWAN:
Kalgoorlie

– I think the Government should deal with this item in the same way as the proposed duty on animals, because the arguments which apply in the one case have equal force in the other. This will not be a revenueproducing duty, and it is not necessary for protective purposes. Its only possible effect can be to enable the manufacturers of biscuits within the Commonwealth to increase their prices. In New South Wales, where the duty on biscuits was only1/2d. per lb., there were eight biscuit factories- employing 830 hands last year, whilst in Victoria, where the duty was double that levied in New South Wales, there were only four factories, employing 791 hands. In all the States the duties were directed against biscuits imported from neighbouringStates rather than against those from abroad, and the position has been so entirely changed by the establishment of Inter-State free-trade as torender a duty absolutely unnecessary. The Hon. F. T. Derham, the managing director for Messrs Swallow and Ariell, when giving evidence before the Victorian Tariff Committee in 1894-5, when the duty on biscuits was 2d. per lb., said -

As to our biscuit industry, if you can give us no relief in the duties on any of our raw material, it would be wise to reduce the duties on our own manufactures,at least by one-half. The duty is absurdly high ; it is not wanted, 2d. per lb. I believe we could go almost so far as to ask you to make it free-trade at once, butI think it better to go down to that by steps, and I should ask for one-half.

Thus we find a manufacturer, as far back as 1894, advocating free-trade as regards biscuits. Further on in his evidence, Mr. Derham shows that the imported article was really beaten out of the Victorian market before a duty was imposed. A duty of1d. per lb. was imposed on biscuits in Victoria in 1866, but Mr. Derham points out that the importations of biscuits into Victoria, which, in 1856, were valued at £34,650, gradually decreased, until, in 1866, they represented only £432. Therefore, it is evident that the imported article was beaten out of the market long before any protective duty was imposed. I intend to move that biscuits be placed on the free list.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN (Wentworth). - I do not attach much importance to this item, but, at the same time, I agree with the honorable member for Kalgoorlie that it would be better to strike it out altogether. It simply gives an opportunity to people to say that a duty prevails when, in fact, they are not affected at all ; and no doubt in many cases advantage is taken of the

Tariff in order to raise prices against the consumer. The estimate of revenue from this source made by the Government shows that there is very little importation of “biscuits, and Iask the Chairman to arrange to first take the vote on the amendment to strike out the item.

Mr KINGSTON:

– The honorable mem ber for Wentworth made the remark that advantage might be taken of the opportunity to raise prices, and in this connexion I have some figures which may interest the committee as showing the effect of the different duties in Melbourne and Sydney. In Victoria the duty was1d. per lb. and in Sydney1/2d., and according to the usual arguments which are advanced against duties, one would think that the higher prices would obtain in Victoria ; but that is not so. The particulars I have relate to twenty lines of biscuits, in eleven of which the Melbourne prices were under those of Sydney ; in three lines the Melbourne prices were the same as those in Sydney ; and in six lines the Melbourne prices were over those of Sydney. Arrowroot biscuits, coffee biscuits, fancy mixed biscuits, ginger nuts, rice biscuits, and wine biscuits were 6d. per lb. in Sydney,and 51/2d. per lb. in Melbourne.

Mr Thomson:

– Wholesale or retail?

Mr KINGSTON:

– I cannot say precisely, but I should think the prices were retail. Abernethy biscuits were 51/4d. per lb. in Sydney, and 5d. per lb. in Melbourne ; captain biscuits, 43/4d. per lb. in Sydney, and 5d. per lb. in Melbourne ; cheese biscuits, 6d. per lb. in Sydney, and 41/2d. per lb. in Melbourne; cracknels,1s. 2d. per lb. in Sydney, and1s. 2d per lb. in Melbourne ; currant luncheon biscuits, 61/2d. per lb. in Sydney, and 7d. per lb. in Melbourne (in Victoria there was a duty of1d. per lb. on currants, which were free in New South Wales) ; dessert biscuits were 91/4d. per lb. in Sydney, and 9d. per lb. in Melbourne ; lime biscuits, 51/2d. per lb. in Sydney, and 5d. per lb. in Melbourne; macaroons,1s. 101/2d. per lb. in Sydney, and1s: 10d. per lb. in Melbourne; malt biscuits, 43/4d. per lb. in Sydney, and 6d. per lb. in Melbourne; milk biscuits, 5d. per lb. in Sydney, and 5d. per lb. in Melbourne ; oatmeal biscuits, 5d. per lb. in Sydney, and 51/2d. per lb. in Melbourne; ratafia biscuits,1s.101/2d. per lb. in Sydney, and1s. 101/2d. per lb. in Melbourne ; sultana biscuits, 7d. per lb. in Sydney, and 71/2d. per lb. in Melbourne ; and water biscuits, 3-Jd. per’ lb. in Sydney, and 4d. per lb. in Melbourne. The duty will prevent the underselling of foreign goods to the upsetting of- the market, and I think the prices quoted are fair enough to all concerned, consumers especially.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Kalgoorlie can> gain ‘his object by moving that the amendment be amended by the ‘Omission of “Id.” per lb. with a view of inserting the word “free.”

Amendment (by Mr. Kirwan) proposed -

That the amendment be amended by omitting “ Id.” with a view to inserting in lieu thereof the word “ free.”

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

– The valueless nature of the figures which have been placed before us by the Minister for Trade and Customs is shown by the fact that it is not known whether they are wholesale or retail prices. If they are said to be retail we know that in different shops in the same city different prices prevail, and several prices could be obtained in Melbourne. If they are wholesale prices, then I can tell the committee there are different prices for biscuits manufactured in Sydney. Whose prices are these which have been quoted? I quite agree with the honorable member for Kalgoorlie that the manufacture of biscuits is so well established in Australia that no protection is necessary. Biscuits particularly are an article which cannot be favorably competed with from abroad, when the industry here has reached a well-established stage. They require special packing to send across the Line from Europe or from the United States, and only a few of very exceptional kinds are sent in that way. The industry has the best protection possible, namely, natural protection ; and, that being so, the Government ought not to persist in their proposal.

Mr Kirwan:

– Prom Victoria last year 1,000,000 lbs. of biscuits was sent to South Africa.

Mr THOMSON:

– The States, particularly Victoria, are competing in this trade with the markets of the world. Biscuits go to the East from these States- and compete with British biscuits, and I hope to see more markets wrested for Australia. There is the danger that prices may be raised under a protective duty of this kind.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I can now give a positive assurance that the prices I have quoted are retail. In the one case the quotations are by Anthony Hordern and Sons in reference to Arnott’s biscuits, which are manufactured in New South Wales.

Mr Thomson:

– Those are the heaviestpriced biscuits in Sydney.

Mr KINGSTON:

– In the other case the quotations are by the Mutual Store, of Melbourne, and relate particularly to Messrs. Swallow and Ariell’s biscuits.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

– I am glad the Minister for Trade and Customs has seen his way clear to reduce the duty from 1½d. to Id. per lb., but I cannot concur, in the amendment to abolish the duty altogether. A penny per lb. is very slight protection, but that protection is necessary is- proved by the actual imports into Victoria last year under a duty of Id. per lb. Last year Victoria imported from the United Kingdom 9,797 lbs. of biscuits, valued at £510, upon which the customs duties collected amounted to £4:0 19s. 5d. This fact shows that, even with a duty of Id. per lb. operating, there is a possibility of a considerable quantity of biscuits being imported. If that duty were swept away, the local article would have no protection whatever.

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

– Any one of the arguments which have been advanced against the retention of this duty could be urged with equal force against any proposal submitted by the Government. The contention that our geographical position constitutes a sufficient protection against importation is a theory which has been repeatedly exploded. As has been pointed out by the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, biscuits have been imported. I understand that some of the manufacturers - one of whom has been named by the honorable member for Kalgoorlie - has stated that a duty of Id. per lb. is an ample protection. But in this matter we have to consider the worker as well as the manufacturer. I am anxious that the principle of wages boards should be extended to this and other trades. That, however, is impossible, unless in the first instance we insure the home market to our manufacturers. To suppose that if we remit the duty of Id. per lb. upon biscuits the imports of this article will not increase is contrary to the experience of America, Canada, and of every other country.

I do hope that the Government will adhere to their proposal.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN (Wentworth). - It has been implied by the previous speaker that once a duty is imposed it can never be remitted. In other words all the talk of the last 30 years to the effect that duties should be imposed simply to give a fillip to the local manufacturer, and to enable him to stand upon his legs squarely, is the veriest claptrap. Here is an article which is almost exactly on the same plane as is the baker’s bread. Biscuits are made up of products which we are exporting to the extent of millions of pounds annually. Yet we are told that if we abolish this wretched duty of1d. per lb. on the natural product of the country, the local manufacturers will be ruined. That is a very fine comment upon all the fine historical clap-trap of’ protection which has been in vogue in this country, but which the people are at last beginning to see through.

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

Mr. WILKS (Dalley).- One of the suggestions made by the honorable member for Laanecoorie was that, in the interests of labour, protection was required for the biscuit industry. As a matter of fact, biscuits are produced chiefly by the use of machinery. In all well-appointed factories up-to-date machinery is employed.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– This is not a revenue duty, therefore there can be no argument in favour of imposing it on that ground. The return given by the Treasurer shows that he does not expect to receive more than £90 per year in the way of. revenue from this duty. The protectionists have failed to bring forward the names of any manufacturers who ask for the duty, while the names of other manufacturers have been brought forward, who have said that no duty is necessary. In these circumstances I think the amendment moved by the honorable member for Kalgoorlie might well be adopted.

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

– There is one point to which I wish to refer, in answer to the honorable member for Laanecoorie, in regard to’ the increase of importation of flour so far as New South

Wales is concerned. South Australia exports very large quantities to New South Wales, amounting to one-third - sometimes, more and sometimes less - of the total importation. Of course that would be entered, as an import into New South Wales, but the = fact is that flour cannot be produced in Broken Hill, and it has to be obtained from, the place from which it can be sent most expeditiously and at the least cost of transit. The comparison of the prices ruling; in Sydney and Melbourne amounts tonothing. When we have an export of over 600,000 lbs. of biscuits from.. New South Wales, and over 2,000,000 lbs. from Victoria, it is not a question of,’ a duty or no duty affecting local prices. It is purely a question of quality and taste. Something has been said by the honorable member for MelbournePorts in regard to declining duties leading to increased importations. The manufacture, of biscuits was commenced in Victoria in 1854, and in 1856 there was an importation into this State of £34,000 worth ; but by 1866 the value of the importation of biscuits, without any duty being imposed during the* whole of the intervening period, had shrunk from £34,000 to £432. The cause of the. reduction was that the State was more suitable for the production of biscuits than were the exporting countries. I can understand why the Government have eased in this matter. They will not go to the full length. . of some of their convictions, but they will come down to Id. That is the Victorian duty. It is not a protective duty, but the Victorians will be able to dispense with any duty. I believe that in doing this the Ministry will have the support of certain representatives of Victoria, because there are certain classes, of biscuits which the smaller States cannot, produce in competition with New South. Wales and Victoria. They cannot afford topay £10 per week for an expert to direct, the manufacture of certain classes of biscuits. I am almost certain that whether we have, protection or free-trade in regard to this item the 86 persons employed in the trade in South Australia will disappear, because of the importations from the larger States, where the manufacturers have moreeffective machinery. The honorable andilearned member for Bendigo has referred to the fact that there is still an importation of biscuits into New South Wales. The importation from the United Kingdom, into Nev South Wales which he mentioned, is really not higher than the importation into South Australia, although there we have only one-fourth of the population. The explanation is that special classes of biscuits are imported into the States where they are least produced. They are least produced in South Australia, because the manufacturers there do not possess the special machinery used in Victoria and New South Wales. The figures relating to the value of importations of biscuits from the United Kingdom to South Australia are a little over £9,000, and those approximate to the figures relating to the importations into New South Wales and Victoria. In the circumstances, I think the case is one for the abolition of the duty, and I am exceedingly sorry that we shall not receive the support of certain honorable members on the Government side.

Question - That the word proposed to be omitted stand part of the proposed amendment - put.

The committee divided -

Ayes … .. … 29

Noes … … … 22

Majority … … 7

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment of the amendment negatived.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I move -

Thatthe wordsand on and after 27th November, 1901,1/2d. “ be added.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Mr. J oseph Cook) proposed -

That the words “and on and after 27th November, 1901,1/2d.” be added.

Question put.

The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 23

Noes … … … 28

Majority … … 5

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Mr. Kingston) agreed to-

– Then nothing remains but for the Chairman to give his ruling. in accordance with the .standing order. The acting leader of the ‘ Opposition did something which he does hot often do when he gave an intimation, ‘or conveyed a veiled threat, that if he were not allowed to proceed, he would take certain steps which would probably prove unpleasant. I trust there was nothing in that threat, because the work which we have before us affects the whole people, who are anxious to see it brought to a completion. If we allow a general discussion, we shall be breaking the compact we ourselves entered into when the Tariff was introduced, and when honorable members freely availed themselves of the opportunity which was afforded of discussing the general question. If we continue the general discussion on each and every item, the debate will be interminable, and we shall be further dislocating the business relations of those engaged in commerce.

Sir William McMillan:

– Some honorable members have evidently misunderstood me, and I should like to say a few words in personal explanation. It was in order to avoid debate on every item that I pointed to the fact that this item held- the key to a series of the same kind. Without entering on a debate of other items, I simply pointed out that they, like the present item, were prohibitive. No doubt, if we decide this item in a certain way, the Government will have the consideration to give way on those other items.

Mr Wilks:

– Standing Order 274 provides that no member shall digress from the subject-matter of any question under discussion, nor anticipate a discussion of any other subject which appears on the notice-paper. That standing order, I submit, has no bearing on the point of order before us. The acting leader of the Opposition was pointing out that the policy of prohibition, as disclosed in the item under discussion, was against the principles advanced by Ministers at Maitland and elsewhere, but he had no intention of discussing all those other items.

The honorable member desires simply to point out that the Ministry have evaded their responsibility.

That the words “and on md after 27th November, Id. per lb.” be added.

Corinella is in order in discussing the question of a revenue Tariff and free-trade on this particular item ?

Mr McCay:

– On the point of order, I may say I was trying to explain why this duty on laundry blue was not a “ revenue duty “ in the proper sense of the term, as used by those who prefer to use the expression “ revenue duties “ instead of free-trade.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. - I must ask honorable members to adhere to Standing Order No. 274, which says -

No member shall digress from the subjectmutter of any question under discussion ; nor anticipate the discussion of any other subject which appears on the notice-paper.

Of course a certain amount of latitude is permitted for incidental reference, but in the discussion of this item it seems to me that some honorable members have infringed the rule, and I ask them to assist me in enforcing it.

Mr McCAY:

– I only wish to say in conclusion that the choice offered by the honorable member for Wentworth is practically this : - Either the importation into New South Wales is to be kept up to some;thine like half of what it was formerly, in which case the sale of the locally manufac.tured article must fall very much below its former level, or else we are to follow the example of the other States and keep up the manufacture of the local article to its former level, notwithstanding that in the special case of New South Wales there will necessarily follow a considerable falling off of the imports into that particular State.

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

– The honorable member for Corinella has put forward .an explanation as to the purport of this .duty which differs from that put ^forward by the right honorable gentleman in .charge -of the Tariff. The honorable member said that this was a duty that was to bring in some revenue, and that if it did not do that it might still be termed .a “ revenue “ item. The right , honorable gentleman in charge of the Tariff said distinctly that this item was not included for any such purpose, and it is very obvious that it was not. What it appears necessary to prove, according to the right honorable gentleman, is that this duty is necessary for the protection of the industry. I take it that my honorable and learned friend is right in saying that the ideal of the Ministry is “ revenue, without destruction of native industries.” If it can be shown that by taking off this duty of 2d. per lb., or reducing it, those manufacturers now engaged in the production of blue will cease to produce the article, or will be materially affected, I will admit that the Government stand upon excellent ground. But if that cannot be proved, I fail to see how they can maintain their position. It appears, according to an interview held with one of the chief manufacturers of blue in Victoria, that the chief result of this duty, so far as the trade is concerned, will be to give the whole market of Australia, or, at any rate, of New South Wales, to Lewis and Whitty. Lewis and Whitty’s blue appears to be selling at 4£d. per lb. in Sydney. The article with which it has had to compete largely was Reckitt’s and Keen’s blue. It appears that Keen’s blue is selling at 6¼d. in New South Wales, and 8£d. in Victoria, which shows that the 2d. per lb. duty is put on to the price, ami the consumer has to pay it in Victoria. It is now proposed to impose the duty of 2d. per lb. all round, and the obvious corollary is that the proposition would give the market to the producer, but- it gives him the market without any excuse for the duty. He has the market already, and even in free-trade Sydney he is able to undersell the foreign exporter of blue by 2d. per lb. What will he do with this 2d. per lb. duty ? Obviously he will put it in his pocket. That may be the object of honorable gentlemen opposite, but it is clear that Id. per lb. would be all that would be necessary to enable the industry to be carried on. How many people does it take to make blue? What labour is employed in sticking on the labels or mixing up the blue ? Any one would imagine that there was an atmosphere murky with the smoke from a million manufactories in which nothing but blue was produced. I suppose that a few women and children, with very few men, make all the blue in Victoria or other places,- If there is one industry which more than another seems to lend itself to the’ employment of female labour and child labour, apparently blue-making is that industry, lt calls for the exercise of little ingenuity, and very few trade secrets. But there is a process which is known in connexion with the trade, and it is that by which the manufacturer manages to put into his pocket the 2d. of duty on every lb. of blue which he produces. I .am given to understand that previous to the imposition of the uniform duty the price of Lewis and Whitty’s blue in Victoria was higher than the price of blue in Sydney. What necessity was there for the manufacturers to make that charge ? They did it simply because they were able to do so by the exigencies of the market. The Ministers have asked for arguments, not that they want them, but to show they are ready for anything - as, I believe, they are. The honorable member for Dalley supplied them with three arguments ; does any man desire more ? The honorable and learned member for Corinella supplied another argument inadvertently, but he did his best. Now that they have four arguments, that is not sufficient. I am very certain that they do not want any arguments. They want an excuse, and unless we can supply them with that excuse, we shall not be able to reduce this item by a penny. But just so surely as we are not able to do so, just so surely will it be quite useless for honorable members on the other side to get up and endeavour to persuade us to deal with them fairly and reasonably. They ask for argument, but when it is given they affect to disregard it, not that they can disregard argument, for sensible men as they are could not do such a thing. It is a simulation of indifference which I feel persuaded that they do not feel. I have quoted a paragraph from an interview with the agents of Lewis and Whitty in Sydney, and I can readily understand that the honorable and learned member for Corinella, who represents the intelligence of Victoria, can work himself up into a state of jocular enthusiasm in support of the local manufacturer’s blue. When one comes to consider that the agents of this firm in Sydney are positively enthusiastic over the prospect one can readily understand that a representative, not of the firm, but of the people generally here will derive some measure of enthusiasm, even if it be vicarious enthusiasm. What reason is there that we should impose a duty which, on the face of it, gives little or no revenue, which was not imposed for that purpose, and which, so far as we know, is not necessary to the protection of this industry 1 If it can be shown that it is necessary, then the Government will occupy a fairly firm position, although I entirely agree with the honorable member for Wentworth when he says that to impose a duty which they admit is equal to 33 per cent., .but which apparently is higher than that, is an absolute departure from the revenue-producing Tariff which we were led to expect from them. Is an industry threatened here? Absolutely jio, because the local producer of blue is able now, and was able prior to the imposition of the Tariff, to undersell the foreign dealer. What can be clearer than that 1 He did put on the market at Sydney a blue which he sold at 4-d. per lb., and the price at which Keen’s blue could be retailed was 6 Jd. per lb. That wants refutation, if it can be afforded. It is now proposed to alter the price of Keen’s blue to 8Jd. per lb., while Lewis and Whitty can sell their blue for 4£d. a lb. That is putting the foreign article at a disadvantage of nearly 100 per cent. That is not a revenue producing Tariff - that is nothing but pure prohibition. It appears that the mere handling of cases of blue is a work for which honorable members on the other side feel the most supreme contempt. The man on the ship, the man on the wharf, the man on the trolly, is utterly beneath contempt. They have their eyes on a pallid looking being, working under scarcely tolerable conditions. ‘ I am just as much concerned for the man who handles blue as they are for the women or girls who make it. Some explanation will have to be afforded by my right honorable friend how it is that, although this is not a revenue producing item, he imposes such a duty as will put the foreign article at a disadvantage of 100 per cent., when the local article is well able to compete with that article. When a compromise is offered by the honorable member for Wentworth, the Government require some argument. No more argument is necessary than that already adduced. And I shall be very much aggrieved if the Government do not come forward with some offer at least towards a compromise.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

Federal Parliament, who will stand in with us; some do not quite see what we are at, but we shall be able to persuade them to put this ring fence round the industry.” That is not called robbery, because the firm have some very good friends on the Ministerial side, who back them up and enable them to take over £11,000 out of the pockets of the people. No doubt Ministers will expect to be considered–

– It is amusing to hear some honorable members, especially representatives of Victoria, talking about protection. Have they forgotten that they are representatives’ of the Commonwealth, and not merely representatives of Victoria ? There are States other than Victoria to be considered.

Mr Kennedy:

– Especially in regard to sugar.

Mr PAGE:

– I would not care twopence if the duty on sugar were removed tomorrow, nor would my constituents. I would do away with the Customs altogether if I had my way, and support the direct taxation of the honorable member and other holders of large acreages. The supporters of the protectionist policy in Victoria never had a healthy opposition before the constitution of the .Federal Parliament. Now that they have to face some opposition they are wailing for more protection, and I am sorry to see that the Government are giving way to them so much, especially after the far-famed Maitland speech. We have to look after constituents 1,000 miles away from the coast - away in Northern Queensland. They have enough protection to face in the shape of the railway freights which they have to pay on every article they use and consume. They have to pay them even on the cabbages from Victoria. It is a wonder that honorable members for Victoria do not want protection on cabbages ; probably they will ask for it in respect of the few head of cattle imported from New Zealand. I am surprised at the way in which honorable members for Victoria howl about the interests of the manufacturers. What about the consumers ? Are they not to be considered? They appear to be a secondary consideration in the opinion of some honorable members from this State. I would not mind if a duty of 3d. per lb. were placed on laundry blue, because a corresponding reduction could be made in some other directions. There are other things on which a reduction of duty would be acceptable. We can do without blue in Northern Queensland, and Victoria can have its blue manufacturers, so far as we are concerned.

Mr. PIESSE (Tasmania).- I should like to explain that no one has supplied me with figures, and I had not figures in my possession when I spoke. I spoke from knowledge of what I had seen in shops in Tasmania, and from knowledge that the Victorian article was to be had there. I knew also that many householders would not have it, out of some spirit of retaliation against Victoria on account of her action with respect to Tasmanian products. That spirit will, I hope, now altogether disappear, but our Victorian friends must bear in mind that under their protectionist principles they did not approach the people of Tasmania in the best possible way. Still this article is received there and used there.

Mr Harper:

– Yes ; £60 worth in a year.

Mr PIESSE:

– That may be so, but with the 2d. per lb. duty in its favour it will have the whole market in front of it, and I do not myself think that it should have so much help as that.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added - put.

The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 30

Noes … … … 24

Majority … … 6

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 13. - Broom corn millet. Per cental, 4s.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
Tasmania

– I rise to ask the committee to place this article on the free-list. The Treasurer is very fond of telling me that upon this, that, and the other article, Tasmania has imposed very heavy duties. I am on the right side now, because Tasmania has always had this item on the free list. Not only Tasmania, but every State in the Commonwealth, except Victoria, has allowed this raw product to come in free, and in Victoria the duty has been the very insignificant one of 10 per cent. ad valorem. How Ministers have conceived it right to impose on this raw material this duty passes my comprehension. I move - .

That the words “and on and after 27th November, 1901, free,” be added.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– I hope that the committee will not on any account consent to strike out the proposed duty. This is a steadily increasing industry, and is deserving of all encouragement. The growth of broom corn millet is considerably indulged in in New South Wales, and in Queensland too, I believe. It has been found that land in those States is very well suited for a production of this character. The product is valuable, and a large amount of labour is employed in the tillage of the land and the preparation of the straw. We find that on account of importations from the United States at different times the success of the industry is threatened, and a duty of this description has been earnestly asked for by persons interested in the tillage of the soil. I venture to think we shall do well in giving encouragement to a very suitable native industry.

Mr Watson:

– What does a duty of is. per cental represent ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– It does not represent more than 20 or 22 per cent. The amount of the protection is fair and reasonable, and if we want to encourage our agricultural community at all we can fairly extend the encouragement in this direction, where it is particularly asked, where it is a reasonable rate, where the necessity for it has been shown by the experience of the past, and where, owing to the heavy importations, the price of millet has been reduced to an amount which is hardly payable. I trust that we shall not hesitate to do what we can within the duty proposed by the Government, to afford to millet growers the protection which they seek.

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

– In the Hunter River district, in New South Wales, from Maitland down to almost Newcastle, where corn and maize used to be grown, millet has been grown for years. It is also grown on the Paterson River, and on the coastal rivers in the north. It is a thriving and powerful industry there. Those who deal in both imported millet and Australian millet mix the two varieties for broom-making, and find that they have no reason to ask for any protection. If New South Wales grows millet, and does not require assistance, I do not see why the other States should ask for a protective duty.

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

– I wish to know from the Minister for Trade and Customs how much land in Australia is under cultivation for the growth of broom corn millet. I know that its cultivation has been recommended by the department of New South Wales amongst others. I remember Mr. Campbell saying that very few men had made the experiment, but I learn now that some persons have done so. A gentleman who runs a factory in New South Wales told me that he was unable to get a supply with any regularity, that any shortage he had to import, and that one kind of straw it was necessary to import. It does not appear that this duty is imposed for any other purpose than to placate the farmer. I do not think that very many farmers will grow broom corn millet. If the industry were taken up seriously I should think that 1,000 acres would supply the market. I am afraid, much as I would like to support it, it is one of those duties put on for the purpose of placating the poor unfortunate farmer without helping him.

Mr McCOLL:
Echuca

– The price of broom millet was £16 13s. per ton in 1897, £171s. per ton in 1898, and £28 per ton in 1899. A duty of 4s. percental is not an extreme duty; it is equal to about 20 per cent. ad valorem. This is one of those cases where we can dovetail the raw material into the manufactured article., We can grow millet as well as it can be grown anywhere. I have seen it growing on the King River. It is a fine product; it grows extremely well, and provides a great deal of employment. If we encourage the production of broom millet here, growers will be able to supply the manufacturers, and secure settled prices. Broom millet is essentially a product that can be grown by holders of small plots of good land, and particularly where irrigation can be applied. This duty is not imposed for the purpose of placating the farmer, but in order to encourage a natural industry.

Mr BROWN:
Canobolas

– I notice from the information supplied by the Government that Victoria is the only State that has hitherto imposed a duty on this broom millet. I presume that the object of the duty was to protect the producer, and as it only amounted to 10 per cent. there does not appear to be any necessity for imposing the higher duty now proposed. I have visited some of the broom factories in Victoria, and I have found that, notwithstanding the special encouragement offered to local growers, the bulk of the millet used in broom manufacture was imported from either New South Wales or America. The millet grown in Victoria appeared to me to be much coarser than that imported from America or New South Wales, but whilst the American millet was even finer than that grown in New South Wales, I was given to understand that it had the disadvantage of being much more brittle. I was also informed that in addition to the customs duty on broom millet a bonus of some £5 per ton was paid to the Victorian growers, and I should like to know whether it is intended to continue this bonus.

Sir George Turner:

– I have no recollection of any bonus ; but all bonuses will practically cease now that the uniform Tariff has been brought into operation.

Mr BROWN:

– I should judge, from what I was able to observe, that New South Wales and Queensland are better adapted for the growth of broom millet than is Victoria ; and as broom millet has been grown in New South Wales without any special encouragement, I am inclined to think that the duty now proposed is one of those make-believes that will confer no great benefit on the producer. At any rate a 10 per cent. duty would be ample.

Mr KINGSTON:

– Some honorable members have requested further information, and I should like to read an extract from a letter which has been received from Mr. Cunningham, the secretary to the Miller’s Forest Progress Committee, on the Hunter River, New South Wales. The letter is dated 6th August, and reads as follows : -

I tun directed by the Miller’s Forest Progress Committee toask you to bring under the notice of the Federal Prime Minister (the Hon. E. Barton) the need of putting a fairly strong tax on millet, or broom corn, as it is sometimes called, when framing the Tariff. My committee are led to this course from the fact that manufacturers have more power to have their interests served in these matters than producers and farmers, and it is certainly to the interest of the former to have the raw material admitted at alow tariff, while the manufactured article pays a high duty. The growing of millet has become a standard industry in the Hunter River district, and it is also extensively grown on all the other northern rivers. In fact, plenty can be grown to supply the whole of Australia. Owing to free-trade here, the importation of American and Italian millet causes extreme fluctuations in the market. Last year, at this time, itwas between £35 and £40 a ton. At present it ranges from £10 to £15 owing to manufacturers placing orders in America at the beginning of the season ; and, when these shipments arrived, which cost from £20 to £25 in Sydney, the local millet was arriving on the market, and growers had to accept the low prices previously quoted. We therefore think that a fairly stiff tax would prevent this extreme fluctuation, and give us a steady, reliable market. I may state that growers consider from £20 to £25 a ton a good payable price.

Here we have a man speaking from experience, plainly indicating the mischief which free-trade does, and applying for the relief which we think ought to be granted to the producer as well as to the manufacturer. I have a further letter from the Hunter River, signed by Mr. W. Johnston, who writes most intelligently upon the subject. I think testimony of this description is what we want. It comes from those who have been engaged in the industry, and who are able to point out the disadvantages attached to their present position. Mr. Johnston says -

For some years past a steadily increasing area of land in New South Wales has been devoted to the growth of the species of millets used in the manufacture of brooms. It is a plant requiring much care and attention, and only the best sort of arable land is used, which gives a return in some instances of as much as 7 cwt. to the acre ; but more usually four or even five acres are required to produce a ton. One result directly beneficial to the country at large arising from its cultivation is the amount of labour it demands. The production of 1 ton will not only create as much occupation in preparing the ground, sowing, cleaning, scarifying, &c., as four or five acres put under, say, maize, but on the millet arriving at maturity, will find employment for two men for very nearly four weeks ere it be ready for the market. The various processes of cutting, drying repeatedly, stripping of the seed, tying, pressing, &c., all which millet has to undergo, cause it to afford more employment to the workman before it leaves the farmer’s hands than perhaps anything the latter grows. At the current price of agricultural labour, the grower has to disburse some £10 or £15 in wages before he can dispose of a single ton. Last year, owing to the failure of the American crop, millet brought from £22 to £30 a ton, thus, after recouping the agriculturist for the rent of his land, labour, risk, &c, showing anything but a brilliant margin of profit for the year on the capital invested. Unfortunately, this year, owing to heavy imports from America, the price is quoted as low as £13 to £15, which represents a grave actual loss to the farmers, who, in establishing a new industry requiring so much labour, have in no small measure contributed to the lessening of the grind of competition in other directions.

– If the honorable member would vote for putting on a big land tax and the bursting up of large estates, he would do something for the producers.

Mr KENNEDY:

Mr O’MALLEY:
Tasmania

– I trust that my honorable friends on the Opposition side will let these little items of no importance pass so that we may do some business. There are a few duties which I desire to reduce, but if we are to fight every item we shall be here for 60 years, and honorable members who are young now will be dead long before we reach the 130th item. I plead with my honorable friends on the other side not to kill themselves by sitting in this chamber during the hot summer, but to allow these little items to go by.

Mr WILKINSON:
Moreton

– I am inclined to think that the proposed duty is rather high, and that the amendment goes to the other extreme. If we were to adopt the old Victorian duty of 10 per cent., we should be doing better. There is no State in the Commonwealth where broom corn millet grows more freely than in Queensland. But although it grows almost wild there, no advantage has been taken of that fact to establish any great industry there. I know that there is not much difficulty in growing the article in Queensland, because I have grown it myself, and it does not need much labour.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added - put.

The committee divided -

Ayes…………. 21

Noes………… 34

Majority … … … 13

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Sir Edward Braddon) put -

That the words “and on and after 27th November, 1901, 2s.,” be added.

The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 25

Noes……… 30

Majority … … .. 5

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– I think the feeling of the committee ought to be tested as to whether the duty should not be reduced by ls., seeing that several honorable members have not had an opportunity of expressing their opinion. At least two or three honorable members of the Ministerial side, who voted against a reduction to 2s., must vote for a reduction from 4s. to 3s. Perhaps, the honorable member for Tasmania, Sir Philip Fysh, would like to express his opinion on that point ; and, the honorable member for Moreton, I believe, favoured a duty of 2s. It is clearly our duty to see that no higher Tariff is imposed than is necessary, and we ought to fight every line when Ministers do not seem disposed to make reductions.

Mr O’MALLEY:
Tasmania

– If honor- able members of the Opposition fight every item, they cannot expect help from the Government side on items which are of real importance to them. On the other hand, if they do not contest, every item, they may look for some support from this side.

Item agreed to.

Butter and cheese, per lb., 3d.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– Thus item is mixed up in such a way that it is not very easy to divide the commodities ; but I will take it for granted that the duty affects chiefly cheese. There is one point which protectionists ought to consider. Whatever may be our views on the question of free-trade and protection, and whatever may have been the effect of duties several years ago, before these States began to export, the conditions now are absolutely altered. The purposes for which duties were put on have almost been entirely answered from the protectionist point of view. Now that we have Inter-State freetrade, a great many of the arguments in favour of protective duties have disappeared ; and many products, particularly butter, have become matters of export. Under any circumstances the home producer now practically holds, the market. Many of the duties which have remained are not operative, and it is not fair to make comparisons between the different States on the basis of the present rate of duties. We have to consider the conditions of Australia at the present time, now that duties have been in operation for several years : and the position is that many of these products do not require extreme protection. The Ministry have been so little careful to consider this aspect of the question, that in some cases they have taken the highest duties in the different States, and in the other cases they have taken very nearly the highest. This duty of 3d. per lb. on cheese is practically prohibitive, and we must recollect that in dealing with this Tariff as a matter of revenue, we have not merely to consider the State of Victoria, but also a State which contains one-third or more of the population of Australia. Into that State there ha ve been large importations of many of these items of produce, and if there is to be. “revenue without destruction,” we have to consider, in the face of the present conditions of Australia, what is a reasonable revenue duty which has no chance of destroying industries. I find that into New South Wales from New Zealand and other countries in 1889 there was imported 2,472,520 lbs. of cheese, and taking the duty at ‘3d. which the Government propose, thatmeans areturn of £30,906. According to ‘their own estimate, the Government expect to receive from New South Wales on this particular item, £1,876, as against the £30,906 I have mentioned. Thus we have the startling result that by the operation of this Tariff the Government have of set purpose determined to reduce the imports into New South Wales by 94 per cent.

Mr McColl:

– That is what we want to do.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– Exactly ; and that applies throughout Australia. I ask honorable members who desire to be true to the pledges made before this Parliament met - who believe that we should have “ revenue without destruction,” and that we cannot or should not have either extreme free-trade or extreme protection - what they think of a duty which on the very figures of the Government practically annihilates imports 1 I do not intend to labour the different items, or to bring forward a lot of detailed knowledge connected with the trade. I simply take my stand on the federal principle of creating an average duty which will be fair to the populations of the Australian States. In the next place I take my stand upon the question “Are we trying to obtain a revenue while at the same time giving incidental protection to the different industries?” It is a farce to talk for one moment about a Tariff giving incidental protection when from the very figures of the Government it is abundantly clear that we are practically placing a prohibitive duty upon these articles. These figures cannot lie. The Government say by the figures which they themselves have produced - “We impose this duty in order to stop every importation into Australia.” This is a monstrous state of things. In the view of honorable members who have entered this House with a fair idea of compromise, with the desire to do what is right for United Australia, and with an inclination - such as we have had in New South Wales - to make enormous sacrifices for the sake of union, the present action of the Ministry strikes a severe Wow at their own good faith. If this broad line of reasoning does not appeal to the generous instincts of honorable members even upon the other side, my view of the committee and of its desire for compromise and fair play must undergo a very considerable change. I do not move for the omission of the item, although as a freetrader I am opposed to the imposition of any duty upon these articles. The adoption of the rate which I recommend will probably exclude 50 per cent. of the present importations into New South Wales and the other States. In making this compromise I have not abandoned the principles which I espouse,, but those who vote for what is practically a prohibitive duty will be recreant to the professions upon which they came to this House, and upon which the Union was established. I move -

That the words “and on and after 27th November, 1901,11/2d.” be added.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Maitland speech is not now before the committee, but the item butter and cheese.

Mr L E GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; IND from 1931; UAP from 1934

– I submit that the industries affected by this proposal are industries which for their proper establishment require the imposition of a protective duty. The true policy of protection has been applied to them, and in this respect we have to consider that we are legislating for the different States, and that in those States certain policies have been adopted. In Queensland, for instance, the butter and cheese industry was created in two ways, and under what I think the honorable and learned member for Indi would say was a scientific system of protection. In the first place, a duty was put upon the article at a time when, in Queensland, we practically produced no cheese ; and, at the same time, the Government introduced a proper system of scientific instruction, so that those engaged in the industry might be taught proper methods of production. The course followed has been justified, because, throughout the whole of the Darling Downs district - in places like Yangan, outside Warwick, and other places - the people are producing cheese equal in quality to anything that can be produced elsewhere. We want to continue this, and the time is not yet come for the removal of the duty upon either butter or cheese. The whole of the States are now combined in one Commonwealth, and we have not yet arrived at the stage when the local market is entirely supplied by the locally grown article. Until that happens the protection to these industries should be continued. The Agricultural departments of the various States will do their best to increase the value of the protected products, and I hope the Government will be firm in insisting upon the proposal they have made.

Mr. A. C. GROOM (Flinders). The dairying industry of Victoria was certainly not built up by protection. It was built up first of all by the bonus which was given by the Government ten years ago. The bonus and the departmental dairies which went to the various centres to teach the people the art of making butter under the factory system were he means of the industry growing to the extent it has done, and developing an enormous export trade. The Treasurer ga ve some figures to make out that New South Wales is a large importer of butter. On turning up Coghlan, at page 496 I find that New South Wales did not import any butter in 1899, but exported in that year over 7,000,000 lbs. of butter to the United Kingdom, showing distinctly that any butter which happened to come within her borders was not for herown use, but for export. The surplus amount of butter which was. raised in New South Wales in 1899 was 4,500,000 lbs., but she exported to the United Kingdom 7,000,000 lbs., showing a difference of 2,500,000 lbs.; which certainly was imported from some other colony, landed, and re-exported. That, I think, shows where theNew Zealand butter went to.

Sir George Turner:

– They do not import butter from New Zealand to send it to England.

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– If New South Wales had a surplus of 4,500,000 lbs. of butter in 1899, and exported in that year over 7,000,000 lbs., the difference must havecomef rom some other colony ; and as she imported butter from New Zealand only, it follows that it must have come from that colony. In regard to cheese, Victoria is an exporter to the extent of over 600,000 lbs. a year. Therefore the duty is no good to the Victorian farmer. He does not want a duty of 3d. per lb. ; . he would be quite satisfied with one-half that duty, which would be over 25 per cent. ad valorem. I do not think that any import duty should exceed 25 per cent. ad valorem, and therefore I shall vote for the reduction of the duty to l1/2d. per lb.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

But faith, fanatic faith, once wedded fast

To some dear falsehood, hugs it to the last.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am referring only to two States, and I apprehend that, when we get the mean of the duties iri. those two States, we arrive, at a pretty fair view with regard to the whole of the people of the Commonwealth, for the simple reason that these two States represent the bulk of the people of Australia.

Mr Watkins:

– But we have to consider the interests of all the States under the Constitution.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Of course; and we are doing so. ‘ We have voted a duty on arrowroot for the benefit of Queensland alone, and we have voted duties for the benefit of Victoria. When, in heaven’s name, is New South Wales to be given % show_ under this ‘Tariff? It seems to me that it is all sacrifice and surrender so far as she is concerned. It is that which makes the people of New South Wales so disgusted with the Tariff, and so anxious to obtain a modification of it. The proposal made by the acting leader of the Opposition is a fair one, and if the Ministry are disposed to compromise on this Tariff they will not have the slightest objection to it.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN (Wentworth). - In order to save time, and as I think there is no chance that on division I shall carry the proposal I have made, although I believe it is a proper proposal, I am now willing to make another proposal. Will the Treasurer agree that the duty shall be reduced to 2d.- on each of these items ? That will be a fair thing. I am sure that no honorable members desire that this Tariff should be anything but what it pretends to be, a revenue Tariff with a considerable incidence towards protection. Even if we ‘reduce the duty to 2d. per lb. so far as butter is concerned, it is of course a farce, because we export that article so largely. , We export 53,000,000 lbs. of butter, as against 2,000,000 lbs. imported. It is a farce therefore to talk about a duty of 3d. per lb. on butter, which generally averages 9d. per lb. Under the circumstances, a duty of 33 J per cent, is absurd. Butter is a natural industry, and it was not either the bonus or the import duty that established that industry. The refrigerating machine, which made it possible to make butter all over Australia, and made its export possible, is what has established the industry. I trust there will be no more talk of the avocations of honorable mem- . * bers. I have never mentioned the profession or business of any man in dealing with any public question. As being probably the only importer on this side, I may tell honorable members for their edification that I control a business connected with the produce and dairying industry of this country, and the export of primary products, which amounts to hundreds of thousands more per annum than my importing business. I may also tell them - as this has also been thrown at us - that I control the largest coal mine in Australia, another important primary industry. But I should be willing, if it were hot for the interests of others, to walk out of every business I am connected with, in order to give my time entirely to the affairs of the country. I think we may assume that we are all actuated by patriotic motives, and, so far as a representative Government is concerned, it should represent all the interests of Australia. I ask my right honorable friends if they will give way in this matter. We are going to take a division. I do not say that as a threat, but we must assert ourselves in this case. I ask honorable members who desire fair play to cany out the original compact of compromise made by the different States,’ and on which we have been elected to this Parliament. I ask them to assist us, as a matter of fairness, in this proposal. I ask leave now to amend my amendment by substituting1d. for l1/2d.

Amendment, by leave, amended accordingly

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

– Ishould like to urge the Government to fall in with the proposal of the honorable member for Wentworth. In this matter, as in many others, the small States have received no consideration whatever. We have imported into Western Australia over 4,800,000 lbs. weight of butter from Victoria alone, on which there is a duty of 2d. per lb. We have also imported hundreds of thousands of pounds of cheese, on which a similar duty is imposed. I ask Ministers to have some consideration for the smaller States, and to accept the proposition now made.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added - put.

The committee divided -

Ayes ………..14

Noes………. 22

Majority……… 8

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Item agreed to.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– The Government] do not propose to ask the committee to sit late to-night, because no doubt many honorable members who have come from considerable distances are tired. . But I am sure that all sides of the House will recognise that it is time we made a little more progress than we have done. It is the intention of the Government to. ask the committee to sit sufficiently late to-morrow night to enable us to dispose of the remaining items in division 4, with the exception of those which we have intimated our intention to postpone - namely, rice, tea, and starch. I believe that in making this intimation we are simply giving effect to the will of the committee, and no doubt the sooner we addressourselves to the question of getting on with the business, the better it will be. We rely on the assistance of the committee.

Progress reported.

page 7781

ADJOURNMENT

Christmas Adjournment

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

– In speaking on the motion moved by the Attorney-General this afternoon, I said that the honorable member who ticked off the names of those honorable members who wished for a long adjournment had a sinister motive in keeping the representatives of Queensland from returning in time to take part in the general election there next March. I have found out that the statement was unfounded, and I have much pleasure in withdrawing it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 26 November 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1901/19011126_reps_1_6/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives26 November 1901

QUESTION

TARIFF BY-LAWS

Sir MALCOLM McEACHARN:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr KINGSTON:Minister for Trade and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

PAPER

QUESTION

CUSTOMHOUSE HOURS

Mr KIRWAN:for Mr: Hughes

Mr KINGSTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

COST OF PRINTING

Mr MAHON:COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr DEAKIN:Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

ADDITIONAL SITTING DAY

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

Mr Watson:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Conroy:

Mr DEAKIN:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:Wentworth

Mr O’MALLEY:Tasmania

Mr CONROY:Werriwa

Mr McDonald:

Mr CONROY:

Mr Mahon:

Mr CONROY:

Mr Watson:

Mr CONROY:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr CONROY:

Mr Piesse:

Mr CONROY:

Mr McCay:

Mr CONROY:

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:Tasmania

Mr Watson:

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:

Mr HUGHES:West Sydney

Mr PAGE:Maranoa

Mr POYNTON:South Australia

Mr McDONALD:Kennedy

Mr Watson:

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr Deakin:

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr McCay:

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr McCay:

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr McCay:

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr HENRY WILLIS:Robertson

Mr Salmon:

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

Mr E SOLOMON:FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

QUESTION

TARIFF

Mr KINGSTON:South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:Wentworth

Mr McCay:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr McCay:

Mr CHAIRMAN:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr KIRWAN:Kalgoorlie

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Thomson:

Mr KINGSTON:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr THOMSON:North Sydney

Mr Kirwan:

Mr THOMSON:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Thomson:

Mr KINGSTON:

Sir JOHN QUICK:Bendigo

House of Representatives
26 November 1901

Sir MALCOLM McEACHARN:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr KINGSTON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Mr KIRWAN:
for Mr: Hughes

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr DEAKIN:
Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

Mr O’MALLEY:
Tasmania

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
Tasmania

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

Mr POYNTON:
South Australia

Mr McDONALD:
Kennedy

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr KINGSTON:
South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

Mr KIRWAN:
Kalgoorlie

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

Mr SALMON:
Laanecoorie

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir William McMillan:
Wentworth

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

Mr McCAY:
Corinella