House of Representatives
4 February 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

LEAVE OF ABSENCE
QUESTION
- ADMISSION OF JAPANESE LABOURERS INTO QUEENSLAND
QUESTION
- DUTY ON JEWELLERY
QUESTION
- JAMES STRACHAN, TELEGRAPH OPERATOR
TARIFF
ADJOURNMENT

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

page 9583

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Resolved (on motion by SirWilliam

McMillan) with concurrence -

That leave of absence for one month be granted to the right honorable member for Tasmania, Sir Edward Braddon, on the ground of ill-health.

page 9583

QUESTION

ADMISSION OF JAPANESE LABOURERS INTO QUEENSLAND

Mr FISHER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– In the absence of the Prime Minister, I wish to ask the AttorneyGeneral, without notice, if he has any objection to saying whether the Commonwealth Government has any knowledge of any negotiations between the Government of the State of Queensland and the agent for Japan at Townsville, relating to the admission of Japanese labourers into Queensland. Has he any objection to stating whether there is any truth in the rumour that in recent years negotiations of the character referred to have taken place ? Having regard to the importance of the question to Australia, has he any objection to laying all the correspondence relating to the matter on the table of this House at a convenient date.

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

– We have knowledge of negotiations between the Government of the State of Queensland and the Consul for Japan, at Townsville, relating to Japanese labourers ; that correspondence proceeded up to a comparatively late date last year; and has been published in a paper laid upon the table of the Queensland Parliament.

There will be no objection, if it is moved for, to it being republished for the. benefit of members of this House.

page 9584

QUESTION

DUTY ON JEWELLERY

Mr POYNTON:
for Mr. Glynn

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Does the Customs department prevent the importation of jewellery in use, that is, old jewellery, from State to State, unless on proof that the duty chargeable on the importation into the Commonwealth of jewellery notin use has been paid thereon ? 2.Ifso-
1. Why does the Minister consider section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act applicable to such goods?
2. Does the department charge] the Commonwealth duty, although the State Act relating to Customs exempts such goods from duty?
3. If such goods pass from State to State for the purposes of repairs, is the duty refunded on the goodsbeing returned ; and, if not, why not ?
Does the Minister insist that the burden of proof as to payment of duty under section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act is on the person importing from State to State?

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

– The answers to the honorable and learned member’s questions are as follow : -

Not when passengers’ personal effects, but only when imported for sale, repairs, or other trade purposes. 2. (a) Section 92 of the Constitution Act applies to all goods imported before the imposition of uniform duties.
1. The State Act is not considered to affect the question.
2. The Customs Act 1901 does not contemplate refunds in such cases.
Yes.

page 9584

QUESTION

JAMES STRACHAN, TELEGRAPH OPERATOR

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Whether there is any objection to lay on the table of the House the papers in connexion with the transfer from Coolgardie to Eucla of James Strachan, telegraph operator

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA, TASMANIA · Free Trade

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

There is no objection to lay on the table of the House the papers in connexion with the transfer from Coolgardie to Eucla of James Strachan, telegraph operator, if desired. As they refer to other departmental matters connected with the transfer referred to, the honorable member may perhaps consider it sufficient to see them at the Postmaster-General’s office.

page 9584

TARIFF

In Committee of Ways and Means -

Consideration resumed from 31st January(vide page 9583).

Division VI. (Special exemptions).

Amendment (by SirMalcolm McEacharn) agreed to -

That the following exemption be added : - “ Translators.”

Amendment (by Mr. Phillips) agreed to-

That the following exemption be added:- “ Winnower forks (wood and steel).”

Mr POYNTON:
South Australia

– I move -

That the following exemption be added - “ Steel fencing standards of all lengths, and pillars, patent steel droppers of all lengths, and patent wedgers f or droppers and standards.”

This motion is not quite in the terms of the notice upon the business-paper, because I have omitted the word “ Hochrin,” so that the exemption may apply to all steel fencing standards and accessories.

Mr Kingston:

– But these things are made here.

Mr POYNTON:

– Some of the common iron standards’ are made here, I believe, but not the steel standards. These articles were upon the free list in South Australia, and they are largely used by people who, because of the country in which they live, have to put up with more hardship than many other members of the community. Nearly the whole of the Northern railway system of South Australia is enclosed with this kind of fencing, and it is used in all the subdivisional fences in the northern and north-western parts of that State.

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

– I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment. I would suggest to the mover that the omission of the word “ patent “ might be desirable. Steel droppers and standards are used for fencing in the arid portions of the continent where there is no timber.

Sir George Turner:

– They are used largely in other places as well.

Mr THOMSON:

– Not to the same extent. They are used most largely, and are of the greatest importance, out on the arid plains, where the cost of fencing is already quite sufficient, and where the pastoral industry has to contendwith a great many difficulties. Items like these, which can be of very little importance to the revenue, and the duty on which only adds to the already great cost of properly working properties in the more difficult portions of the Commonwealth, should be placed on the free list. The droppers are used for stiffen i ng fences. To some extent they do away with the use of timber, reducing the quantity required by three-fourths, at any rate. Where there is no timber they are of great advantage. Although they have to be conveyed considerable distances, yet they are an enormous saving to those who have to erect fences. Under these circumstances I would press the Minister to allow the items to be exempt from duty.

Mr KINGSTON:
South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

– I understand that these droppers are made in Australia.

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– Not the same sort.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I am informed that just as good droppers as can be got anywhere are made in Melbourne.

Mr Poynton:

– Are not the pastoralists the best judges?

Mr KINGSTON:

– If the pastoralist is the best judge and he prefers to patronize the foreign industry he should not object to make a reasonable contribution towards the revenue. We must get revenue from somewhere. For the reasons that the articles are made here, and that it is not unfair to expect a contribution from imported articles, I ask honorable members not to agree to the amendment.

Mr. THOMSON (North Sydney). - I think the committee will agree that the answer of the Minister, in view of what was done with wire netting, is not satisfactory. Every remark he made applies to wire netting. The only difference is that the wire netting industry is a much bigger and more important one. The number of droppers made in the Commonwealth is very small indeed, and the factories cannot employ more than a few hands, if there are any devoted entirely to their manufacture. Although wire netting, much for the very reasons given - to ease the cost of fences - was placed by the Ministry on the exemption list, yet on these droppers, which are used in country still more difficult than that in which wire netting is often used - that is, in country without timber - a duty is demanded simply because a few of them may he made in Melbourne. I think that the committee would stultify itself if it now made droppers and standards dutiable.

Mr KINGSTON:

– Although we proposed to have a duty on barbed wire, and to let wire netting come in free, honorable members will recollect that we were not prepared to put the two in the same class. The committee in its wisdom decided that the one should be dutiable and the other not, and I think for this reason - that we held that barbed wire was more used by the pastoralists who could well afford to pay, whereas wire netting was absolutely necessary to the farmer to prevent the destruction of his crops. I think, applying the same reasoning now, the pastoralists who use these droppers can afford to pay a reasonable duty on them. I venture to think, in connexion with the importation of goods of this sort which are locally produced, the strength of the reasoning is that we have not dealt with barbed wire and wire netting on the same basis. We have drawn a distinction such as now warrants us in asking the committee to treat droppers on the same basis as barbed wire, and to vote for the imposition of a reasonable duty.

Mr. POYNTON (South Australia).We understand now from the Minister that this article is looked upon as a sort of luxury, and that because it is a luxury the pastoralists are called upon to pay this extra amount of money. For many years in South Australia, while the Minister was a member of the State Government, the article was not dutiable and it was not made dutiable after he left office. All the efforts I made in connexion with barbed wire apply equally to droppers and standards, because, in hundreds of square miles of country in the northern districts, a fence could not be erected without using an iron or steel standard. Isubmit that the pastoralists are paying a very fair contribution to the revenue, considering neither the farmers nor the pastoralists in the interior can claim to be deriving any protection from the Tariff. In South Australia the Parliament, recognising that these standards were so important to the pastoralists, never attempted to impose a duty upon them. I ask honorable members to support my amendment.

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– I have had considerable experience of this class of fencing. From my knowledge of colonial droppers I can say that they are of very little use indeed. They are made of some kind of soft material, and any crossbred sheep, by putting its head underneath, will bend them like a piece of whalebone. They are utterly useless for the purpose for which they were designed, and the pastoralists prefer to use imported ones, which are made of steel. I would remind the Minister that the pastoralists of Australia need help as much as any class. They have had as rough a time during the last few years as have any farmers, dairymen, or any one else, and they require to be helped as much as possible.

Question - That the following exemptions be added - “ Steel fencing standards of all lengths, and pillars patent steel droppers of all lengths; and patent wedgers for droppers and standards” - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 25

Noes … … … 24

Majority … … …1

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
BalaclavaTreasurer · Protectionist

– The next proposal is one of which notice has been given by the honor able member for Melbourne, to add to the listof exemptions a number of boot machine tools. A number of these articles, are already included among the exemptions, viz. - Inseam Trimming machines, Welt Beating machines, Turn Moulding machines, Stitch Separating machines, Gem Insolemachines, Sole Rounding machines, Channel Opening machines, Counter Mouldingmachines, Rand Splitting machines, Rand Turning machines, Rand Compressing machines, Pattern Grading machines, Pattern Cutting machines, Vamp Marking machines, Vamp Folding machines, Vamp Beading machines, Power Hammer machines, Hooking machines, Standard Screwing machines; Pegging machines, Staple Fastening machines, Upper Cleaning machines,. Treeing machines, Tying (Shoe) machines, Strap Printing and Covering machines. The other articles mentioned in the list of the honorable member we think ought to be dutiable because they are made in Australia - that is the distinction we have drawn from the beginning.

Sir MALCOLM McEACHARN:
Melbourne

– Of course I must accept the statement of the Treasurer that all the machine tools mentioned in my amendment, excepting those enumerated by him, are made within the Commonwealth, but I am informed that none of them are made here, and further that they have hitherto been admitted into all the States free of duty. I do not think, for instance, that vamp skiving machines, which are very intricate, are manufactured within the Commonwealth. If we are to admit free of duty machines, and machine tools used in various other trades on the ground that they cannot be made here, we ought to make a similar concession in regard to tools used in the bootmaking trade. I a.m pleading for an industry which has many difficulties to contend with, and which is certainly not in a very flourishing condition.

Sir George Turner:

– The information we have is that all the tools which I have not enumerated are made here.

Sir MALCOLM McEACHARN:

– I am sure that bobbin winding machines are not made here. If the Treasurer will state that, in the event of its being found that any of the machines enumerated in my amendment are not made here, they will be included in the free list, I shall be content.

Sir George Turner:

– Of course we shall have power to deal with them under the provision that has been passed. I agree with the honorable member that if they are not made here, they should be admitted free of duty, but we are informed that they are locally manufactured.

Amendment (by Sir Malcolm McEacharn) proposed -

That the following exemptions be added : - Channellers, Combined Channelling and Bounding Machine, Welt Splitting Machine, Welt Grooving Machine, Welt Bevelling Machine, Shank Skiving Machine, Bobbin Winding Machine, Banging Machines, Sole Skiiving Machines, Upper Leather Splitting Machines, Sole Blocking Machines, Channelling and feather Edging Machines, Sole Moulding Machines, Heel Compressing Machines, Heel Building Machines, vamp Skiving Machines, Upper Leather Skiving Machines (such as the “Amazeen”), Gold Embossing Machines, Pinking Machines, Seam Boiler or Rubbing M!achine, Punching and Eyeletting Machine, Crimping Machine, Tubular Riveting Machine, Lusting Machine, Pulling-over Machine, Sole Tacking Machine, Sole Laying Machine, Sole Levelling Machine, Loose Nailing (RivetingMachine, Pneumatic Buffing Machine, Heel Burnishing Machine, Top Ironing Machine.

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN:
Wentworth

– Honorable members must be alarmed at the manner in which we are dealing with these exemptions. I am very anxious that we should proceed on some distinct principle, but I do not know how the Tariff is to be administered if we impose duties upon a number of articles which no ordinary man can distinguish from those included among the exemptions. For instance, welt splitting machines are dutiable, whereas welt beating- machines are exempted. Then turn moulding machines are free, whereas shank skiving machines are exempted. Unless there is evidence before us that the articles which it is now proposed to exempt are really made in Australia, and that their manufacture constitutes a veritable industry, we should admit them free of duty. It is no use speaking of these machines being made here if the work of manufacturing them gives employment to only five or six people. We have no evidence before us to support the statement of the Treasurer, and it seems contemptible to make distinctions such as he proposes.

Sir George Turner:

– The plain distinction is that some people are engaged in making these tools for the bootmaking industry, which is “protected, and we ask that the toolmakers as well as the bootmakers should be protected.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– If we reject the proposal of the honorable member for Melbourne, nine-tenths of the committee will not understand what has been done, and I think the honorable member will be perfectly justified in pressing his amendment.

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

– I shall give my vote with the Government on this occasion. The Opposition are not going to make a tool of me in connexion with the addition of all these articles to the list of exemptions: When we asked the honorable member for Melbourne to vote in favour of exempting the tools of trade of those engaged in the pastoral industry he did not help us, and now I will not help him.

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

– If the honorable member thinks I was wrong that is no reason why he should commit another wrong.

Mr PAGE:

– I intend to commit a wrong,, too. I do not believe in supportinghonorable members who have given little or no support to the proposals coming from the Opposition side in favour of exempting the tools of trade used in other industries. I shall vote this, time as a revenue tariffist, because if all these exemptions are agreed to, and theTariff should not yield sufficient revenue, the blame will be cast on the members of the Opposition. The Minister for Tradeand Customs took the honorable member for Kooyong to task for making proposals in which he was personally interested,, but he has not attempted to attach reproach to other honorable members who have acted similarly.

Sir Malcolm Mceacharn:

– I am not. interested in this proposal.

Mr PAGE:

– How am I to know ; thehonorable member is interested in nearly everything in Australia. The object of the Treasurer is to obtain revenue, and I shall support him.

Mr KIRWAN:
Kalgoorlie

– I hopeother honorable members will not follow the example of the honorable member for Maranoa. Honorable members on this side of the chamber have consistently followed free trade principles throughout the tariff discussion, and although it may seem rather hard that we should be utilized for the purpose of securing the exemption of ‘certain. articles in which honorable members supporting the Government are interested I would remind the honorable member for Maranoa that we are here to carry out a certain line of policy which we should pursue to the end. If other honorable members choose to be inconsistent that is no reason why we should act similarly. The metal workers who are engaged in the manufacture of these machine tools of trade are to have their tools of trade admitted free of duty, and it will be consistent on our part to extend the same advantage to those employed in other occupations. We have no information before us as to the extent of the industries to which the Treasurer has referred, and it would be more satisfactory if we were told where these machine tools are made, and how many men are engaged in making them. It is desirable, in the interests of the whole community, that boots should be obtainable as good as possible, and therefore we should not place those engaged in their manufacture at any disadvantage.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– I hope the honorable member for Maranoa will not pursue the course he has indicated. I am sure that his present feeling is due to momentary irritation, which I hope will vanish when he remembers that we are here to act according to free-trade principles, and that we should not be influenced by the inconsistency displayed by others. These articles should certainly be on the free list, and I hope the honorable member for Maranoa will support the amendment.

Sir MALCOLM MCEACHARN (Melbourne). - I should like to explain that whilst I submitted the amendment in favour of exempting the machines enumerated, I must, in order to be consistent, accept the assurance of the Government that a number of them are being manufactured locally. I do not interpret that assurance as meaning that one or two men only are employed in the manufacture of such machines, but rather that in this connexion there is an established industry. My desire is to be consistent. Quite recently I withdrew an amendment which I had moved, because I found that two people only were engaged in the industry concerned. In view of the assurance of the Government that, if they discover they have made an error in believing that these articles are manufactured within the States, they will place them upon the free list, I shall vote against the amendment. I recognise that honorable members are frequently placed in a very difficult position. They have to study the interests of their constituents and are bound to accept their statements that specific articles are being locally manufactured. As a result they sometimes make assertions which are incorrect, although they do so in all good faith and after their best efforts have been directed to ascertaining that the information supplied to them is authentic.

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN (Wentworth). - I am surprised at the attitude of the honorable member for Melbourne. Before he submitted his amendment he should have carefully considered the whole matter, and instituted his own inquiries. If what he says is to be accepted as a principle which should guide the actions of honorable members, then all we want is the assurance of the Ministry that such a thing does or does not exist, and we shall vote accordingly. There is no doubt that that is a very good party spirit to exhibit, but I appeal to the committee whether a word has been uttered by any Minister to show that any real substantial industry exists in Australia in connexion with the manufacture of these particular articles.

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

– Ministers have said so.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– That is not sufficient for this committee. We expect to have facts stated to us, and proofs submitted in support of those facts. Otherwise deliberation and criticism are unnecessary. Seeing that the desire of the Government is to make tools of trade free when it is clear that the manufacture of those tools is not an established industry in Australia, they ought by greater force of argument, when it is not clear that there is an established industry, to be exempted from duty. Therefore I appeal to the committee to carry the amendment despite the fact that the honorable member for Melbourne has abandoned it.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– The question of supplying information to honorable members is certainly not a party one so far as the Government are concerned. I believe that the committee generally are satisfied of our intention to act fairly. We go to our officers to secure the fullest information obtainable upon any subject. We have no desire to misrepresent facts. The services of the officers of the whole department are freely at the disposal of honorable members’ in order to secure the fullest information upon any particular matter.

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

– Have those officers special commercial knowledge?

Mr KINGSTON:

– They have special knowledge as to where these industries are likely to be found, and the sources from which they can derive information. We are only too delighted to give any information that is sought by honorable members. When we are told that we ought to prove this, that, and the other, I ask how are we to do it, except by such researches as we make? However severe may be the criticism to which we are subjected from certain quarters, I believe that honorable members generally are satisfied we are doing what we can to lay the simple facts before them to enable them to act as their consciences may dictate.

Mr. CONROY (Werriwa). - I would point out to the committee that the number of men employed in the bootmaking industry throughout the Commonwealth totals 11,000, whereas the number engaged in the manufacture of the articles enumerated would probably not exceed 25 or 30. Yet the honorable member for Melbourne, after mature consideration, has the temerity to ask the committee to place these articles upon the free list. I was surprised to find that he fully justified everything which the honorable member for Maranoa said of him. He now urges, simply because the Minister has stated that these articles may be manufactured locally - and thus provide employment to 25 or 30 men at the outside - that we should impose a tax upon tools of trade which are used by 11,000 individuals. Even from the point of view of sane protectionists, there surely ought not to be a tax imposed upon 11,000 individuals, in order that 25 or 30 others may be benefited.

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

– I can assure the committee that these machines are being made locally, and I am in a position to give the names of the firms who manufacture them. I admire the newborn zeal which is exhibited by honorable members opposite on behalf of the manufacturers. All along it has been urged that the latter should pay their share of taxation. Now, however, a different cry is raised, and honorable members who entertain free-trade views ask us to exempt their tools of trade.

Mr Thomson:

– How can they pay their share of duty upon machines which are made locally ?

Mr MAUGER:

– If they want to import their machines, by all means let them pay for them. If, however, these tools can be made locally, the manufacturers can evade the payment of duty. I hope the committee will support the proposal of the Government to exempt those machine tools which are being manufactured within the Commonwealth.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta).The honorable member who has just resumed his seat bluffs the point which was raised by the honorable member for North Sydney. What the latter wanted to know was how the manufacturers paid their share of duty on machines which are madelocally. We are continually being told that tools of trade can be manufactured in Australia cheaper than they can be imported. But in contradistinction to that almost worn-out theory, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports tells us that this tax is to be imposed upon the manufacturers for the purpose of making them pay their share of duty.

Mr Mauger:

– I did not say so.

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

– The honorable member did say so. Otherwise his retort that we are anxious to make these people pay their share of taxation does not hold good. What, then, becomes of the honorable member’s attempt at logic? In one breath he tells the committee that tools of trade can be manufactured cheaper within the Commonwealth than they can be imported, and in the next he wants to know why the manufacturers should not pay duty upon them. Every speech which the honorable member makes contains two or three of these absurdities. He studiously avoided the point raised by the honorable and learned member for Werriwa, who asked why the 11,000 persons engaged in the bootmaking industry should be subjected to an additional impost for the purpose of providing employment to 25 or 30 men who are occupied in the manufacture of these machines.

Mr Mauger:

– That is pure guesswork.

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

– I am quoting the statement of the honorable and learned member for Werriwa. If it is not correct, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, as the secretary of the Protectionists’ Association, ought to be able to controvert it. We plead that these tools of trade should be admitted free for the reason that we believe their products should also be so admitted. That is a reasonable position to take up. I claim that the tools of trade and all the raw materials which enter into the making of boots should be exempt from duty, to enable the manufacturers to work to the best possible advantage.

Question - That the exemptions proposed by Sir Malcolm McEacharn be added - put. The committee divided -

Ayes. Noes

21 25

Majority

In division -

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Melbourne is at liberty to vote as he thinks fit upon the amendment.

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr PHILLIPS:
Wimmera

– On behalf of the honorable member for Echuca, I move -

That the following exemptions be added : - “ Hollow- ware iron, being oval boilers, camp ovens, digesters, kettles ; brazing, fry, maslin, preserving, sauce, and stew pans ; Danish, French, glue, oval, plumbers’ stock, and three-legged pots; tea kitcheners or fountains, and gridirons. “

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

– On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the honorable member for Wimmera cannot move this amendment, unless he has been requested to do so by the honorable member for Echuca, in whose name it stands. .

Sir George Turner:

– The honorable member for Echuca, who is unable to be present, sent a message requesting that the amendment standing in his name should be moved in his absence. In these circumstances I suggested that it should be moved by the honorable member for Wimmera, who has a similar amendment lower down in the list.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

– I think the honorable member for Wimmera should give us an explanation in regard to some of these articles. For instance we have “ three-legged pots “ figuring in this list of proposed exemptions. What have four-legged pots done that they should not also be exempted 1 We cannot be expected to know everything, and I should like to learn what are the “ digesters,” which it is proposed to exempt ?

Mr. PHILLIPS (Wimmera).- I understand that there is no hollowware iron manufactured in the Commonwealth. The Minister for Trade and Customs said, when the matter was brought under his notice, that the item embraced a large number of articles ; this list has been handed to the honorable member for Echuca by the Hardware Association, as covering all articles which come under this heading.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

– Our information is that some of these articles are being made in South Australia ; but whether they are being manufactured within the Commonwealth or not, they are fair subjects upon which to impose some duty in order to assist the revenue. They are not like ordinary tools of trade with which people have to earn their living, and which the committee have very wisely determined shall be nondutiable if they are not made here, the desire of honorable members being that our industries may be assisted as much as possible. The articles comprised in the amendment, however, are used by all classes of the community. Some of them are very valuable, while others are of a poorer kind. I see no reason why they should not bear some duty in any event, and as they are being manufactured within the Commonwealth, the Government consider that a duty of 20 per cent, is not unreasonable.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I think it is only fair that the information upon which the Treasurer bases his statement that some of these articles can be manufactured in South Australia, should be laid upon the table so that the committee may understand the position. Night after night, when a proposal is made for the exemption of some articles, one of the Ministers looks through his papers and makes the statement, “ I have information here showing that this article can be manufactured in Australia.” The committee know nothing about the matter, and as the Minister practically decides the question upon the information to which he refers, he should place that information before us. I do not say that that course should be followed in regard to this particular item, but it is only fair that Ministers should place before the committee any information in their possession relating to an industry affected by any item under discussion. They should show the number of people employed in the industry, and the prices of the local product as compared with the imported article.

Sir George Turner:

– It would be impossible to do that.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– A few evenings ago thehonorable member for Darling Downs mentioned that certain articles could be manufactured in Queensland. The honorable member for Melbourne said immediately - “ If that is so I will not persist in moving my amendment to place the articles referred to upon the free list.” If the information in the possession of a Minister is of sufficient importance to influence his decision, we who are here to vote on the question should be placed in full possession of the facts. Ministers never tell us from whom their information is derived, or who the manufacturers are. I trust that in relation to the larger items’ more particularly, Ministers will place before the committee any information upon which they rely, so that we may be able to decide the matter for ourselves.

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

– I think this is an occasion upon which free-traders may well hesitate. We have had no statement from the honorablemember for Wimmer a showing why these particular articles should be placed on the free list. I regret that the honorable member for Echuca, in whose name this amendment stands on the printed list, is not here to defend it. We know that he has had Ministerial experience, and that he is a protectionist of repute. The question of the way in, which I should cast my vote upon this proposal gives me great concern, and I consider that we are well in order in asking for more information. The acting leader of the Opposition has referred to the three-legged pots which it is proposed to exempt. I desire to know why braziers - members of a time-honoured craft - should receive no consideration? The fiery harangues of the Minister for Trade and Customs have not divorced me from my free-trade principles, but I hesitate in regard to some of these proposals. It would be a good idea for revenue purposes alone to place some of these items under duty. I have noticed the right honorable Treasurer anxiously watching the course pursued by his colleague, the Minister for Trade and Customs, in an endeavour to impose a well-thought-out protectionist policy upon Australia, because the right honorable gentleman is afraid that he may not receive the necessary revenue. It has been the custom here for honorable members, in discussing an item on the Tariff, to supply the committee with technical information concerning it. I am unable to offer much technical information on this subject, but I have some historical information which may supply a reason why the honorable members for Echuca and Wimmera are advocating that three-legged gluepots should be placed upon the free list. I find that the gluepot is second in importance to the peacock’s feather, as an ancient religious symbol in China. It is therefore clear that the denizens of Little Bourke-street may be expected to be specially interested in this symbolic glue-pot, and I would like to understand whether the proposal that it should be placed on the free list is made in the interests of those who use gluepots, or in the interests of those who manufacture them. The freetraders of New South Wales are extremely anxious that no industry shall be ruthlessly destroyed, and I have been astonished that a protectionist of high repute like the honorable member for Echuca, who carries with him ex-Ministerial authority, should at this stage sell himself to the Philistines. A graduated scale of duty has been Suggested, and I make a similar suggestion for the purpose of dealing with this matter. I suggest that gluepots without legs might be admitted free ; those with, one leg might have a duty of 10 per cent, imposed upon them, those with two legs 15 per cent., and those with three legs 20 per cent. This suggestion will be an encouragement to local industry, and the graduated scale’ is in keeping with the principles of scientific protection. If it is right that ironworkers, brassfinishers, and persons belonging to other crafts, should be assisted in this way, what has the brazier done that he should not receive some consideration ? There may be twenty persons employed in this industry, -and the honorable member for Melbourne told us that so long as he received information that there was an industry in existence in the Commonwealth, he was prepared to support it. It may be considered straining a point that I, as a free-trader, should take a stand on behalf of the braziers, who apparently have no representative here,no powerful union or association, and no attentive secretary to look after their welfare in the settlement of this Tariff. I think, however, that I may, as a free-trader, sacrifice a little of my principles for the sake of revenue, and try to prevent three-legged gluepots from being placed on the free list. The craftsmen who manufacture these pots ought to be protected as well as those engaged in other , industries in the Commonwealth. If that is not so, are we to understand that the intention of the honorable member for Echuca is- to assist only the user and the religious believer in the gluepot ? Honorable members will see that if that argument is pressed, it may be suggested that such a proposal will give rise to racial strife. I should ‘like to ask if I should be in order when we come to the consideration of this item to move that one of the legs be struck off?

Mr Chapman:

– If the honorable member does, he would knock a hole in the pot.

Mr WILKS:

– That is the true principle of protection. The honorable member suggests that I should knock a hole in the pot in order to give more employment in connexion with this industry. That is the idea of protectionists - that so long as an industry exists, it must be kept going at whatever cost to the Commonwealth. The protectionist theory is that industries which can command support and political power should be assisted at the expense of the community, while small and struggling industries receive very little assistance. That has been the history of protection from its earliest stage until the present time. I have tried to show what I believe bo be the hollowness of this proposal, and, in the absence of the honorable member for Echuca, I should like the honorable member for Wimmera to stand up and defend the three-legged gluepot, and say whether the object is to encourage native industry or to allow these articles to come in free simply because they are mainly used by Chinese.

Mr KINGSTON:
South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

– I might congratulate the honorable member who has just sat down on a piece of very excellent fooling ; but at this period of the session - the ninth month of the first session of the Federal Parliament - I prefer to ask : - “ Is this a time for airy persiflage, and would it not be better for us to get 071 with our work ?”

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– The fooling is due to the person who placed it in the list.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I did not place it there. I am not an advocate of the three-legged gluepot or the four-legged gluepot : I advocate the imposition of a duty upon it. I should like to say, in answer to the honorable member for Macquarie, that while I do not think that in every instance we are called upon to produce She results of the various inquiries we have made, I may cite an example. We were told that hollowware was manufactured in South Australia. We desired to make perfectly sure of the fact, and we sent a wire to ascertain whether it was imported, and a later wire making further inquiries. On 20th January we got this information from the Collector of Customs in that State : - He refers ‘to Simpson and Son, a firm well known all over Australia, as amongst the largest tin manufacturers in the Commonwealth -

Simpson and Son do not import the hollowware, they enamel them. Only import the raw material. All kinds of household hollowware are made by them ; also enamelled advertising matter.

This further information was also received : -

Simpson’s have eastings, pots, kettles, &c, done locally. Most of their hollowware is made from sheet steel locally.

Honorable members will see the pains to which we go in order to get reliable information regarding even so small a matter as that.

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

– Particularly from South Australia.

Mr KINGSTON:

– That is not a fair observation. I can assure honorable members that we inquire into a matter with equal minuteness, whether it affects South Australia, Western Australia, or any other State of the Commonwealth.

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN (Wentworth). - There seems to be a very voluminous list of exemptions, and I should like to know whether it is a question of exemption or a 20 per cent, duty?

Sir George Turner:

– It is now. We have dealt with all the duties, and we are dealing now with exemptions. It is not possible now to (jay that the duty upon an article shall be 10 or 12 or 15 per cent.

Sir william Mcmillan:

– That seems to me to put us in a rather awkward position.

Sir George Turner:

– Honorable members have already had an opportunity of proposing various duties upon these articles. We have dealt with the proposals for duties, and are now dealing with exemptions only.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– I can draw a very clear distinction between this proposal by the honorable member for Echuca with respect to a definite ‘article and a general proposal covering “ tools of trade.” It seems to me a pity that there was not an opportunity of dealing more minutely with some articles which come under the general denomination of “tools of trade.” I shall never be found to .vote for the imposition of a 20 per cent, ad valorem duty upon anything, and while I might be willing to agree to an ordinary revenue duty, which would be much better for the Treasury, and perfectly sufficient for articles of this kind, I am” unfortunately bound under the circumstances to vote to place them upon the free list.

Mr BAMFORD:
Herbert

– In the amendments of which notice has been given, proposed exemptions are mixed up in a most incongruous way. In the case before us, we have hollowware and gridirons dealt with in the one amendment. The mover of the amendment also proposes to place digesters upon the free list. In the ordinary acceptance of the term, a digester is simply a large pot, made of boiler plate, used in connexion with boiling-down works, and holding the carcasses of from eight to twelve bullocks. It is heated by steampipes, and has a pipe to draw off the contents. I see no reason why such a thing should be placed upon the free list.

– The question of leather is not before the committee.

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

– I am trying to show why leather-working machines and machine tools should be admitted free, and

I do not know how I can argue the matter unless I am allowed to refer to the conditions of the leather trade.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member will be permitted to refer to it, but not to debate the matter.

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

– I am not debating the matter.- The leather industry, like the dairying industry, is a free-trade industry. By that I mean that the prices obtained for its productions are ruled by the prices obtainable in foreign markets, inasmuch as the greater part of the finished product has to be exported. That being so, it is of the utmost consequence to those engaged in the industry that their machines and machine tools should be procurable at the lowest prices. I am informed that to equip an up-to-date first-class tannery requires an expenditure of nearly £4,000 upon machines and tools of trade. I therefore ask the committee to assist this industry, and to help it to compete under the best conditions with the productions of other parts of the world. There is only one man, I believe, who makes these machines. Mr. Pullan, who was named by the Treasurer, and he is in Victoria. The natural consequence is that people who use his machines over here have to pay more for them than is paid in other parts of the Commonwealth where the machines are not made. The machines are of a very expensive character. Some of them cost, I am told, £400 or £500 each, and others £200. Leather-making is not a gigantic industry like steel-making. It seems to be more of a domestic industry as regards its size, volume, and capacity ; therefore, the price of these machines is high relatively to the state of the industry. Under these circumstances I hope that honorable members will consent to place the machines on the free list. I move -

That the following exemptions be added : - “ Bark Disintegrators and Mills. Machines and Machine Tools used in the manufacture of Leather including: - Hide Unhairing, Fleshing and Scudding Machines and parts, Sole Leather Boiling Machines and parts, Scouring and Settingout Machines and parts. Splitting Machines and parts, Glassing, Graining, and Glazing Machines and parts, Brushing and BlackingMachines and parts, Shaving Machines and parts, Whitening Machines and parts, Measuring Machines and parts, Staking Machines and parts, Squeezing Machines and parts. “

– At all events they are not made to promote any personal interest. I do not go over and drink champagne in the White Hart afterwards.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– The honorable and learned member has the right to follow me if he pleases j but he has no right to interrupt me.

Mr Chapman:

– The honorable and learned member for Werriwa ought to stop his talk about that champagne. He ought to give the names and make a specific charge.

Mr Conroy:

– I shall make a specific charge. I do not accuse the honorable member of joining in it.

Mr Chapman:

– The honorable and learned member accuses everybody on this side.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Kirwan). - I must ask honorable members to desist from these interruptions.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– I have no desire to break into such a very interesting discussion, except that it interferes with my arguments. I believe the honorable member for Parramatta has chosen his list of machines from a list in the Australian Leather Journal. That newspaper asserted that these machines were not made in the Commonwealth, but the proprietors were foolish enough to state that a particular firm was not making and could not make them. It had to retract everything it had said, and pay the firm £200 damages and the whole of the costs in connexion with the action at law. It was proved in a court of law here that they were made in Victoria. I may add that that journal is particularly active in asking that these particular machines should be put on the free list.

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

– Why should it, if the local machines are cheaper ?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Some of the proprietors of that journal are interested importers of the machines, and therefore they desire the duty to be removed in order that they may crush the manufacturers, I suppose, and get the same old prices that they used to get. To prevent any such contingency, I am interested in maintaining competition between the importer and the manufacturer in order that the consumer may benefit. If the honorable member for Parramatta can prove that the consumer does not benefit, I will vote with him to remove the duty. The honorable member for Parramatta will not deny that he took his list from the journal to which I have referred.

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

– I do deny it. I have never seen the list in that journal.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– It is singular that the honorable member’s list and that published in the journal referred to absolutely agree. I may inform the committee that negotiations are now proceeding between the importers in Victoria and American manufacturers of these machines with a view to effecting what is called a “ knockout” as far as the local manufacturer is concerned, if the duties are reduced. If the manufacturer has to- shut down his works, the importers will have everything their own way, and therefore it would be to the interest of the consumer if the duty were retained. I am not familiar with the names of the principal tanners in other States, but I can say that almost without exception every tanner and currier in Victoria is using the locally-made machines. I have here a copy of a testimonial given by Mr. Carl Wehl of the Stawell Tannery and Fellmongery at Stawell, which is as follows : -

Messrs. Pullan and Co. -

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

– I heartily support the honorable member for Parramatta, and I would point out that in this particular matter he can fairly claim the support of Ministers themselves, because they placed leather dressing machine tools upon the list of exemptions.

Mr Mauger:

– Surely the honorable member does not contend that a machine tool is a machine ?

Mr THOMSON:

– If the honorable member for Melbourne Ports will refer to the list of machine tools which the Government themselves are prepared to place upon the free list, he will find machine after machine included in it. I say that Ministers did intend to exempt machine tools used in connexion with this particular trade.

Sir George Turner:

– They were not in the list of detailed items which we brought down.

Mr THOMSON:

– They were in the original list of the trades,- in connexion with which the Government thought that machine tools ought to be exempted. But the Ministry have altered their intentions, no doubt as the result of representations. In this connexion it seems to “me that we are allowing individual firms far too much power in this committee.

Mr Kingston:

– Is the honorable member referring to page 7 of the old Tariff?

Mi-. THOMSON. - I am referring to the machine tools used in certain industries.

Mr Kingston:

– And to be specified in departmental by-laws.

Mr THOMSON:

– But there is not a single tool specified in connexion with leather dressing. The Government recognised that reason existed for exemptions in this industry, though they did not exempt the machine tools of every industry. Now they say they have abandoned that position, because every such machine tool can be made in Australia. But do honorable members believe that local manufacturers can make every machine tool used in this industry under the conditions which have been prescribed, by the Ministry themselves ? In other words, can these articles “ reasonably “ be manufactured within the Commonwealth? Personally, I cannot believe that every machine tool used in this particular trade can “reasonably” be produced in ‘Australia, if in the other trades they cannot be locally manufactured. What evidence does the Minister offer that they can “ reasonably “ be made -within the Commonwealth? Simply the statement of a firm that it can manufacture them. Of course it can do so, but we have no evidence that it can “ reasonably” manufacture them. The honorable member for Bourke sneered at the authority upon which he presumed the honorable member for Parramatta submitted his amendment. Why did he do so ? Because the firm mentioned are interested people, who import these very machines. Consequently he declared that their desires ought to have no weight with this committee. I quite agree with him. But who is the honorable member speaking for ? Is he not speaking for an interested firm ? Will he apply his own reasoning in the case of the honorable member-for Parramatta to his own case ? Of course honorable members upon this side of the chamber do not accept the definition of the Ministry that everything should be dutiable if it can “ reasonably “ be manufactured within the Commonwealth, But adopting the view of honorable members opposite, who have accepted that definition, I will point out that not a single attempt has been made to demonstrate that these articles can “ reasonably “ be produced in Australia. What does the term “ reasonably made “ mean 1 It means not only that a machine can be locally manufactured at a reasonable cost, but that it is as lasting, as effective, as rapid, and as. saving in its operation as the imported article. The fact is that Government officials, who are deputed to ascertain whether particular articles can be locally manufactured, merely ask different firms if they can produce them. Upon an affirmative reply being given, they convey the information to

Ministers, and the articles in question are immediately placed upon the dutiable list. I say that honorable members should never have been required to traverse this list of exemptions. Either a moderate duty should have been imposed upon all these articles or there should have been such an exact definition of “ tools of trade “ and “ machine tools,” that the task of discriminating between the two classes could safely have been left to the Government without itemizing. But honorable members are now called upon to discuss another Tariff item by item - a Tariff which has been solicited by the Ministry, and one which necessarily adds to the large amount of work connected with their original proposals.

Sir William McMillan:

– The committee ure now going through practically a new Tariff without any power of differentiation.

Mr THOMSON:

– The true construction of that was that anything which ought to be free was to be specified, and we took the power to deal with the matter after subsequent inquiry. Looking into the question of which notice was given by the honorable member, we directed the attention of our officer to finding out what the real facts were. The facts are, that these are goods which can be made here fairly, and the industry is one which is worthy of encouragement. Under the circumstances I ask honorable members to apply here the principle they previously applied to other industries, and afford encouragement. We are not asking anything extravagant; I believe the duty here before was 35 per cent., and we are asking for only 20 per cent. When honorable members talk of the Maitland speech, I venture to say that if they are desirous of redeeming the pledge that we should not destroy any existing industries, they should refrain from voting in the way in which members of the Opposition would vote, to entirely take away from these industries the protection which they enjoy by putting these articles on the free list.

Sir William McMillan:

– A one-man industry.

Mr KINGSTON:

– The figures quoted show the straits to which free-traders are driven when they describe as a “ one-man industry “ the work of a firm employing 60 men. Honorable members may talk as they please, but it is not a good thing to have men going about seeking work when they are able to find it, and in the case of this one firm their action would turn 60 men into the street, and cause suffering to those dependent upon them.

Mr. THOMSON (North Sydney).-The right honorable gentleman has stated that what I said was not true.

Mr Kingston:

– I did not say it was not true ; or, if I did, it is not an expression I should have applied to the honorable member’s statement.

Mr THOMSON:

– The right honorable gentleman may have said that I was not correct in saying that the Ministers themselves had provided for the exemption of certain lines in this industry. The right honorable gentleman knows, and if he does not, his colleague and the committee know that I admitted the qualification as to the departmental by-law.

Sir GEORGE Turner:

– After I drew the honorable member’s attention to it.

– He says he does not know, but that he has been told they are made.

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

– This is going to be a tax upon every individual in the Commonwealth, because there is no one who does not wear boots of some kind. If an honorable member gets up behind the Government and gives information upon any trade, the Minister for Trade and Customs congratulates him upon the information he has given to the committee. The Minister, in reply to my interjection while he was speaking, said the honorable member for Bourke was not interested, inferring that the honorable member for Kooyong was interested in the information which he gave. The honorable member for Kooyong has already told the committee that he is not interested, and that should be sufficient for the Minister for Trade and Customs. I point out that he did only what the honorable member for Bourke is doing. The honorable member for Kooyong voiced the desires of the importer as the honorable member for Bourke is voicing the desires of the manufacturer ; but, because the honorable member for Kooyong is on this side of the committee, he is slated by the Minister. If he were on the other side, he would be congratulated upon the information he had given the committee. I say that, if one of those honorable members is to blame, they are both to blame. So far as the proposed taxation upon these tools of trade is concerned, I say that, if we are going to tax the whole Commonwealth to keep one set of manufacturers going, it is no wonder that Victoria is in the deplorable condition she is. Honorable members to-day might have seen a gathering of 200 or 300 unemployed outside the House. If protection is a good thing, what were they doing there ?

An Honorable Member. - The farmers are looking in vain for labour.

Mr PAGE:

– The farmers can get labour if they like to pay for it, and so can the manufacturers. The honorable member for Bourke has not told us how many men are employed in this machine-tool shop. Had it not been for the honorable and learned member for Corio, we should have had a tax of 20 per cent, to encourage a Victorian tool-making industry in which there are only one man and a boy employed. I hope that the committee will give the tanners the consideration they deserve.

Mr KINGSTON:

– It is evident that the honorable member for Parramatta misunderstood the officer to whom he refers, who writes to me as follows : -

Mr. Cook is wrong. I have received the name of the Sydney manufacturer but have mislaid it. I have been promised a Sydney catalogue, and expected it to-day.

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

– The officer told me that he did not know the name of the manufacturer who made the tools ; that a man in Victoria had told him, and had promised to send him more detailed information when he went to Sydney.

Mr KNOX:
Kooyong

– The honorable member for Maranoa has referred to an occurrence which took place last week, and which I, and I think every other honorable member, sincerely regret. I wish to state that what I objected to upon that occasion was the suggestion that I could allow my personal interest to affect any vote given in this committee. With regard to the officer to whom reference has been made, I have known him for years, and I know that he is a most capable and experienced officer, and would give the Minister the best information he could procure. In the early part of this session I moved for a return, which, if it had been compiled in such a manner that honorable members could have referred to it in this discussion, would have greatly assisted us. I was helped by honorable members on both sides with suggestions in regard to the matter ; but the return is ineffective, though I admit that there were very many inherent difficulties in the way of its compilation.

Mr KINGSTON:

-I desired that the return to which the honorable member refers should be made as full and complete as possible, and to that end I placed him in direct communication with the officers of the department, and I believe that both he and they worked for the production of the fullest information obtainable. Nothing was done, either by myself or by my officers, to render the return incomplete.

Question - That the exemptions proposed by Mr. Joseph Cook be added - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 19

Noes……… 26

Majority … … 7

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr PHILLIPS:
Wimmera

– I move-

That the following exemptions be added : - “Clippers (horse), snaps (harness and halter), bells (6 inches and under), pins (cotter), rings (including screw and curtain), handles for tools (namely, saw, chisel, file, turnscrew), hooks (cup, curtain, cornice, and roller), currycombs, corkscrews, latches, hasps and staples, chaff-cutter knives.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · PROT

– We raise no objection to harness and halter snaps, cotter pins, and chaff-cutter, knives being placed upon the free list. With regard to rings and hooks, which are minor articles, it is the intention of the Government to place them upon the -list of minor articles when it is being framed. The other things mentioned in the amendment we think should be dutiable.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– I would suggest to the honorable member for Wimmera that, as the .Government has given way in some instances, he might agree to the items being taken separately.

Mr Phillips:

– I am perfectly willing to adopt that course.

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN:
Wentworth

– I think we ought to have an assurance from the Ministers that we may review the amount of the duty, as we seem to be in a hole over this business. We quite allow that from the revenue stand-point many of these items are fairly open for a revenue duty. These are different from tools of trade. At the same time we hold that 20 per cent, is an extortionate duty to levy on many Of these things which are in household use. I am certain that if we had had an opportunity of seeing these items in detail, or if we had had an intelligible division, the result would have been different. The Tariff discloses new beauties every day. A great deal of the work that has been done has been done without very much knowledge. I do not intend to call for a division on these matters of revenue, but I think that 20 per cent, is an extortionate amount to impose. The Ministers will agree that these are revenue duties, and I hold that 20 per cent, is far beyond the maximum of a revenue duty.

Sir George Turner:

– Some are revenue, some are protective. Latches, hasps, and staples are made here.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– I think that 15 per cent, is high-water mark for a revenue duty from the financial point of view. The committee has placed itself in rather an unfortunate position. It must vote for these articles either to be placed on the free list or’to be subject to 20 per cent, duty. I believe .that there are a great many moderate men who -would prefer to have a 10 per cent, duty on many of these items as a matter of revenue.

Mr. BATCHELOR (South AustralianThere is no doubt that most of these articles ought to bear a revenue duty even if we eliminate the idea of protection. For instance, currycombs and corkscrews ought to be dutiable. Latches, hasp’s, and staples are made here. What kind of cotter pins does the honorable member for Wimmera wish to let in free 1 Surely they are -made in these States 1

Mr Phillips:

– Not -metal cotter pins, I understand.

Mr BATCHELOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I have spent a good many hours making various descriptions of cotter -pins. They are made of iron and steel - in fact, of all sorts of materials. I suppose what are meant by the honorable member for Wimmera -are those generally known as split cotter pins. These are merely a piece of metal’ bent round and forming a split piece of iron with a head. It is a most simple thing to make. Most of the cotter pins that are used in engineering are tapered ones. -If. one is hard up, he can make cotter pins with a . bit of fencing wire. We ought to strike “cotter pins” out of this amendment.

Mr Kingston:

– The honorable member is willing to leave them out.

The following proposed exemptions were agreed to : -

Snaps (harness and halter), Chaff-cutter Knives.

The following proposed exemptions were negatived : -

Clippers (Horse), Bells (6 inches and under), Pins (Cotter), Rings (including Screw and Curtain), Handles for Tools (viz., Saw, Chisel, Pile, Turnscrew), Hooks (Cup, Curtain, Cornice, and Roller), Currycombs, Corkscrews, Latches, Hasps, and Staples.

Mr POYNTON:
South Australia

– I move -

That the following exemption be added : - “Barbers’ Clippers.”

Sir George Turner:

– We have already declared that horse clippers are to be dutiable.

Mr POYNTON:

– -Barbers’ clippers are in a very different position from horse clippers. I venture to say that more men are employed as barbers in Australia than are engaged in any single industry which can be named. A barber’s clipper is a tool of trade. It is expensive.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The committee decided, when entering upon the consideration of the Tariff, that the amendments on the printed list should be taken first and dealt with, and unless an honorable member proposes. to add words to ‘a contingent amendment, or to strike out words, he will not be in order in moving an amendment at this stage. The honorable member for “South Australia will have an opportunity later on to move his amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN (Wentworth). - On behalf of the honorable and learned member for Werriwa, I move -

That the following exemptions be added : - Anvils, Belt Fasteners, Plain and Headed Steel Keys, Cotter Pins, Taper Pins, Moulders’ Chaplets and Studs, Blowers and Fans, Forges (Fan), Steam-engine Indicators, Pulley andRope Blocks, Screw and Hydraulic Jacks, Screw and Hydraulic Bears’, Steam Traps, Governors (Steam-engine), Hoisting Crabs, Twist Drills; Chasers, Tube Expanders, Pipe Wrenches, Boiler Tube Cleaners.

The following exemptions were agreed to : -

Machine Belt Fasteners, Steam Engine Indicators

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– Under the circumstances I shall not proceed further with the list of proposed exemptions ; although personally -I should like to see all the articles placed upon the free list.

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

– I move -

That the following exemptions be added : - Tinsmiths’ Machines, Well-boring Machinery and Casings, Tinned Copper (sheet), Spurs and Spur Boxes, Metal Parts for Saddle-trees, Saddlers’ Tacks and Nails, Saddlers’ Tools- of Trade, Saddlers’ Machine Tools, Picks, Galloway and Parallel Boiler-Tubes.

I think it was intended that tinned coppersheets should be included amongst the exemptions originally in the Tariff. Coppersheets are included amongst the exemptions, but tinned copper-sheets have been classed as mixed metal, and as dutiable accordingly.

Sir George Turner:

Mr THOMSON:

Mr. THOMSON (North Sydney).- Then I will, by leave, amend my amendment to make it read as follows : -

That the following exemptions be added: - “ Tinned copper-sheets, spurs and spur-boxes, saddlers’ tacks and nails, saddlers’ machine tools, viz., creasing machines and pinking machines, Galloway and vertical parallel boiler tubes, leatherprinting presses and plates. “

Mr Kingston:

– We object to metal parts for saddletrees being allowed to come in free.

Mr THOMSON:

– Very well; I shall not press that item, The honorable member for Maranoa has said that some wellboring casings exceed 6 inches in diameter. I do not think it is the intention of the Government to make any of these casings dutiable, and I would ask the Minister to deal with the matter.

– In the circumstances we propose to agree to this exemption. If, after further examination, we come to the conclusion that we have made a mistake, we shall not hesitate to advise the committee to that effect, and ask honorable members to reverse their decision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. THOMSON (North Sydney).- I move -

That the following exemption be added : - “Picks.”

Ayes … … … 23

Noes … … … 23

The CHAIRMAN:

– The numbers being equal, I shall follow the usual parliamentary practice and give my vote with the “Noes,” in order that the matter may be brought up again in some other form.

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr R EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

– I move-

That the following exemption be added : - “All fire brigade plant and appliances.”

I find that already fire-engines and extinguishers are on the free list, and, considering that these appliances are to be used in the saving of life and property, it is only reasonable that they should be admitted free of duty. It is well known to honorable members that fire brigades are supported by local authorities, insurance companies, and occasionally by voluntary subscriptions, and that they are subsidized by the different State Governments. I think the request I make is a very reasonable one, and I hope the Minister will place no obstacle in the way of it, but will allow those appliances to be placed on the free list in order that fire brigades throughout the Commonwealth may be equipped with up-to-date appliances at a reasonable cost. I think it is unnecessary to say any more in support of a proposition which must commend itself to honorable members on both sides.

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

– I sincerely hope that the Government will not accept the amendment. I have had to do with volunteer fire brigades, and I am in close connexion now with the Metropolitan Eire Brigade, so that I believe that I know as much about fire brigade work as most honorable members. I know that a great deal of the plant used by fire brigades can be, and is being, made in Australia. The brass work, couplings, hydrants, fire carts, and ladders, for instance, can be locally made. We have exempted steam fire engines, and there may be some reasons for exempting hose, but there can be no reason for such a wholesale exemption as the honorable member proposes.

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

– It is a wellknown fact that throughout the Commonwealth, and especially in country districts, the work of extinguishing fires is done largely by volunteer fire brigades. The men give their services free, but they have a difficulty in obtaining subscriptions to buy the necessary plant and to keep their station-houses and appliances in order. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports spoke as though hydrants and other appliances used not exclusively by fire brigades would be exempted, but that is not so, because the amendment applies only to appliances used by fire brigades. Fire brigade appliances and apparatus are not bought for purposes of trade and profit, and in many cases they are patented, and could not be made here under any circumstances. Surely unless a man is soaked in protection, he must see the advisability of allowing the fire brigades, of whose efficiency we are proud, to obtain their appliances as cheaply as possible. If steam fire engines are placed on the free list, why should not manual fire engines also be exempt ?

Mr Mauger:

– Because manual engines are built here. We tried to have steam fire engines built here, but we found that there were too few required to make the undertaking profitable.

Mr WILKS:

Mr Ewing:

– That amount must represent the cost of the whole plant.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Yes ; the whole plant cost between £600 or £700. The object of this proposal is that all fire brigade plant and appliances shall be placed on the free list.

Mr Mauger:

– That would include saddlery and lamps and torches.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I quite recognise the difficulty connected with those articles. I understand that if the amendment were to pass in its present form it could only apply to fire brigade plant and appliances so far as the metal parts are concerned. The amendment does not affect the harness and the hose, and other articles which might seem to be included. I appeal to the committee to consider that a huge proportion of the fire brigades throughout the Commonwealth are purely voluntary. They are joined by young men in country towns in a public spirit, and without any other desire - beyond the opportunity for exercise and the chivalry of the thing - of helping their fellow beings by quenching fires. It is not only in hot weather, but in the depth of winter that they are frequently called upon to do the work which they have undertaken. We should assist them as far as we can, because they are working in the public interest, and I know of no class of goods for which a better claim to exemption could be established. On looking further down the list of exemptions I find a proposal by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports that the machinery for making bottles shall be admitted free. One of the most prominent teetotallers in the Chamber is proposing to exempt from du tj’ the machinery used in the making of bottles,, which are intended to contain drink for the community. . We were told by the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Batchelor, that we were not to look at the purpose for which these appliances were to be introduced, and it is clear that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports has not looked at the purpose to which these bottles are to be applied. If the manufacturers of bottles are to have such merit claimed for them, the fire brigade appliances come before the committee with even greater merits, and I hope the amendment will be carried. I would ask the committee to consider what might be the effect of adding 20 per cent, to the cost of fire brigade appliances. In a case such as I have mentioned, the residents of the town would be called upon to raise an additional £120 or £130. I congratulate the honorable member for Brisbane upon the oasis of common sense which he has disclosed in this desert of protection. It is quite refreshing to hear the honorable member ‘admit that his fellow members on the Government side of the Chamber have “gone mad,” and I invite him to now cross the gangway and take his seat on this side.

Mr. EWING (Richmond).- The point under consideration is not whether it is a disastrous thing to have fires, but whether it is the function of the Federal Government to extinguish them. That is essentially the crux of the whole question. The honorable member for West Sydney seems to think that because fire brigades are laudable institutions, and are established in the public interest, the Government should make an exception in their favour. But I hold that it is no more the business of the Federal Parliament to extinguish fires than it is to kill bubonic rats. If the people have not wisdom enough to prevent the destruction of their property by fire, we should lose no time in rearing a community which is fitted to do so. I do not think that Melbourne, Sydney, or any of the country towns desire to be mendicants in regard to this matter. I know that honorable members opposite, in dealing with the fiscal policy, uniformly endeavour to put the Government and their supporters in a false position. Of course we all recognise that it is objectionable to place taxation upon the people, and although my free-trade friends, if they occupied the Ministerial benches, would have to raise the same amount of revenue that it is proposed to raise, they claim that they would admit everything free. The acting leader of the Opposition knows that if he were at the head of a Government and had a considerable free list, he would have to propose an all-round duty of 15 per cent. Yet upon every proposal that is brought forward he reiterates his declaration that the article under discussion should be admitted free. That is not an honest course to adopt. No doubt it would be a very pleasant thing if the honorable and learned member for Parkes could go to Bowral and declare “ I voted against any duty upon fire extinguishing appliances.” I recognise the usefulness of. fire brigades as much as he does. But if the honorable and learned member desires to help them, let him- do so in a straight forward way by voting them a grant. Do not let us when dealing with the Tariff single them out from the rest of the community for special treatment.

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN:
Wentworth

– I do not wish- to delay the’ vote, but this is not a matter for refined argument at all. It- is purely one of whether in regard to some things which affect the public as a -whole, and which are specially necessary for the preservation of life, we should make an exception in the interests of the. public. Let us take a case in point. Light-houses are designed to save life at sea, property being a very insignificant matter compared with life. Let us suppose that lighthouses were under municipal control; would it be right for us to put aside protectionist and free-trade theories, and to exempt from taxation- the materials used in connexion with these -structures, so far as the illuminating power is concerned ? That is a case which requires no refined pleading and no logic. It is purely a question of policy and common sense. Upon strictly logical grounds it cannot be argued, because from a protectionist point of view we ought to tax everything that we can manufacture within the Commonwealth, whilst from a free-trade stand-point we ought to tax everything that will produce revenue. This is a matter, however, which, though not altogether public, is certainly quasi-public, and the contributions which are made to fire brigades all over the country are not merely contributions from the insurance offices, or from people of capital whom we are all so anxious to tax, and who contribute only for the sake of the property that is preserved. ‘ The municipalities and others contribute towards saving human life, and as’ the honorable and learned member for Parkes has said, . a great deal of the assistance that is given to them all over Australia is of a voluntary character. Upon grounds of high policy, of humanity and common sense we ought, therefore, to do everything in our power to remove taxation from- such institutions. I shall -support the amendment.

Mr. BATCHELOR (South Australia).I join with the honorable and learned member for Parkes in congratulating the honorable and learned member for Brisbane upon having provided the committee with some amusement, even though he did so at my expense. I appear to have been strangely misunderstood First of all, I suggested to the committee that we ought to draw a distinction between the purpose to which any article is to be put, and the question of whether it is advisable to admit that article free of duty. We need not discuss whether fire brigades serve a good purpose or not. Everybody admits that. But the principle upon which the committee have hitherto -acted is, “ Can these things be successfully manufactured within the States?” That has been the point upon which all our discussions have hinged, and as a general rule -it has been the .determining factor in the question of whether any particular article shall bear duty or not. I think that the same principle should be adopted here. I did not know to what extent these goods were locally manufactured, but I pointed out to the honorable member for Oxley that the wording of his proposal was so very wide that it would certainly cover a number of articles which are produced here. In this connexion, and as illustrating the fact that certain, articles can be made within the States, I . mentioned that in Adelaide the members of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade have turned out a number of most efficient plants.

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

– -Did they get specially paid for that work ?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– They are paid as members of the fire brigade. I have never heard any complaint from them as to the rate of their remuneration. I know that they are a most efficient body of men, notwithstanding the suggestion which was made by one honorable member that they are somewhat fossilized. I think it is well that members of the brigade should employ a portion of their time in turning out fire extinguishing appliances, because the better one understands the mechanism of a machine, the more efficiently he can work it. The suggestion that any hindrance should be placed upon the importation of these goods is absurd. Nothing of the kind is intended. But I think that we ought to have before us details of these plants to enable us to decide what parts can be manufactured within the States. If such appliances can, and are being manufactured in Australia, we ought not to single them out for any special treatment because they happen to be utilized for a particularly useful purpose.

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

– I rise chiefly to call attention to some remarks of the honorable member for Richmond, who went somewhat out of his way to say that we ought not to treat- fire brigades as mendicants.

Mr Ewing:

– The honorable member has been asleep.

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

– On the contrary, I think the honorable -member has allowed statements, to drop from his lips which I am sure he did. not intend.

Mr Kingston:

– To say that we should not treat these people as mendicants is not to say that they are mendicants.

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

– Taking the most favorable construction to be placed upon the remarks of the honorable . member for Richmond, as suggested by the Minister, who has asked that these people should be treated as mendicants? We know them only ‘ as a hard - working body of men, possessed of great public spirit, and carrying out their most arduous duties without any fee or reward in most cases. There is a great body of volunteer fire brigade men throughout the Commonwealth, who, after they have earned their own living, give time and skill to these purposes, and do not receive one penny in return. All that we ask is that these men shall have an opportunity of purchasing the materials they require in the market which will give them the best value for their money.

Mr Ewing:

– The men who work the machines have nothing to do with the buying of them.

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

– It is said that an ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory. A little while ago I entered into a bond for about £7 5, to enable a brigade in one part of my electorate to purchase an engine which they were able to secure cheaply. They purchased it on their own responsibility, although of course I had to endeavour subsequently to obtain a little money from the Government to enable them to discharge their liability.

Mr Kingston:

– Perhaps that is what was meant ; that the honorable member applied for money for mendicants.

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

– Where is the mendicancy in anything of this kind? The men only asked for the money to enable them to purchase property for public purposes. The Minister is always ready to defend any one who speaks from his own side, but he generally puts his foot in it. In New -South Wales the State Government contributes about £4,000 a year to the maintenance of volunteer fire brigades. Is it a fair thing for the Commonwealth to place, a tax - for that is what it means - on expenditure upon material designed for public purposes 1 The protection of life and property is the. main object of these brigades. Therefore I think that the material required should not be taxed in the way suggested’ by the Minister. These people ought to be enabled to spend the public money in the market which will give them the best return for their outlay.

Mr. R. EDWARDS (Oxley).- I moved my amendment at the present stage in view of what the Minister said earlier in the debate. I understood him to state that he proposed to go through the printed list as it stood, and that I should be able to propose my amendment-in my proper turn. I still think that the committee would be justified, in the interests of the life and property of the community, in passing my amendment as it stands. But, as the Minister desire’s that more information shall be given in regard to the items to be considered, I ask the permission of the committee to withdraw my amendment at this stage on the understanding that I shall bring it forward under the heading of “ Miscellaneous.”

Sir William McMillan:

– I object.

Mr KINGSTON:

– 1° would ask the acting leader of the Opposition to withdraw his objection. If we insert the proposal at the point proposed by the honorable member for Oxley, it will not have the full effect intended. We shall be able to deal with the matter better when the amendment, which he proposes to bring before us is moved, and in regard to which I shall be glad to give him my assistance in specifying more particularly what he requires.

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN (Wentworth). - The Minister will not give the committee the slightest indication of his own intention in regard to this matter. Surely he might say that he is favorably inclined to the amendment,-so that we may have some hope of avoiding a repetition of the debate ? If the right honorable gentleman will give us some slight indication of his intention, it will be sufficient. We know from past experience that common sense and logic does gradually trickle into his intellect, and by the time we come to the end of the Tariff, we may .find that he possesses some wisdom.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I am sorry to say that I have not yet observed any indications of the trickling in the honorable member’s case. The reason why I suggest that we should allow this matter to stand over for the present is that we shall be able to deal with it much better later on. Honorable members must see that in view of the question of practice, to which the honorable member in charge of the amendment has agreed, I am only asking what will be the best for all parties.

Mr. BRUCE SMITH (Parkes). - I should be the last to offer any objection to the course suggested by the Minister if he could only show us that it was a wise course. It seems to me that there are two objections to that course, which are almost insuperable. First of all, we have had a debate upon this matter extending over two hours. The chances are that when the question is brought on again the committee will be constituted differently; the whole thing will be gone over de novo; we shall probably have another two hours’ discussion, and then be no nearer a decision than we are now. My second objection is this : It has been said by the honorable member for Richmond, with a strange process of reasoning which I cannot understand, that if the committee frees this particular class of goods from duty, everybody who uses them will come under the category of “mendicants.” The honorable member is in a sort of logical cul de sac, for by the same law of reasoning his contention is that miners and printers using machinery which has been exempted are mendicants. We are not proposing to exempt any class of people. We say simply that the class of people to which reference has been made happen to use this commodity, and that we should free this commodity just as we free printers’ machinery, or machinery used by any other class. The Minister representing the Government on this occasion proposes that the matter shall stand over in order that some other kind of step may be taken by which the particular class of people involved - not the particular class of commodity - shall have some kind of concession extended to them. That would, in my opinion, and, I think, in the opinion of the committee, bring the whole of this class of people within the category which the honorable member for Richmond has seen fit to-night to name, because there will not be a mere attempt to exempt this machinery from duty, which would place the people using it in the category of printers and” other manufacturers-

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

– Printers’ machinery is being dealt with in this particular class.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Then I will take any particular manufacture or machinery which has been exempted. The honorable member who has moved this amendment would be perfectly content to insert the word “metal” so as to free all metal goods.

Mr Kingston:

– The honorable member wants also to do other things.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The course suggested by the Minister would not enable him to do so. It would treat the people as a class, and treat the goods they use in a certain way, not because of the goods themselves, but because of the class that uses them. It would involve a repetition of the whole of this discussion. I would be the last to stand in the way of the adoption of any course suggested by the Minister, but I ,do not think he has given any reason to support his contention. Therefore, although it may seem very unamiable on my part to do so, I shall support the amendment at this stage.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

– I hope that the Opposition will not object to the amendment being postponed, because in its present form it is too wide and general.

Mr Kingston:

– It is also too limited.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I am anxious to vote for the exemption of fire brigade appliances so far as they cannot be made within the Commonwealth, but this proposal is couched in such wide and sweeping terms that it applies- not only to metal and woodwork-

Mr Mauger:

– It applies to harness work among other things.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– It applies not to any particular kind of plant, but to everything. It is a sort of drag-net. In view of the fact that the mover of the amendment desires to reconsider it and to place it in a proper form, so that it may be decided’ by the committee, it is not fair for the Opposition to object to its withdrawal. They should allow the matter to be debated, and decided

On its merits. I think that the Minister for Trade and Customs has offered very fairly to consider the whole question, particularly in reference to the problem as to how far some of the fire brigades in Australia may be regarded as State institutions. To the extent that they are State institutions the plant and appliances required by them may be exempt. For instance, in Victoria there is a Metropolitan Brigades Board and a Country Fire Brigades Board, organized by Act of Parliament.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That would not interfere with this proposal. It would simply mean double banking.

Sir JOHN” QUICK:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– It shows that the Minister requires to consider this proposal in order that there may be a uniform law applicable to the whole of Australia. If it turns out that according to law the Fire Brigade department of Victoria is a State institution, then that department will be entitled to have all its fire brigade plant and appliances admitted free of duty. In that case everything ought to be free. If the Victorian fire brigades are to have their appliances admitted free, the whole of the fire brigades throughout Australia should be placed in the same position. It is only fair that time should be given to further consider the matter. The Minister has offered every facility for its further consideration in order that a matured plan of dealing with it may be proposed. I hope the Opposition will not take advantage of existing circumstances to force the matter to a division, because such a course would place myself and other honorable members in an unfair position. I am sure honorable members opposite have no desire to do that, and they must see that the amendment, as it stands, is too vague for decision.

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN , (Wentworth). - I think I see an easy way out of the difficulty. If we pass the amendment now, exempting all metal appliances, it will be perfectly easy for the Minister for Trade and Customs, when we come to the more general division, to exempt all fire brigade appliances that have not been previously exempted. It is clear, from the debate, that it is the desire of the committee that fire brigade appliances should be exempted, and if we pass this amendment now, it will be a direction to the Minister to carry it further by exempting, at a later stage, all appliances that are not covered by it.

Mr KINGSTON:

– The honorable member for Oxley has moved his amendment in a certain way. He desires to free till fire brigade plant and appliances. I point out in the first place that he will not do it by carrying the amendment at this stage, and I point out also that it is rather vaguely worded in not indicating precisely what the honorable member wants. Under the circumstances I propose that if he will not move it now, I will assist him to frame it in a way which will give effect to what is desired once and for all.

Mr Wilks:

– But will the right honorable gentleman support it ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– I cannot promise to do that, but I am not altogether blind to what is the sense of the committee. I need say nothing more upon the subject at present, and honorable members must see that it is not fair to the honorable member for Oxley to allow him to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. BRUCE SMITH (Parkes). - I haveno particular reason for championing this, proposal, but it seems to me that an attempt is being made to induce us toadopt a certain course without reasons beinggiven. The Minister for Trade and Customs confirms me in the opinion that if the amendment is carried in its present form, it will extend only to appliances coming under the head of metals, and will not be as general as the honorable member desires.

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

– Would the honorable and learned member have it apply to stables fittings ? I would not.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Yes.

Mr Wilks:

– It should apply to couplings and hydrants.

Mr Mauger:

– Branches and hydrants are made here. What consummate rot !

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Whether it be rot or not- e

Mr Mauger:

– I was not alluding to. what the honorable and learned membersaid.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorablemember was not alluding to what I was. saying, but he was alluding to the question I am discussing, and such expressions areneither logic nor criticism. The honorablemember for Bendigo has raised the point that the question will arise hereafter of whether importations by the States should not be free from duty, and whether, seeing that they are so largely interested in these fire engines and appliances, they would nob be identical with State importations. Even if that were so, it need not interfere with what we are proposing to do now. The constitutional principle, if interpreted in the way suggested by-and-by, cannot alter our course, though it may double-bank what we are proposing to do, because, in addition to our making these appliances free, the constitutional principle may also have the effect of making them free. I do not think the Minister has given any good reason why we should postpone a decision upon this matter. If it is brought forward again there ‘will be another lengthy discussion upon it.

Mr Kingston:

– If we pass it as it is now, there will have to be another amendment upon it.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– No ; this amendment, if carried, will free all fire brigade plant and appliances which come under the head of “ metals,” and then it will remain for the Government to give effect to the wishes of the committee, and see whether it would not be better to treat the rest of the appliances used by fire brigades in the same way.

Mr SAWERS:
New England

– The honorable member for Oxley has moved that all fire brigade plant and appliances should be placed on the free list. The Minister for Trade and Customs has pointed out that the amendment, if carried at this stage, would cover only appliances coming under the head of “ metals.” The honorable member who moved the amendment having consented to the proposal- of the Government that its consideration should be postponed, it appears to me to be extraordinary that the Opposition, in refusing to allow the amendment to be withdrawn, should attempt to take the conduct of business out of the hands of the Government. Do honorable members of the Opposition desire to snatch a victory, or to put members like myself in a false position on this question ? So far as I am concerned, I decline to be put in a false position. I hope we shall be given a fair opportunity of discussing the matter when we come to deal with the miscellaneous division of the Tariff. Honorable members will find in that division such articles as are specially designed and imported for the use of the blind, deaf, and dumb, and so forth, and that is the proper place for dealing with this proposal, to place appliances used by fire brigades on the free list. I think it is unconstitutional for the Opposition to attempt to dictate to the committee in this way.

Sir William McMillan:

– Does not the honorable member see that some one else might have moved this amendment, and he might not have been willing to withdraw it?

Mi-. SAWERS. - Is it not a constitutional principle that the Government should conduct the business of the House ? I think it is, and I am not’ going to be dragged at the heels of the Opposition in this matter. I shall vote with the Government on the question, with the clear understanding that when the matter comes to be discussed later on, I shall do what I can to secure the free admission of fire brigade plant and appliances.

Sir William McMillan:

– Why not get the Minister to promise that ?

Mr SAWERS:

– The Minister has promised to give the committee an opportunity of discussing the whole question. As the honorable member for Wentworth knows, Ministers should be the judges as to when matters should be discussed. I shall assist the Government to conduct the business of the House, and when they can no longer do it, the Opposition may take their place.

Mr A PATERSON:
Capricornia

Mr Wilks:

– We have dealt with 500 items this afternoon.

Mr SALMON:

– The honorable member is not always anxious to conserve the public time. I shall vote with the Government, because I consider their offer a reasonable one, and one which can be honestly accepted by those who feel as the honorable members for Oxley and New England do about this matter.

Mr O’MALLEY:
Tasmania

– I urge the Opposition to accept the offer of the Government. I do not desire to vote against them, but if they press the matter to a vote tonight I shall have to vote against them, as I have not had time to look fully into it. Let me urge upon them to cultivate the wisdom of experienee as well as the wisdom of hope. Some time age I asked them to accept a duty of 15 per cent, upon mining machinery, but they refused, and the duty is now 20 per cent. The same fate may await them to-night.

Mr. R. EDWARDS (Oxley).- I am entirely in the hands of the committee, and if the amendment goes to a division I shall vote for it, because I think that the appliances used by fire brigades should be admitted free of duty.

Question - That the following exemption be added : - “ All fire brigade plant and appliances “ - put. The committee divided -

Ayes……… 23

Noes……… 26

Majority … … … 3

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

– I rise to ask the committee to place on the free-list “ steam coke rams.” When we were discussing the item of mining machinery I read a letter from the Federal Coke Company, which uses this particular machine in its operations in the Illawarra district. Through the courtesy of the Minister I have had an opportunity of seeing a report on the subject from his officers, and I understand from him that he is prepared to allow these rams to be placed on the free list.

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

– Hydraulic rams are used in the Illawarra district.

Mr FULLER:

– I have no knowledge of hydraulic rams being used.

Sir MALCOLM McEACHARN:
Melbourne

– I suggest that hydraulic and steam rams should be made duty free. I happen to have visited the Illawarra district, and the rams I saw there were hydraulic ones. A great mistake will be made if the exemption is limited to steam rams. It will really do away with the advantage which the honorable and learned member is seeking to gain. I believe that these rams cannot be manufactured here, and I ask the Minister to let them all come in free.

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

– I entirely concur in the remarks of the honorable member for Melbourne. Both hydraulic and steam power are used in connexion with these rams for pushing the coke out of the oven. I believe that in some cases steam power is used. I have not seen a steam ram.

Mr Watkins:

– They are chiefly hydraulic.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– The honorable and learned member for Illawarra was good enough to callmy attention to this matter, and I had some elaborate inquiriesmade, with the result that I found that a steam coke ram is an entirely new machine, of a very elaborate character. I am absolutely satisfied, from the report of the officer, that it cannot be manufactured here, and so I am willing to admit it free. I have no information as to hydraulic rams, except that which honorable members have just been good enough to give. Am I to understand from the personal assurances of honorable members that hydraulic rams are not made in the country?

Mr Watkins:

– Yes. The ram is practically the same in each case.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I am content.

Mr. FULLER (Illawarra). - I understand from the honorable member for Kooyong that there are hydraulic rams in use in the district I represent. I was not aware of the fact before. I am told that all these rams are imported. I move -

That the following exemptions be added: - “ Steam or hydraulic coke rams or pushers.”

Mr KINGSTON:

– Under the circumstances I am willing to place on the free list steam or hydraulic coke rams if honorable members are agreeable.

Mr Thomson:

– Why not rams worked ~by an v other power ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– There are only two kinds of these rams I understand. If, from further information I get from official sources, I find it necessary to bring any new facts before the committee, I shall do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

– I move- -

That the following exemption be added: - “ Bottle-making machines.”

This item is not made here, nor is it likely to be made here.

Mr Reid:

– Never could be. “

Mr MAUGER:

– I should not say that.

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

– Although we are very gratified to see that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports desires that something should come in free, we might still find objection to his suggestion in the fact that this bottle manufacturing industry is one of the most highly protected on the list. The protection runs up to at least 100 per cent. I shall vote as I have always done in connexion with a proposal of this sort, though I think that the word “ patent “ ought to come out.

Sir George Turner:

– The honorable member dropped the word “ patent “ when he moved his amendment.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I wish to know from the honorable member for Melbourne Ports for what purpose these bottles are used. Are they medicine bottles ? If we knew what liquid was put into them, we should know how wide the industry is.

Mr. MAUGER (Melbourne Ports).- I believe they make all kinds of bottles, but largely medicine bottles, at one or two works I have in my mind’s eye. Even porter and champagne bottles are made here. If my honorable and learned friend is going to consume the champagne, I think the bottle should be made here

Mr REID:
East Sydney

– It is almost a melancholy admission which the honorable member for Melbourne Ports has made. Surely, in connexion with the great bottlemaking industry we can look forward to a time when the machines for making the bottles will be made in Australia? Are we to be dejected by the melancholy announcement that the marvellous ingenuity which enables our manufacturers to make the most intricate forms of electrical machinery, on the shortest notice, is not equal to the manufacture of something or other that will turn out a medicine bottle? Perhaps this melancholy announcement is owing to the fact that there is no one-legged Victorian industry which makes these machines. How happy the honorable member must be in knowing that there is actually no man named Smith or Brown or Robinson who runs a little tinpot place, and makes one machine every 50 years, because some honorable members would only have to get up and solemnly assure the Minister that a man named Smith had been known to make these machines, and the Minister would collapse, and the member would collapse, and the free list in that respect would collapse. Now that there is a highly protective influence exercised in favour of the bottle-making industry, I do not see why we should not found, by the same beneficent policy, a grand industry in the nature of bottle making machine factories. It might be one of the choicest laurels in the wreath of Australian industry. Doss the bottlemaking industry flourish in the honorable member’s electorate ?

Sir William McMillan:

– I thought that bottles were blown.

Mr REID:

– If bottles are blown this is another proof that the policy is blown too, because it cannot rise to the task of manufacturing a machine for the making of glass bottles. These machines are of the simplest possible character.

Mr Mauger:

– I am told not.

Mr REID:

– I have no doubt a very worthy manufacturer of glass bottles told the honorable member that.

Mr Mauger:

– No, I have not seen a manufacturer.

Mr REID:

– No ; that is very prudent on the honorable member’s part ; he has seen the other fellow. Does he really mean to tell us that we could not Start an industry for making these machines if we had a sufficiently high duty on them ? The freetrade view of course is that these protected industries live on one another. Why cannot the honorable member show one instance in which a protected industry has bred another industry? I do not intend to oppose this amendment, because I am very glad occasionally to have these proposals made from the other side, but there is no sort of consistency in it. The liberal heart of the honorable member which is opened to the manufacturer of glass bottles is firmly shut to all the great primary industries of Australia. It is a melancholy sight ; but, still, it is a glimmer of the” new light which is dawning.

Mr. BRUCE SMITH (Parkes).- It is refreshing to see this protectionist bigot on the other side of the House, finding at last that there are circumstances under which something cannot be manufactured in Victoria. I am quite sure that the world will be very much surprised to know that, with all its extraordinary powers, a machine for the making of bottles cannot be produced here, t I do not think the committee is aware to what extent this industry is already protected. Honorable members seem to be at liberty to supply the information which is furnished to them by good authorities. The honorable member for North Sydney has placed in my hand an 1 invoice of a shipment of bottles which, had come from Hamburg to the well-known firm of Lindeman and Co., wine-growers and wine merchants, from Burgoyne and Co. The cost of the bottles at Hamburg was £96, but by the time the charges in” the shape of freight, packing and insurance were added, it was £313. Thus the charges amounted to £217 10s.

Mr Kingston:

– What is the date of that invoice 1

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– February, 1897.

Mr Kingston:

– Then the new Tariff had nothing to do with that 1

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– No; I am not speaking about the duty, but of the natural protection that is afforded by the expense attached to bringing these articles to Australia. The packing materials cost £49 4s. ; the cartage and shipping charges were £24 12s. ; the straw envelopes cost £18 9s. ; and the freight, amounted to £122. The total charges represented 220 percent, protection, and yet we are told that the bottle-makers cannot afford to pay any duty on the machinery they use. That is a veritable reductio ad absurdum ; and I am quite sure that the public will be very much astonished to know that, despite a natural protection of 220 per cent., the bottle manufacturers are actually crying out to have their machinery admitted free. ‘

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN:
Wentworth

– As a specimen of the common sense and justice of this committee, I may remind honorable members that these bottlemaking machines are the tools of trade of manufacturers who are highly protected naturally and otherwise. And yet when we were considering the interests of the leather manufacturers, who have no protection whatever, the committee refused to exempt their tools of trade.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– The honorable member for Wentworth spoke of certain machine tools, but I think he would have spoken more to the purpose if he had referred to the “ tools “ to be found in this Chamber. Certainly the votes of some honorable members do not reflect any great credit on the committee. I was surprised to hear an admission from the honorable member for Melbourne Ports that the imposition of a duty upon an article increases the price to the consumer. It may be that in the same way that lessons have to be repeated to children in certain asylums, the constant repetition of free-trade lessons is bringing them home to the understanding of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, and that we have now seen the first sign of his awakening.

Mr. MAUGER (Melbourne Ports).- I am glad that my proposal has caused so much amusement and excited so much interest. I should like to point out that the Victorian Tariff, which some honorable members have railed at so much, contained hundreds of exemptions.

Mr Reid:

– But for that Victoria would have been killed straight out.

Mr MAUGER:

– No one considered that a free list was incompatible with scientific protection. If I had my way I should put far more articles on the free list ; but freetraders will not distinguish between those goods which can with advantage be manufactured here, and those which there is no occasion to make within the Commonwealth.

Mr THOMAS:
Barrier

– I am afraid I shall have to vote with the Government.

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

– How does the honorable member know how the Government are going to vote?

Mr THOMAS:

– Surely they will not consent to make this exemption ?

Mr Kingston:

– Yes, we shall.

Mr THOMAS:

– Well, I really think that, in a case like this, there should be some duty. Where an industry has only the natural protection, I am in favour of allowing the machinery and tools used in connexion with it to come in free of duty ; but where a 15 or 20 per cent, protective duty is imposed in favour of an industry, those engaged in it should certainly be prepared to pay a reasonable amount of duty on their implements of trade.

Mr KINGSTON:

– The Government do not intend to depart from the principle whichthey believe to be right. These machines are not made here, and we think, therefore, that they should be admitted free of duty. The fact mentioned by the honorable and learned member for Parkes, that £100 worth of bottles cannot be imported from Hamburg except at an expenditure of over £200, affords a very strong argument in favour of our doing everything that would conduce to the establishment of the bottlemaking industry here.

Mr.REID (East Sydney).- Why does not the Minister act according to his convictions? The right honorable gentleman preaches of the good times to come, but he will not do anything to bring them nearer. We might have a magnificent bottle machine industry established here if the Minister would only offer the necessary encouragement ; but instead of that he stands up and delivers a little sermon, with his hands in his pockets. If my right honorable friend is sincere in what he has said, he should resist the present proposals and let us establish a bottle machine industry in our midst. You can do anything you like if you impose enough duty.

Mr O’MALLEY:
Tasmania

– The leader of the Opposition has convinced me that we ought to put a duty on these machines. No great genius is required to enable us to make bottle-making machines, and if we desire to produce our own bottles we ought to make our own machinery.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

– I move -

That the following exemptions be added - “ Soap-making, cutting, and stamping machines. “

I am informed that these machines cannot be made in Australia. There are only from 70 to 80 soap factories in the whole of Australia, and once the machines required by them are procured they last a considerable number of years. Therefore there has been no inducement to make the machines locally. Where there is no local production the price of the imported article is increased by the extent of the duty. But if there is local production, and consequently local competition, the duty does not necessarily increase the price to the consumer. In this case there has been no local production, and I consequently propose that the exemption shall be made.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta).- May I suggest to the honorable and learned member that his ground is a very peculiar one. The fact that there has been no production is a reason why no duty should be imposed. I always understood that honorable members opposite took up the position that production was impossible unless industries were given an artificial stimulus. It seems to me that they adopt a very contradictory attitude upon this question, and one which destroys the argument that duties are necessary before goods can be manufactured locally.

Mr. BRUCE SMITH (Parkes). - I think that an obligation rests upon any honorable member who submits an amendment of this character, to explain the nature of the machinery which he desires to see included in the list of exemptions. It is quite impossible for honorable members to determine what articles shall be, admitted free, until they know what is the nature of the machinery in question, and are able to decide whether it can be manufactured in Australia. The machinery which it is proposed to exempt in the present instance, comprises soap making, cutting, and stamping machines. My recollection of a soap stamping machine is that it consists merely of a piece of metal which comes down and forces the soap into a particular shape. Surely there should be no difficulty about manufacturing such a machine in Australia. The cutting of soap is the proverbial way of denning the sharpness of a knife. Surely there is an obligation on the part of the honorable and learned member for Bendigo to explain to the committee the peculiarities of this machinery, which make it improbable, if not impossible, that an industry for its manufacture will be established within the Commonwealth. At present he is asking us to determine that for some years to come no encouragement shall be given to manufacturers of these articles.

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN (Wentworth). - Looking at the list of exemptions it seems to me very peculiar that the name of nearly every rabid protectionist appears as favouring some exemption or other. Evidently they are noticing the trend of affairs, and will probably be able, as Victoria along with the other States becomes converted from the error of its ways, to show that they were to some extent on the freetrade side.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

– I may mention that we have made inquiries as to the persons who use these machines, and the information with which we have been supplied shows that soap-making and stamping machines are manufactured within the Commonwealth. In our opinion, therefore, they ought to be subjected to a duty. Soapcutting machines, however, do not appear to be manufactured locally, and following the practice which has hitherto been adopted, we think that these should be placed upon the free list.

Mr. REID (East Sydney). - I should like to know whether the honorable and learned member for Bendigo consulted the Ministry before submitting this amendment, because it is usual for honorable members upon the Government side to tell us that ? From the fact that the honorable and learned member for Bendigo has omitted to inform us upon this point, it is clear that he did not consult the Government.

Sir John Quick:

Mr R EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

– I do not consider that we have been quite consistent, for in my opinion the committee has not adhered to that principle.

Question - That the following exemptions be added : - “ Punching and shearing machines “ - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 19

Noes … … … 2.1

Majority … … 2

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– On behalf of the honorable member for Robertson, I move -

That the following exemptions be added : - Harness Makers’ Ironmonger)’, viz. : - Stirrups and Bits (Plated), Springbars, Haines (Nickel and

Silver Plated, or Brass), Buckles and Harness Mountings ; Chains, viz. : - Plough, Leading, Back ; Breeching, Trace and Tug, Hobble, Hip Strap, Backboard, Bellyband, Watering, Crupper, Rock, Manger, Curb, Stallion Lead, Dog, Dogcouple, Stallion Bars and Chains, Bit Burnishers, Pole.

The proposal relates chiefly to raw material used in the manufacture of harness.

Sir George Turner:

– Nearly all the articles enumerated are free.

Mr CONROY:

– I do not know that they are all free, although some of them are.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

– We shall be prepared to deal with the items relating to harness-makers’ ironmongery, with the exception of chains, when we come to the division, harness, &c. Chains in the piece are already on the free list, and I think we have dealt already with plough and back chains. We now propose to allow all chains to go on the free list. I would suggest to the honorable and learned member for Werriwa that he should allow the first part of his amendment to stand over until the division relating to harness leather is reached.

Mr Conroy:

– Very well. Howwould the Treasurer amend the amendment?

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– I think it would be be better to move simply that “ Chains n.e.i. “ be added to the list of exemptions.

Amendment, by leave, amended accordingly, and agreed to.

Mr. CONROY (Werriwa).- The honorable member for Robertson, who is absent, has given notice of his intention to move that the following articles be added to the list of exemptions, but a number of the items enumerated are already on the free list : -

Amendment negatived.

Progress reported.

page 9630

ADJOURNMENT

Electrical Machinery - Rebate on Sugar - Unemployed Kanakas.

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr THOMAS:
Barrier

– I desire to ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether he has been able to obtain a report as to the number of men employed in the Commonwealth in the manufacture of electrical plant ?

Mr Kingston:

– We have not the information yet.

Mr EWING:
Richmond

– I desire to bring a matter under the notice of the Attorney-General, and I shall put it in the form of a question. I have received a telegram to this effect: -

Will employingcoloured labour during February debar for sugar rebate.

In other words, information is desired as to whether a person employing black labour after the 1st of February will be entitled to the rebate proposed by the Government on sugar which is not grown by coloured labour. I desire also to bring another matter under the notice of the honorable gentleman. I have received a telegram to this effect : -

Please inform Government result of kanaka legislation. Residents dare not now give kanakas employment in any capacity ; consequently serious menace to life and property exists. Hundreds disengaged since 31st ult.

That is from the northern part of New South Wales. The statement is that white men dare not employ kanakas in consequence of the legislation which has been passed, and that the disengaged men are a menace to the people.

Mr DEAKIN:
AttorneyGeneral · Ballarat · Protectionist

– In regard to the first question put by the honorable member, relating to the employment of coloured labour during February, the proposal of the Government is that the rebate shall be allowed on all sugar grown by white labour after 31st January last. That is to say, no inquiry will be made as to whether coloured labour has been employed in any preliminary processes undertaken before that date, but the rebate is only to be paid upon sugar grown after that date- from the present month forward - by white labour. It may be added, to make the matter perfectly clear, that the same employer may have adjoining plantations, one worked by white labour, and upon the produce of which the rebate will be allowed, and another worked by coloured labour, upon the produce of which no rebate will be allowed.

Mr Ewing:

– It extends to the article, and not to the individual ?

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Ewing:

– An agreement made between a white and a black is binding at present.

Mr DEAKIN:

– No . agreement between a white and a black is at present affected by any Commonwealth legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.54 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 February 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1902/19020204_reps_1_7/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 4 February 1902

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

QUESTION

ADMISSION OF JAPANESE LABOURERS INTO QUEENSLAND

Mr FISHER:WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

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

QUESTION

DUTY ON JEWELLERY

Mr POYNTON:for Mr. Glynn

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

QUESTION

JAMES STRACHAN, TELEGRAPH OPERATOR

Mr MAHON:COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir PHILIP FYSH:Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA, TASMANIA · Free Trade

TARIFF

In Committee of Ways and Means -

Mr POYNTON:South Australia

Mr Kingston:

Mr POYNTON:

Mr THOMSON:North Sydney

Sir George Turner:

Mr THOMSON:

Mr KINGSTON:South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Poynton:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Ayes … … … 25

Noes … … … 24

Majority … … …1

Sir GEORGE TURNER:BalaclavaTreasurer · Protectionist

Sir MALCOLM McEACHARN:Melbourne

Sir George Turner:

Sir MALCOLM McEACHARN:

Sir George Turner:

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN:Wentworth

Sir George Turner:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr PAGE:Maranoa

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

Mr PAGE:

Sir Malcolm Mceacharn:

Mr PAGE:

Mr KIRWAN:Kalgoorlie

Mr CONROY:Werriwa

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr KINGSTON:Protectionist

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

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr MAUGER:Melbourne Ports

Mr Thomson:

Mr MAUGER:

Mr Mauger:

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

Mr Mauger:

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

Ayes. Noes

Majority

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr PHILLIPS:Wimmera

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

Sir George Turner:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:Wentworth

Sir GEORGE TURNER:Protectionist

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Sir George Turner:

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr WILKS:Dalley

Mr Chapman:

Mr WILKS:

Mr KINGSTON:South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr KINGSTON:

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

Mr KINGSTON:

Sir George Turner:

Sir william Mcmillan:

House of Representatives
4 February 1902

Mr FISHER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr POYNTON:
for Mr. Glynn

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

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA, TASMANIA · Free Trade

Mr POYNTON:
South Australia

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

Mr KINGSTON:
South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
BalaclavaTreasurer · Protectionist

Sir MALCOLM McEACHARN:
Melbourne

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN:
Wentworth

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

Mr KIRWAN:
Kalgoorlie

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

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

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

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 PHILLIPS:
Wimmera

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

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

Mr KINGSTON:
South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

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

Mr BAMFORD:
Herbert

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

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

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

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

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

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

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

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

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

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

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 HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

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

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

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

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney