House of Representatives
20 February 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITION
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL
PAPER
SUPPLY
QUESTION
- NATURALIZATION. - WESTERN AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- UNIFORM POSTAL SYSTEM
TARIFF

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

page 10173

PETITION

Sir JOHN FORREST presented a petition from the Women’s Christian Temperance Union of Western Australia, praying the House to adopt the system of local option in the federal capital.

Petition received.

page 10173

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Mr HUGHES:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of certain press statements, it is the intention of the Government to give Parliament an opportunity before the close of the sessionto determine finally the site of the federal capital ?

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– The question whether the Parliament before the close of this session will have an opportunity of determining finally the site of the federal capital depends upona number of investigations which must succeed the inspection of sites by the members of the House of Representatives, following an inspection which has been made by members of the Senate. Unless they are absolutely precluded, the Government will give an opportunity to members of the House of Representatives to visit the sites ; but inasmuch as after that inspection there will have to be certain investigations from the point of view of engineers, architects, surveyors and sanitary authorities for the purpose of determining which is really the best site, I cannot undertake to give Parliament an opportunity of deciding upon a site finally in this session. Everything that can be done to push forward in all reason the selection of the site will be done, having in view the consideration that, as a mistake would be irreparable, extreme care must be taken, and having in view on the other hand the desirability which presses very strongly on me of having the federal capital in a place which is not subject to any provincial influence, whether it be that of Sydney or of Melbourne.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA · IND; ALP from June 1901

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that only one senator from New South Wales - Senator Neild - accompanied the members of the Senate, it is not reasonable to suppose that the senators from that State desire us to sit here for the next ten years?

Mr BARTON:

-I do not think that the House will expect me to answer that question seriously. It may be presumed that the members of the Senate who hace been elected from New SouthWales have already a very fair acquaintance with the sites.

page 10174

PAPER

The Clerk laid upon the table the following paper : -

Cast of printing for Parliamentand Departments - (Return).

page 10174

SUPPLY

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– Might I be allowed to intimate to the House that it is the intention of the Treasurer to take Supply tomorrow.

page 10174

QUESTION

NATURALIZATION. - WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

Whether he is aware that persons who have become naturalized in Great Britain, or in any of the Eastern States, must again become naturalized in Western Australia if they desire to obtain the franchise in that State ?
Whether he considers this an equitable arrangement ; and, if not, does he propose ‘to take any steps during the present session to remove theanomaly ?

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

– Accepting the honorable member’s statement as to the practice in Western Australia, the matter can only be dealt with by an exercise of the Commonwealth power to pass a law in regard to naturalization. I see no prospect of that being done this session. It may be possible to pass sucha measure next session.

page 10174

QUESTION

UNIFORM POSTAL SYSTEM

Mr.E. SOLOMON asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Has it been decided to abolish the½d. postcard system in Western Australia ?

Is it the intention of the PostmasterGeneral to inaugurate a1d. letter postage system in eachState, the same as that which exists in the State of Victoria, in order that there shall be an uniform postal system throughout the Com monwealth ?

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

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

. The question as to whether a further supply of½d. post- cards shall beprovided for Western Australia is now under consideration.
The Postmaster-General cannot inaugurate a 1d. letter postage system in each State, the same as that which exists in the State of Victoria under the Penny Postage Act 1900, without special legislation.

page 10174

TARIFF

In Committee of Ways and Means : -

Consideration resumed from 19th February(vide page 10172).

Division VIII.- Earthenware, Cement, China, Glass, and Stone.

Item 86 - Filters of all kinds, fire and glazed bricks, fire lumps, fire-clay manufactures, n.e.i., asphalt and roofing tiles, ad valorem . 15 per cent.

Mr KIRWAN:
Kalgoorlie

– I rise to ask the Ministers if they cannot see their way to place filters on the free list. This duty is altogether unnecessary. It is almost a tax on pure water. Dripstone filters are madein Australia, and I am told that they will always be made here, because the cost of importation is too great. Acertain class of filters is imported. Three descriptions of germ-killing filters are used in Australia. Of these, the Jeffrey is made in Melbourne, employing a few hands; and the Abbott and Pasteur filters are imported. In many parts of Australia, especially the tropical parts, where water is very impure, and in other parts where water is very scarce, filters are absolutely indispensable to health. I move -

That the words “15 per cent., and on and after 21st February, 1902, free,” be inserted after the word “kinds.”

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Treasurer · BalaclavaTreasurer · Protectionist

– It is not expected that the duty will yield a largeamount of revenue, simply because filters are being made here and in other States in consequence of protection. They have been dutiable at a much higher rate than we propose, except in New South Wales, where, of course, they were duty free. They were subjectto a duty of 30 per cent. in Victoria, 25 per cent. in Queensland, 25, 20, 15, and 10 per cent. in South Australia, 20 per cent. in Tasmania, and 10 per cent. in Western Australia Even in the State which my honorable friend represents filters have been dutiable. Honorable members know that these articles tire largely made in the Commonwealth; and of various kinds. I ana afraid that my honorable friend has not made out a case which would justify the committee in saying that filters should ‘be admitted free, and by that means, in a’ll probability, injure an industry without getting any revenue.

Mr Kirwan:

– How many hands are engaged in making filters 1 “

Mr Reid:

– -There is no filter factory.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– It is all very well for some honorable members to ask how many hands are employed, but we all know that the men are not limited to the making of one article. A manufacturer has a number of industries combined, and the hands are employed in making various, articles in one factory. However, the articles have been dutiable, and a 15 per cent, duty is certainly a very reasonable one. If we had proposed a duty of 25 or 30 per cent, my honorable friend might have had some justification for asking that it should be reduced, but seeing that we ask for a duty of only 15 per cent, on the whole line, I think it is a very fair proposal, and one which the committee ought to adopt.

Mr REID:
East Sydney

– A number of the best patent filters cannot be made in the .Commonwealth. In any case, the making of filters must be a very small adjunct to an ordinary industry. It has not got into a special line yet, but is a sort of odd job, I suppose, in some of the , factories. Surely there is something we can do to give encouragement to the people in the country. In big cities we are all well off, with a pure water supply, but in the interior the people suffer a great discomfort from the water they have to drink. I should very much like to see some consideration shown for the people in the country. It is the people in the towns, who have all the comforts of life, and comparatively high wages, who enjoy all the benefits of these high protective duties. The Ministry might therefore stretch a point and place on the free list the filters which are so necessary to those who have to live in the country. A number of other articles which are made here have been placed on the free list. Take wire netting, for instance. The committee’ placed wire netting on the free list, although it is made by a very large manufacturer in one part of the Commonwealth, and I think filters might be similarly dealt with. .

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr MAUGER:

– There is no justification for any such statement. My political inclinations are influenced by the interests of the workmen of Australia. Our own workmen are making just as good filters of the kind to which the honorable member has referred as can be imported.

Mr Kingston:

– There was a duty of 10 per cent. imposed on filters in Western Australia.

Mr MAUGER:

– Yes, and in every other State they imposed a still higher duty. Honorable members have asked how many men are employed in making filters, but I contend that the importance of an industry should not be measured by the number of men engaged in it. If all the industries in which a few men are engaged are allowed to go by the board, we shall have none left. I hope the committee will support the moderate proposal made by the Government.

Amendment negatived.

Mr.FULLER (Illawarra). - I move-

That the words “and on and after 21st February, 1902, 10 per cent.” be added.

The tiles to which I desire the amendment to apply are known as Marseilles tiles, and it may be urged by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports that they are manufactured in France and exported under the encouragement of special bounties on the same substantial evidence which he gave us in regard to Government bounties yesterday. At the same time I am informed that the cost of importation amounts to 150 per cent. upon the original value of the tiles.

Sir George Turner:

– Then their value must be very low.

Mr FULLER:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In support of what I say, I have an invoice here if the Treasurer would like to see it. In order to encourage the tile-making industry in Victoria a 20 per cent. duty was imposed some time ago, but notwithstanding this addition to the very high natural protection, to which I have referred, the tile-making operations in Victoria were a failure. In Sydney some four years ago a similar manufactory was established under free-trade conditions. Notwithstanding that those engaged in the enterprise had to compete with the imported tiles in a free market, they have manufactured 3,000,000 tiles, which they have been able to sell in a free market at 15 and 20 per cent. below the prices quoted for the tiles imported from Marseilles. This tile manufactory is therefore an institution of which we have good reason to be proud.

Sir George Turner:

– They have a better class of clay in Sydney than we have in Victoria.

Mr FULLER:

– The causes of the failure of the tile industry in Victoria were pointed out in the columns of the Age on the 25th April, 1900, as follow : -

There is no special virtue in the French clay ; no reason whatever, as far as materials are concerned, why the article imported in such steadily increasingquantities from Marseilles should not be manufactured here. On that point the local industry is unanimous. The great difficulty is the price. With the aid of cheap labour the foreigner can land his goods here at a cost that defies local competition. That, at least, has been the experience to date. A leading tile maker, who was questioned on the subject a day or two ugo, said that the curse of cheap labour abroad was ruining the local market. “What cun you do,” he asked, “ when the manufacturers at Marseilles can get labourers for half-a-crown a day?” Both in Sydney and Melbourne attempts have been made to supply the article, and manufactories have tentatively been set up. In Sydney / the industry carries on a struggling existence. In Melbourne the attempts have Been abandoned, as it lias been found that in existing circumstances they cam only be carried on at a loss. Mr. G. Sweet, manager of the Brunswick Brick, Tile and Pottery Company, recently left for Europe in order to inquire into the more modern processes in use in the Continental cities. He will spend some time in Marseilles, and will investigate the means b)’ which the French tile can be turned out in such large quantities to the indirect loss of the colonial workmen. The points to be considered are the materials required - the machinery, the right kind of presses, and the exact processes involved. None of the Melbourne handicraftsmen have yet mastered the processes by which the foreigner is enabled to produce with ease and certainty this particular article of commerce. But the mystery cannot continue lon’g unsolved. It then remains to be seen whether a Melbourne made tile can be produced at a cost that will enable it to compete with France. So long as the duty remains what it is, there is not much chance of the local article being able to hold its own, but several members of the trade who were spoken to have strong hopes that the Government will do something for them. If the protective duty is to be of any use, it will have to be a heavy one, but that is always the ease when the unfair advantage of low-priced labour is held by the other side.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– That was two years ago. We can tell a very different story from that now.

Mr FULLER:

– In the meantime the Victorian industry has become extinct, and the manufacture of tiles in Sydney, which was spoken of as a struggling industry, has become a very flourishing one. The article in the Age shows that the Victorian manufacturers could not compete with the imported tiles on account of the low prices at which they were sold, and a large increase of duty was asked for to compel consumers to pay a higher price than they would otherwise have to give. I contend that the natural protection of 150 per cent, ought to be sufficient. I would further point out that it is the cheap labour of Europe - that is, the cheap labour of a protective country like France - against which we are asked to protect the local workmen. It has been pointed out that the fact that the French workmen engaged in tile-making are paid only 2s. 6d. a day, ought not to prevent the successful manufacture of tiles in Victoria. Because, although that very low rate of wages was being paid in this industry in Marseilles, a still lower rate was being paid in the protected State of Victoria. This fact was pointed out by Mr. J. B. Davies, of Brunswick, in a letter written to the Age, and his statement has remained uncontradicted up to the present time. He put the position thus -

It is stated that a labourer in Marseilles gets 2s. 6d. per day (in potteries). This fact should not stop some of our own manufacturers, as they pay even less than is paid in Marseilles, as the following list of wages paid at the Brunswick pottery proves : - Boys, 4s. to 4s. Gd. per week ; carters, 7s. 6d. to 15s. ; labouring men, 12s. to 20s. per week. I can prove the correctness of the above figures.

– I should like to ask the Minister for Trade and Customs a question with reference to asphalt and roofing tiles. I wish to know whether the word “ asphalt, “ as here used, is intended to qualify the word “ tiles,” or whether it is intended to impose a duty on the asphalt itself? If it is intended to tax asphalt, it would be better to have a specific duty than an ad valorem duty. I believe that the Customs have been victimized to some extent already by reason of there being an ad valorem duty on asphalt. As far as I know there are no such things as asphalt roofing tiles, though I believe there are tiles for footpaths made partly from asphalt. If it is intended to make asphalt itself dutiable, the duty should be so much per ton ; but in my opinion, asphalt being a raw material, should be upon the free list.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– The intention of the Government is that the duty should be imposed upon asphalt tiles. The word “ asphalt “ is used as an adjective referring to tiles. We have already noted the point, and I propose to move the insertion of the word “ tiles “ after the word “ asphalt.” The item will then read -

Asphalt tiles and roofing tiles.

Mr Thomson:

– Are not the Customs charging on asphalt at present ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– No, I believe not.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I have heard that duty has been charged on asphalt.

Mr KINGSTON:

– It has not been brought under my notice. I shall be delighted to look into the matter. If the honorable member for Illawarra will temporarily withdraw his amendment, I will move the insertion of the necessary word.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Mr. Kingston) proposed -

That after the word “asphalt” the word “ tiles “ be inserted.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– What is the intention of the amendment?

Mr KINGSTON:

– The intention is to limit the use of the word “asphalt” - to make it an adjective qualifying the word “ tiles.”

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– I understand that the word “ asphalt “ as here used, was intended to limit the importation of Trinidad asphalt, and to give the local maker an opportunity of producing Australian asphalt.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. FULLER (Illawarra).- I move-

That the words “ and on and after 21st February, 1902, 10 per cent.” be added.

The Treasurer has expressed his surprise that if roofing tiles are manufactured in Sydney as I have described, there should be such a quantity imported from Marseilles. The explanation is that while the local industry has been progressing satisfactorily during the last four years, there has been an enormous demand for building material in Sydney during the last two years, and there has been a particular rush upon this special article. As I have already pointed out, nearly all the cottages and buildings which are being erected in the neighbourhood of Mosman are being roofed with these tiles. For this reason the local manufacturers have not been able to supply the demand, and of course imported tiles had to be used. The Treasurer says that 15 per cent, is not very much protection. But I would point out to the committee that the protection will not only be 15 per cent., but that in reality there is a natural protection of 150 per cent. When I was previously speaking I intended to quote from an invoice which I did not happen to have in the chamber at the moment. I have since obtained it. It is a copy of an invoice for a cargo of Marseilles, roofing tiles imported by Messrs. W. H. Rocke and Co., who are very large house furnishers carrying on business at 247 and 249 Collins-street, Melbourne. The invoice shows, that the value of the cargo, as per home invoice, was £2,250; freight loading, port dues, insurance, and primage amounted to £2,200 ; wharfage, unloading, and stevedoring amounted to £487 10s. ; duty at 10 per cent, amounted to £495. The total was £6,152 10s., the original value of the cargo being, as I have said, £2,250. There was an increase of £3,903 15s., which appears to me to be a very high natural protection, indeed, to those who are engaged in this particular industry. The honorable member for Bourke has pleaded very hard for the duty proposed by the Government, on the ground that in “Victoria the manufacturers are disadvantageously placed.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Not on that ground alone.

Mr FULLER:

– The honorable member has said that the manufacturers have to pay more for their coal, and so on. I have pointed out that the industry has been successfully established in New South Wales. Are we going to commit ourselves to the folly of imposing duties in order to encourage the establishment of industries in places which are not suitable for them, whilst we have suitable places in other parts of “the Commonwealth ? I can understand the anxiety of the honorable member for Bourke, because the industry has failed in Victoria.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– It has never been started. 29 p z

Mr FULLER:

– I have pointed out that it has been started and has failed.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– The statement is not true, if the honorable member will allow me to say so.

Mr FULLER:

– Like the honorable member for Bourke, I can only give the committee the information which has been supplied to me. That information is to the effect that this tile-making industry was established in Victoria and had failed. I hold it to be very bad policy, indeed, to impose duties for the establishment of industries in places which are at a great disadvantage in consequence of the amount which has to be paid for materials. The honorable member has also expressed his great surprise that the. honorable member for Parramatta and myself, who represent districts possessing great natural resources, do not lend our adhesion to a policy which would lead -to the development of those resources in accordance with the ideas of protectionists. But the honorable member for Parramatta and myself take a different view in connexion with the development of our resources from the view that is held by honorable members opposite. The great natural resources which I have in my electorate, such as coal mining and dairying, and those which the honorable memberfor Parramatta has in his district, have to face the unrestricted competition of the whole world. We have to send our produce to places where it has to take its chance upon the world’s markets. There is no system of protection which can benefit us in any shape or form. I am anxious, and the honorable member for Parramatta has also shown his anxiety to have the industries of Australia developed, but we object to some industries, which are at present paltry in the extreme, having the benefit of high duties in order that they may be established in Australia, thus making the great body of consumers, and those engaged in the primary industries, pay through the nose.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– This is what these gentlemen- say on behalf of the potters of New South Wales : -

We are of opinion that the duty, if intended to help manufacturers, should have been left as originally proposed, or else have had a sliding scale on the principle of the better the article the more duty. It appears to us that the fixing of the same duty on a common ginger-beer bottle, and a gilt and decorated toilet set, is ridiculous. The one can be produced without any aid from imported material or labour, and the other cannot be produced without the importation of twothirds o£ its material, and skilled labour, though they both come under the term of earthenware. If the duty had been as at present for earthenware, namely, brown tea-pots, baking dishes, bread crocks, bottles, &c, and the original duty on decorated, printed, and sponged ware and sanitary goods, the manufacturers would have been helped, and the middle-class and rich would have paid the duty, and not the poor ; but as it is it neither helps one or the other.

These gentlemen wanted the duties to remain as proposed original] y, namely, 15 per cent., and 6d. per cubic foot, which is equal to something like 45 per cent.

Mr Reid:

– Protectionists are all alike.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– But these are the hardy manufacturers, who, according to the leader of the Opposition, do not want protection. As a matter of fact, they want something more than the duty of 20 per cent, which we decided to give them last night. I disagree with some of the statements made in this letter as to certain materials not being obtainable here. I assert that they can be made here. The statement that two-thirds of the material has to be imported is absolutely incorrect. The potteries - and I can speak with fuller knowledge of those in this State - make all their sanitary ware, with the exception of some of the glazes, from local clays. Natural deposits of almost all the glazes exist in Australia. These hardy individuals, who sprang up without protection, who never complained when the duty was taken off, who do not come now to ask for a duty, write to me as the representative of the largest pottery district in Victoria, to take up their case for them, and they do not ask for a duty of 15 or 20 per cent., which we give them, but for duties amounting to 45 per cent. These are my answers to the honorable member’s statements.

Mr. REID (East Sydney).- At last we have discovered some one in New South

Wales who has been asking for an unreasonable duty. I feel humiliated by the disclosure which has been made that twogentlemen in New. South Wales could be found to make such an unreasonable demand on the taxpayers of Australia. It only shows the effect of those evil communications which have become possible under federation. Such a thing would have been absolutely impossible in New South Wales under the free-trade flag. I suppose they see so much plunder going round that they wish to get a share of it. It is a natural impulse, although it is not creditable to them. It only shows that they must have been brought up in a protectionist school. I know that one of them is one of the oldest protectionists in the State, so that my honorable friend must recollect that when we indulged in the boast which we ventured to make, we did not refer to the protectionist, because he is the same in every country and in every century. Just as those bandits who have extracted £27,000 for the redemption of a young lady in the wild mountains of Greece are the same sort of people as those who have been guilty of outrages of a similar kind for centuries in Europe, so we have an illustration of that sort in this particular individual.

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

– The honorable member for Bourke has stated that the natural protection in the removal of tiles from the works at Marseilles to the shore at Sydney Harbor or Port Melbourne ‘ is only 15 per cent.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– From 15 to 20 per cent.

Mr THOMSON:

– The honorable member is absolutely wrong in that statement. He made another misstatement, no doubt unintentionally, in his first speech when he said that these tiles are carried, as cement is stated to be carried, as dead weight for vessels at an exceedingly low freight. I should like to know from the honorable member what other cargo comes from Marseilles to Australia direct that would constitute the other loading of the vessel, if tiles come only as dead weight. There is practically no export from Marseilles to Australia direct, and a whole ship has to be chartered for the conveyance of tiles. They enter Sydney Harbor by the shipload, and from my own window I can see them landed on to the shore. Does the honorable member think that that can be done for 15 or 20 per cent. on the value of the tiles - avalue which theTreasurer has stated to beabout £5 per 1,000? I am not aware of the cost at port of shipment; but that evidence of the value at the port of arrival shows that it is a very low cost article. I am quite sure that under the most advantageous circumstances the cost of chartering a vessel, conveying the tiles from the works to Marseilles, and from Marseilles by lighter to the vessel, stacking them, and landing them with care, at the port of arrival, cannot be less than £2 a ton. The stacking is very expensive, as each tile has to be packed, and the vessel has not the advantage that vessels often get of taking other goods at higher measurement rates. The whole difference which the honorable and learned member for Illawarra asked for is not really the difference between 10 and 15 per cent., but the difference - if you allow the import cost to be even 40 per cent. only - between 50 and 55 per cent.

Sir George Turner:

– If we are willing to give 50 per cent., we might as well give 55 per cent.

Mr THOMSON:

– Forty per cent. protection ought to be enough, and if we give another 10 per cent. protection it is excessive liberality. The further argument of the honorable member for Bourke is a most extraordinary one. He says that he desires to see an industry in tile-making, not merely in New SouthWales, but in every State of the Commonwealth. So do I, and naturally if the circumstances fit the States for the production, there will be that production - I hold, without a protective duty, but he says, with a protective duty. If we are going to fix the rate of that protective duty according to the difficulties of production in the place which has least facilities for production, what are we committed to? We shall have to guide our Tariff rates by what it will cost to produce an article, I suppose, in the centre of Australia. That is a view which I have never before heard so deliberately argued, even by a protectionist. If that sort of policy has been pursued in our separate State existences, under federation at least we must leave that idea in the background. We must not legislate for the place that is least fitted to produce ; we must legislate for the whole of Australia.

Question - That the words “ and on and after 21st February, 1902, 10 per cent. “ proposed to be added, be so added - put.

The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 26

Noes … … … 30

Majority … … 4

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 87. Glass, viz. : - Bent, bevelled, heraldic, sandblasted, enamelled, embossed, etched, silvered, and cut ; corners cut, bevelled, or engraved ; panes, prisms, and all other framed with metal, ad valorem, 20 per cent.

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

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– No, it is not. But for the necessity which exists for raising revenue I should vote in favour of placing glass upon the free list. The figures which I have given represent, as accurately as I can work them out, an equivalent to the 15 per cent, proposal of the Government.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– I take it that the remarks of the honorable member for North Sydney are applicable more to- item 88 than to the one immediately under discussion. What we are proposing to do at the present moment is to fix the rate of duty to be levied upon glass, in regard to which certain operations, such as enamelling, bevelling, silvering, &C., can be carried out locally. We propose to collect upon that glass a certain duty, which, while it will be productive of revenue, will be incidentally protective. Our object is to get a certain amount of revenue, and at the same time to protect that portion of the work which can be undertaken locally. All the operations enumerated in the Tariff are being carried out in Australia. In reference to the proposal of the honorable member for Bourke, I desire to say that, apart from the question of rates, there seems to be a good deal in favour of the scheme which he has suggested. But at the same time we are informed that the balance of convenience and propriety is rather in favour of the course which we propose. It has been put that an ad valorem duty is liable to be abused, and that therefore a fixed rate should be substituted. I recognise that ai ad valorem duties are liable to bc abused. They require very careful administration. I know that in a good many cases the Customs department will be “got at” unless a considerable amount of diligence is exercised. But there is also no doubt that ad valorem duties have a great deal to recommend them, in that they are based upon the principle of collecting a larger amount of duty from the more valuable article. I am further told by the Customs officers that a good many checks can be. imposed in connexion with the collection of ad valorem duties, checks which are generally observed. For example, there is not only the invoice to guide them, but they also have power to require the production of the draft if necessary. The value of goods is capable of proof in a variety of ways. But in connexion with the levying of a duty, by measurement, there is not the same facility for check short of the actual examination of the goods. When any doubt exists” as to the accuracy of the measurements given, the only way in which it can be solved is by opening the cases, and the honorable member for North Sydney knows there is nothing that importers deprecate more than the unnecessary opening of goods. Altogether, our officers consider that the balance of convenience in that respect is entirely in favour of an ad which duty. Then it is put fairly enough that the Belgians are underselling the British by about 30 per cent., and that in point of fact where British goods would cost £100 the Belgian goods would cost only £70. In this connexion I would ask honorable members whether it is altogether a fair thing to charge upon £70 worth of goods the same duty as is charged upon £100 worth? No doubt our patriotism is such that we prefer to trade with Britain rather than with any foreign country. But I ask honorable members to recollect that the cheaper goods must commend themselves more to the poorer classes of the community ; and is it a right thing, by refusing to regard the question of values, to provide for a system of taxation which would bear more heavily upon the poorer people than upon those who prefer the extra valuable article, and are able to pay the higher price for it ? I do not think so. I put these considerations before honorable members. I also put it that we can best deal with the whole question when we come to consider the next item. I have roughly indicated our general feeling upon the subject at the present moment. I am not pledging ourselves to absolutely refuse a further, consideration of the matter, but I ask the honorable member for North Sydney not to press his proposal at the present stage.

Mr. THOMSON (North Sydney).- I am quite willing to allow the matter to stand over until the next item is under consideration. I believe, however, that there are two lines covered by the item under discussion which will be affected, although in a minor degree.

Item agreed to.

– Does the honorable member think that if all the glass be taxed at the same rate, the higher qualities will be imported ?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– I do not know, but the chances are that the seller will charge both at the same rate, and the British article will have an opportunity of

I getting into. the market on better terms than under an ad valorem duty. It is admitted that the quality of the English glass is higher than that of Belgian glass, and the result under an ad valorem duty is that the consumer does not get an opportunity of buying it. I see no difficulty in collecting a fixed duty. The invoice, which declares the value, also declares the number of feet ; and it will probably facilitate Customs operations to have a fixed duty. I submit the amendment of which I have given notice.

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

– I should like to know whether the Government accept the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Bourke, because, if so, I shall move as an amendment on the amendment that the duty be reduced from 15s. to 7s. 6d.

Mr Kingston:

– We think an ad valorem duty better.

Mr MAUGER:

– Then I shall ask the honorable member for Bourke to withdraw his amendment in order that I may move that the duty be 10 per cent. The difference in duty between the raw material and the manufactured article is only 5 per cent., and this is a very extensive industry in Victoria, which, under the State Tariff, was protected by a duty of 35 per cent.

– Would it be ruined?

Mr MAUGER:

– I think it would be ruined. Under the old Victorian Tariff there was a 35 per cent, duty for this industry. The raw material was free. Now the Government propose to tax the raw materia] 15 per cent., and only give a margin of 5 per cent. What I urge is that plate-glass, which is the raw material for bevelling, sandblasting, enamelling, and embossing, should be admitted at 10 per cent. I ask the Government to consent to amend the item so as to make the duties 10s. on polished plate, and ls. on sheet glass.

Mr Kingston:

– We will agree to 10s. and 2s.

Mr MAUGER:

– I move-

That “ los. “ be omitted, with a view of inserting “10s.”; and that “2s. 6cl.” be omitted with a view of inserting “ 2s.”

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
Tasmania

– Do I understand that the Minister for Trade and Customs intends to accept this amendment ?

Mr Kingston:

– Yes. Has the right honorable member any objection ?

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:

– I object to the extraordinary way in which the Government bring down proposals, amend them immediately a suggestion is made from behind them, and still further amend them when a suggestion comes from another direction. I should like to see the Government hold to their policy sometimes.

Amendment of the amendment agreed to.

New item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 88. - Glass, n.e.i. ; also seltzogenes and accessories and syphon bottles, 15 per cent, ad valorem. “

Agreed to

Item 89. - Glassware, n.e.i.. Sd. per cubic foot and 15 per cent, aci valorem.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

– I move-

That the following words be added: - “and on and after 21st February, 1902, 20 per cent.”

Sir George Turner:

– That is, imported bottles?

Mr HUGHES:

– Yes. The letter continues -

Even if the decision was as Mr. Kingston declared it to be, we have no hesitation in saying, from our individual experience of the way in which the Tariff is being administered, that we would be met with an objection by the customs officials to prove that the bottles sought to be landed from any ship, having previously paid duty, were the identical bottles.

Sir George Turner:

– They say they have no hesitation in making that assertion, but has that been their experience 1

Mr HUGHES:

– I wired yesterday to

Schweppes, Limited - whose letter I am quoting - to ascertain whether this condition of things still existed. I have received a reply setting forth that the same harassing conditions are to be met with. They say that the practice does not affect them very much because they are not doing business with the other States to any great extent, nor do they propose to do so until this matter has been placed on a proper footing. The letter continues -

The impossibility to prove this may be seen at si glance, when we say that oar London works turn out an average of 2,000,000 of bottles per week. How would it be possible, except at an enormous amount of expense, to follow through the processes of manufacture a small percentage of these bottles ?

As far as the P. and O. and Orient Mail complines are concerned, we have, as previously stated, cabled to our London office to supply these boats for the voyage out and the voyage home -

That is to say, the vessels are supplied not from Australia but from London, so that the bottles are not put ashore here -

In” view of the passenger season approaching for His Majesty’s coronation, we anticipate the orders will be greater during that period than ever before, and if we arc in a position to get the empties to refill without paying duty, it may be in opportunity for our Sydney branch to resume the trade ; but we certainly would not feel justified in advising our London house to alter existing arrangements, until we see “returned empties” without cumbersome qualifications placed on the free list in the Tariff.

Dr. Wollaston in reply to the aforesaid letter, states, “ Empties can be landed for refilling under guarantee by arrangement with the agents of the vessels and the Customs.” That is precisely, as it is now -

This is somewhat extraordinary, but Dr. Wollaston carefully avoids to reply to our proposition.

– They have done what Dr. Wollaston has told them to do, but nevertheless they have been charged duty. Dr. Wollaston’s decision is clear enough, but Schweppes, Limited, point out that -

The Customs officials in Sydney stated that Dr. Wollaston’s decision “returned empties dutiable under the Tariff” included bottles and cases manufactured in New South Wales, and we have actually paid duty on cases manufactured in this State.

With respect to empties returned for refilling, Dr. Wollaston said -

If 3’ou obtain a certificate as to payment of duty on bottles not the manufacture of Australia, you will probably find no difficulty in their subsequent transfer.

Dr. Wollaston does not answer the question put to him by this company with the offhandedness and cocksuredness of my right honorable friend the Minister for Trade and Customs. As a matter of fact, they experience considerable difficulty in regard to returned empties on which duty has been paid. The Cooma Spa Co.- Limited, which bottles natural mineral water in New South Wales and exports it largely to Tasmania, has had its business thrown into the utmost confusion. It is useless for Ministers to say that it is not so. I have before me an invoice showing what would be the dutv payable under the present Tariff on one case of 8-oz. bottles. The invoice is as follows : -

That shows a duty of 3s. lOd. on a value of 12s., which is equal to 33 per cent. Such a duty precludes the company from carrying on their business. Assuming that they have paid the duty on the bottles, the point is that when they send these bottles to Tasmania there ought to be no difficulty in getting them back to be re -filled. I do not say that the difficulty experienced by these people is the fault of the Minister ; the difficulty is to identify the bottles, and the Customs authorities take care to be on the right side by charging duty on them every time. It is useless for Ministers to say that these difficulties do not occur. They do not occur here ; but I could hardly conceive that two or three reputable firms would fall victims such an astounding epidemic of mendacity, and say that these things occurred when they did not.

Amendment (by Mr. Hughes) proposed -

That the words “and on and after 21st February, 1902, 15 per cent.” be added.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
Tasmania

– I can indorse what has fallen from the honorable member for North Sydney. Even in Tasmania the trade has been affected by this arrangement, and complaints against it have been loud and numerous.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– There must be a misunderstanding somewhere. Our object is to do whatever we possibly can. to facilitate Inter-State trade.

Mr Thomson:

– Why not treat returned empties like jewellery sent for repair?

Mr KINGSTON:

– I think we have. In the first instance there was some trouble about duty being collected on these casks and cases.

Sir Edward Braddon:

– The department charges duty on bottles sent from one State to another.

Mr KINGSTON:

– We have altered all that by decision No. 172 -

Cases, bottles, corks, straws, &c., used in packing to be admitted free in all States except Western Australia.

I would like to point out that it is very necessary, in order to prevent the accumulation of large surplus stocks in any one State, to offer 29 g facilities for the interchange of bottles. Take, for instance, lager bottles which accumulate here, and for which we have comparatively no use. We can exchange with Melbourne for others in general use here.

In some of the States certain kinds of bottles are of more use than in others, and an association has been formed in order to facilitate interchanges between the States. The writer of this letter mentions that since the Commonwealth duty was imposed upon bottles interchanged between the States large stocks have accumulated. He says -

I might mention that the Bottle Society have accumulated 12,000 dozen lager bottles lately with no chance now of getting rid of them.

– The duty is in the same proportion on the higher as on the lower classes of ware.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– That may be a very good argument ; but 20 per cent, on a £l’s worth of glassware to a man who has an income of £1,000 a year, is not so much as 20 per cent, on 2s. worth to a man with £1 00 a year. As regards revenue duties, we desire to proportionately fit the burden to the shoulders best able to bear it, and this item certainly wants a little consideration, and separating into the different lines. The Minister might accept the duty of 15 per cent, on glassware, except cut glass. A duty of 20 per cent, on cut glassware would give a large revenue, and 15 per cent, on the commoner sort is a fair proposal.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– The honorable member for South Australia, Mr. “V. L. Solomon, exposes the weakness of the item when he refers to the necessity of so recasting and subdividing it that we may arrive at what is a fair revenue duty on some of the lines, and provide a lower duty on those which are used in other manufactures. Personally I think that the more expensive glassware, such as cut glass, which costs a considerable sum of money, and is purchased and used only by the wealthy, is a legitimate subject for a revenue impost, and might be taxed even more highly than is suggested by the Government. But when we come to other lines, I think that “ n.e.i.” is too comprehensive, and may do a great deal of harm where no harm is intended. AVe were promised in the Maitland manifesto that the Federal Tariff should be a scientific. Tariff; but in very many of the items I have been forced to consider, I see an utter absence of anything’ like scientific consideration. In no item is the absence of scientific consideration more pronounced than in that under discussion. What is ihe science 1 Is it the science of political economy? If so, where is the adhesion to the precepts of the political economist in taxing glassware, which is used by the manufacturers for their exports 1 Where is the adhesion to the principles of political economy in taxing so highly glassware, which is used in those industries on which we are dependent, and on which we shall be more and more dependent for our exports ? A similar question might be asked in connexion with such exports as jams, pickles, sauces, and other manufactures which have to be exported in glass. Many people objecting to take these goods in tins, glass must be used ; and unless we have facilities for getting this glassware at the cheapest possible price, we are very much handicapped in competing in the markets of the world. In no case is that necessity more pronounced than in the wine trade, about which, however, I have to admit that I know little or nothing, beyond, perhaps, being able to form an opinion of the wine I drink. But ‘ the trade is so important to Australia, that anything we do now which may have the effect of handicapping it, is a detriment to the best interests of the Commonwealth. Outside the glassware I have mentioned, there is such an infinite variety of goods included under this one item, that the Government fail utterly to fulfil the promise that this would be a scientific Tariff. Under this item we tax cut-glass at the same rate ad valorem as we tax the common tumbler or sugar-bowl of the poor. Tn this respect the proposal follows no scientific principle whatever. The Government are Working in a wrong direction:- It would have been better to split the item into several portions, and thus obtain probably a larger amount of duty than will be obtained under the method proposed. I have no objection whatever to making the taxation of glassware, so far as concerns articles of luxury, as high as is now proposed, or even higher ; but I object to articles which are of common necessity in an ordinary decent home, being taxed at the same rate as the more artistic luxuries of the rich. Again I object to the taxation of articles required in manufactures at the same rate as things that are more or less luxuries. It is only necessary to remind honorable members of such articles as the celebrated glass jars which we had in the Melbourne exhibition, and which were objects of great beauty. They would come in at the same rate as the commonest earthenware. Surely it is wrong to tax goods which are used in the humble homes of the poor at the same rate as we tax expensive Florentine glass vases. Apart from that consideration, however, we are departing from another principle so soon as we tax the common glass bottles, required for the export of our wines, jams, and pickles at the same rate as we tax articles from which we desire to get revenue. The aim of honorable members opposite has been to foster manufactures, and we cannot have such manufactories as will be able to compete in the markets of the world unless we allow them to obtain the articles they require at the cheapest rate for which they can buy them. I have been surprised on many occasions, in my own business experience, to see the enormous charges upon packages of glass jars imported by my own firm - charges for freight, packing, insurance, and so on. If we are going to add to these expenses an abnormal charge in the way of -duty, it will have a hampering effect upon our industries, which are making an endeavour to compete with the wide world. I do not care if the articles of glassware which we all admire in our own homes as objects of art, are taxed even higher than is now pro- posed, but we are completely wandering from the text of the Maitland speech if we impose heavy duties upon the ordinary glassware used in manufactures. There is no scientific principle underlying the proposal, nor is there any principle underlying the fact here exposed that the common glassware of the poor is taxed at the same rate as those articles of luxury and adornment which are used by the rich.

Mr. HUGHES (West Sydney). - Some statements have been put into my hands with reference to the actual charges on various lines included under this item. One of these concerns the cost of importing one dozen syphons. The net home cost is 16s. Freight is ls. 5d., commission, bank exchange, and insurance at 7£ per cent, amount to ls. 4d., wharfage and cartage amount to 4d., and duty on a 15 per cent, basis to 2s. 8d. So that the expenses, including freight, on this consignment, would be 36 per cent, on home cost. Another statement shows the cost of importing one gross of Codd’s large bottles. The home cost is £1, less 2£ per cent, discount 6d., leaving the net home cost 19s. 6d. Freight amounts to 3s. 7d., commission, bank exchange, and insurance at 7£ per cent., together with wharfage and cartage bring the expenses up to 6s. The duty at 20 per cent, is 4s. 4d - total, £1 9s. 10d., being 53 per cent, on home cost. Honorable members must see that this is an excessive charge. T have here another statement, in which the expense is 59 per cent, of the home cost. Another shows the expense of importation of one gross of egg-shaped bottles. In each case 25 per cent, is taken off for cash. The home cost is 13s. 6d., and the total charges bring the cost up to £1 2s. Id., being 6S per cent, on the home cost. Another statement shows the facts with regard to the importation of one gross of Lamont’. small bottles. The cost amounts to 46 per cent, on the home cost. Another shows that the expenses in connexion with the importation of one gross of Codd’s small bottles, amount to 50 per cent, on the home cost. In the case of one gross of Lamont’s large bottles, the expenses are also 50 per cent, on home cost. Another line concerns ginger beer bottles. The expenses here are no less than 113 per cent, on the home cost. In view of these facts, surely 15 per cent, clear protection is ample. In almost every one of the cases I have mentioned, there is a clear cover of 50 per cent, on the basis of a 20 per cent. duty. With a duty of 15 per cent., there would be a clear cover of 36 per cent., made up largely of bank charges, wharfage, and so on. It has to be remembered that the importations of glass bottles are becoming smaller and smaller every year, even in New South Wales, without a protective Tariff, because the freight and expenses are nearly prohibitive. In the case of ginger beer bottles, they amount, as I have shown, to 113 per cent. I ask the Government to meet us in this matter. I am not asking for the articles to be placed on the free list. Fifteen per cent, is a fair duty, and I believe we can make more revenue out of it than by putting on a -high duty. I trust the Government will see their way to agree to the compromise suggested.

Question - That the words “ and on and after 21st February, 1902, 15 per cent.” proposed to be addedbe so added - put.

The committee divided -

Ayes………. 19

Noes……… 23

Majority … … … 4

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Sir George Turner) agreed to -

That the words, “and on and after 21st February, 1902, 20 per cent.” be added.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– In the circumstances it is a fair compromise, and I am willing to accept it without further discussion. It is a wonder that in considering this Tariff the fact has been overlooked that many industries like the bookbinding, cardboard, and furniture trades, which we have been endeavouring to assist, would be penalized by a duty of 60 per cent. on an article such as glue, which is used so largely by them. It seems to me that we are approaching nearer and nearer the scientific Tariff promised at Maitland when we come to test these matters, and if the Treasurer will make the duty on this item 20 per cent., I shall accept it as a fair compromise.

Mr. MAUGER (Melbourne Ports).Honorable members of the Opposition are exceedingly magnanimous. They are going to accept what they term a compromise, but what I call an absolute sacrifice of the Government proposal. In regard to the contention that glue is the raw material of many industries, I may mention that I have received quite a number of letters from manufacturers advising me of the duty which they have to pay on the raw material used by them, but quite overlooking the fact that a very great deal of the raw material they specify can be and is being manufactured in the Commonwealth, and supplied at prices considerably less than that quoted by them.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– That is not the case so far as glue is concerned.

Mr MAUGER:

– It is. I have a glue factory as well as a box-making factory in my electorate.

Mr Thomas:

– How many people do they employ?

Mr MAUGER:

– Glue-making constitutes only one section of a very large works - one of the largest in Australia - in my electorate. The article made there is the best in the world, and I have no doubt that its very quality willcarry it through, even under a duty of only 20 per cent.

Mr. HENRY WILLIS (Robertson).As stated by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, Australian glue is of very fine quality. Twenty years ago an Adelaide firm made some of the best glue that could be manufactured. I speak from my own personal knowledge. The firm was able to make it in large quantities, and to carry on the industry in those days without any duty whatever. Let me say further, that the very cheap glue, to which reference has been made, is manufactured in every well arranged tannery throughout the Commonwealth. There , is no art in making it. Offal, which would otherwise be buried or destroyed by fire, is boiled down, andin that way a raw glue is produced. At Messrs. Shaws’ works, on the Torrens, the glue is purified, and is equal to the imported article. I am confident that this industry requires no protection whatever. I know something about the industry, because it was under my observation for many years, and I can say confidently that it did not employ many men. A first-class article as well as a crude one is manufactured in Australia, and no protection is necessary. If the Government would like to put up a record by imposing a 5 or 10 per cent. duty, I might consent to the adoption of such a proposal. I certainly think that it is a very wrong thing to impose a duty of 20 per cent. on an article which can be made by boiling down offal - obtainable from any abattoirs or tannery - in any three-legged pot. The offal is simply given away. I hope the Government will not impose a duty of 20 per cent. on this item.

Mr HARPER:
Mernda

– Honorable members have spoken chiefly of glue, but gelatine is also included in the item. I would suggest that if the Government intend to accept a duty of 20 per cent. on glue they ought to leave the duty on gelatine as it is. It is a different article, which is used in confectionery, brewing, and other industries. It would be better to leave the duty at 2d. per lb. We have taxed oilmen’s stores, which embrace a good many productions made from gelatine, and if we impose a duty of 20 per cent. on gelatine we shall tax the raw material at the same rate as the manufactured article. Gelatine is chiefly derived from calves. It is a highly-refined gelatinous matter, which costs a very high price.

Mr.Watson. - Twopence per lb. is a lot more than 20 per cent. ad valorem.

Mr HARPER:

– It depends on the price. As a great deal of gelatine is worth from £6 to £7 per cwt., the honorable member can see that a duty of 2d. per lb. is less than a duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem.

Sir George Turner:

– The average cost is given to us at about 6d. per lb.

Mr HARPER:

– That is a mistake.

Mr. SYDNEY SMITH (Macquarie).When I recall the very animated discussion which took place on the question of whether three-legged glue-pots should be placed on the free list, I cannot understand the inconsistency of honorable members opposite in not allowing glue to come in free. What is the good of having the three-legged glue-pots unless the raw material for them is allowed to come in free? I claim the vote of my honorable friends opposite on this question. I remember the honorable member for Echuca and the honorable member for Wimmera rushing to put three-legged gluepots on the free list, and I am sorry that they did not succeed. It would be better to have a duty of 10 per cent. ad valorem on the glue as well as the glue-pots. I find that the price of home-made glue is about £46 a ton, and that imported glue of the same quality is worth £35 a ton without the duty. The Victorian manufacturers have raised the cost of the home-made article by £1 1 a ton on account of this protection. The users have to pay £11 more than they did, and of course the manufacturers pocket the difference. As we can make glue against all competitors, we do not need any protective duty. A duty of 2d. per lb. would amount to £19 a ton, or nearly 50 per cent. on the value of the article. Although I do not think there is any necessity to impose a duty, still, under the circumstances, it seems to me that the compromise proposed by my honorable friend must be accepted.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

– Glue is the article to which attention has been mostly directed.By omitting “glue not liquid and “ from the item it will fall into the 20 per cent. list, and we can discuss then whether that is a fair rate to impose. The duty of 2d. a lb. on gelatine sheet I understand is less than 20 per cent. ad valorem. It will be better to leave the duty at 2d. per lb., as the article is used here in the manufacture of many things.

Mr Watson:

– It is a high-priced article.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– Some of it is high-priced, but it runs down to a fair by low amount. I think that a duty of 2d. would be a fair rate on that. I move -

That the words “Glue not liquid and,” be omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 91 - Glue, gelatine, and cements, n.e.i., including mucilage and printer’s roller composition, ad valorem 20 per cent.

Amendment (by Sir George Turner) proposed -

– The application comes from Sydney.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 92 - Stone, including marble and slate, viz. : -

Monumental, wrought, per cubic foot,5s. and 15 per cent, ad valorem.

Wrought, n.e.i., ad valorem, 20 per cent.

Roofing slates and unwrought slate slabs, ad valorem, 15 per cent.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– I said sometime ago that we would omit the 15 per cent. ad valorem duty on monumental stone. For some time past the duty has been collected at the rate of 5s. per cubic foot, and unless an honorable member desires to move a prior amendment, I shall move an amendment to maintain that rate.

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

– I wish to make a suggestion which comes from the monumental workers and the importers. Several petitions have been sent in I think to the Minister for Trade and Customs, and several circulars to honorable members in reference to these duties. The chief objection taken of course was to the composite duty, which is now abolished. It is pointed out in the circulars and the petitions, that the cubic measurement rate ought to be abolished, and a duty of 20 per cent. such as is imposed on the next item or its equivalent, which is 35s. a ton levied. There is a very extensively signed petition sent in from all parts of the Commonwealth, in which the signatories say -

The imposition of a specific duty of 5s. per cubic foot, acts very unfairly on the different classes of goods imported, as it increases the cost of cheap goods with little work on them to their detriment, asagainst more expensive lines.

Sir George Turner:

– The tonnage measurement will apply equally to that.

Mr GLYNN:

– They say not.

Mr Watson:

– It is dearer on the carved work, because the outside measurement is taken.

Mr GLYNN:

– I have five or six petitions from different parts of the States in which the signatories favour the substitution of a tonnage rate or an ad valorem rate. They say-

It is a very annoying tax to importers, as it necessitates opening the cases on the wharf when discharged, thereby often ruining both packing and contents.

In another petition the signatories say -

We estimate from practical knowledge that the extra expense of unpacking and re-packing these heavy cases of goods will entail another tax of from 5 to per cent., also requiring much labour and extra trouble to both the owner and customs officers, and furthermore doing much damage to the goods.

IfI propose a 20 per cent. ad valorem duty, it may get over the objection that the honorable member for Bland indicated. I have a petition from the Adelaide manufacturers and importers of marble, who concur in the statements which are made in the various petitions sent in from all parts of the Commonwealth. I move -

That the words - “And on and after 21st February, 1902, 20 per cent.” be added to the duty - “ Stone . . monumental, wrought, per cubic foot, 5s. and . 1.5 per cent, ad vol. “

Mr. HENRY WILLIS (Robertson).An objection has reached me from New South Wales, to this proposal to charge on the cubic measurement. A business man in the country writes to this effect : -

We would pay as much for a plain cross valued at 50s., as for a figure at £20.

He mentions a cross, because they have to use blocks in the packing of it. The case made out by the honorable and learned member for South Australia, should commend itself to Ministers, for the very reason which is stated by my constituent - that the duty would be as heavy on the cheapest kind of stone as on the most superior marble figures. I hope, therefore, that the committee will adopt the ad valorem rather than the fixed duty.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– I would urge the Government to give some consideration to the representations of the honorable member for South Australia. I think that 20 per cent. would be a fair duty, even regarded from the revenue standpoint. It is admitted that in a certain sense marble headstones are a luxury, and if people desire to erect them they should be prepared to pay a fair duty. I am assured by a number of men engaged in the trade that if this composite duty is kept on, the revenue will suffer materially, because importations of headstones will be very much reduced. There seems to be no objection to a 20 per cent. duty on the part either of importers or monumental masons. One of the objections to the present duty is that it involves the opening up of the cases in which the goods are imported by the

Customs officers here, and frequently leads to the breakage of delicate carving on the stones. From that point of view alone it seems to be preferable to impose an ad valorem duty, which may be calculated upon the invoices in most instances.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– The honorable member for Robertson generally pins his faith to the report of the Victorian Tariff Board, and I am sorry that he has not quoted it on this occasion. That board recommended that a duty of 7s. 6d. per cubic foot should be imposed upon monuments. It was found that under ad valorem duties frauds were committed right and left. The officers of the department assure me that the fixed duty has worked very well, and that is the reason why we have adopted it. I have not yet heard any arguments strong enough to induce me to change my views. I can understand that the importers would prefer an ad valorem duty, but our experience is distinctly against acceding to their wishes.

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

– I do not wish to discuss the merits of the Government proposal, but I desire to direct attention to some of the curious things which happen under the Tariff. In Australia during the last year or two we have had an outburst of enthusiasm and patriotism, which has resulted in our sending numbers of our young men away to assist the Empire in South Africa. My constituents thought that it would be a good thing to celebrate the return of the soldiers hailing from the southern end of the Illawarra district, by erecting a monument in one of the principal towns on the south coast of New South Wales. They ordered one of the very best Carrara marble monuments from Italy, and although it was purchased before the Tariffwas introduced, they had to pay duty amounting to £l0 upon its being landed in Sydney. I have appealed in vain to the Minister for Trade and Customs to remit the duty. The right honorable gentleman referred me to the Treasurer of the State of New South Wales, but I have been unable to obtain any satisfaction. I now appeal tothe Minister, who I know is actuated by the same feelings of patriotism as I am, to refund the duty.

Mr O’MALLEY:
Tasmania

– It seems to me that the patriotism which induced the people of Australia to send troops to South Africa should also impel them to put their hands into their pockets and pay for any monuments they may desire to erect. Some people, apparently, expect to get everything “on thenod,” and their patriotism depends altogether upon the glory that can be derived at the expense of others. If we believe in the Empire, and in the glory of fighting for it, we ought to be willing to pay for any head-stones and monuments that may be erected to the memory of those who have shed their blood upon the battle - fields of South Africa. The Americans who erected monuments to the memory of their glorious dead, did not attempt to evade the payment of duty, but put their hands deep down into their pockets to pay for them. I hope the Minister for Trade and Customs will decline to refund the duty referred to by the honorable member for Illawarra. I should vote against any such proposal on principle, because I am opposed to war and all connected with it.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– With regard to the matter mentioned by the honorable member for Illawarra,I can assure him that he will have our best wishes for the success of his final efforts to secure a refund. I would point out that we have to collect the customs duties, and, after making certain deductions, to hand them over to the various States. We have no right to decline to collect any duties, except under the terms of the Tariff, and every penny has to be accounted for to New South Wales and the other States.

Mr Fuller:

– Will the Minister send a note to the Treasurer of New South Wales informing him that the £10 duty is included in the sums remitted to him? That is where the difficulty seems to arise.

Mr KINGSTON:

– There should be no difficulty in that respect, because we account week by week for everything we receive. The money referred to by the honorable member is now in the hands of the New South Wales Government and we cannot refund it. The Federal Government would lay themselves open to grave reproach if they were to flaunt their patriotism by giving away something that did not belong to them.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

Mr TUDOR:

– The honorable and learned member said that a monument was imported from Italy, and I am thoroughly satisfied that it would not have been imported if a better monument could be manufactured in New South Wales. I trust that the

Government will adhere to their original proposal.

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

– I quite agree with those who have expressed regret that the Government have abandoned their proposed ad valorem duty. I fail to see how we can equitably tax monuments by measurement. For example, a work of art worth £200 or £300 might be imported, and yet its measurement might not exceed one cubic foot, upon which the duty would be 5s. The present proposal is a most inequitable one. Some honorable members have spoken of Carrara marble, and in this connexion I would remind the honorable member for Yarra that in New South Wales the best of marble can be obtained. We all know that people who desire to show that respect for the dead which our religion and traditions teach us should be exhibited, very often expend money which might be more wisely retained by themselves, in erecting tombstones over the graves of their relatives. However, we do these things. I still think that a duty of 15 per cent, should be imposed upon monumental stone, in preference to a tax of 5s. per cubic foot. This is an attempt to differentiate between the rich and the poor. It seems to me that in future the poor man will have to content himself with either a sandstone monument or a block of wood, whilst the rich man will be able to luxuriously await the ressurrection morn under Carrara marble. I am sorry that the Government do not see their way clear to substitute an ad valorem duty for the proposed fixed duty.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– I have given the reason why the Government have adopted the present proposal. The honorable member for Robertson has called attention to the fact that the Tariff Revision Committee of Victoria themselves saw that some difficulty might arise, and suggested that as an alternative to a duty by measurement a duty of 35 per cent, should be imposed. I think that we should make the duty 25 per cent., and proceed to the discussion of other items.

Mr. THOMSON (North Sydney).- To my mind there is no ground whatever for accepting such a high duty as the Treasurer suggests. The extraordinary confusion of ideas presented by the honorable member for Yarra is rather surprising. He desires to make it appear that honorable members upon this side of the chamber object to the taxation of luxuries. If we accept his definition that tombstones are luxuries, they are at least luxuries that we will do without as long as we can. But I would point out that it is the Opposition members who desire to tax luxuries. The Government wish to impose a duty of only 5s. per cubic foot upon tombstones. Now there cannot be much work in a cubic foot of stone if it does not cost more than 25s., and 5s. duty would be equivalent to 20 per cent. on 25s. There is, however, a good deal of work executed in connexion with small tombstones, and this work frequently costs scores and hundreds of pounds. Under the Government proposal these tombstones would not pay one penny more than 5s. per cubic foot. It is nonsense to urge that by accepting the amendment of the honorable and learned member for South Australia, Mr. Glynn, we should reduce the revenue to be derived from this source. I believe that we should receive more under that proposal than will be received under the proposition of the Government, because the commoner sort of work, which would not cost more than 25s. per cubic foot, will not be imported to any great extent. The importations, if there are any, will be importations of the more expensive work. I wish also to point out that the duty upon wrought stone is put down at 20 per cent., whilst upon monumental stone a different rate is charged. Why should there be a difference? Why should people be compelled to pay a different price for adorning the house of the living than is paid for adorning the house of the dead ? I hope that the Government will accept a duty of 20 per cent.

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

– Some of my constituents object to this composite duty. One of them writes as follows : -

A first-class marble maker in Italy will get from1s.6d. to 2s. per day, whilst here the wages range from 9s. to 10s.

He suggests that the duty should be 25 per cent., and I ask the honorable and learned member for South Australia (Mr. Glynn) to accept that rate. Another constituent writes -

Monuments being luxuries should pay at least a reasonable amount of Commonwealth expense. I do not think there is 40 colonial-made monuments in the metropolis out of 400 in the yards.

– Seeing that the duty in Victoria was 7s. 6d. per cubic foot, the least we can do is to take an average of all the States, and fix the duty at 25 per cent.

Mr REID:

– There are a large number of valuable quarries at Pyrmont. I do not feel at all anxious in regard to this item, because I believe that only a very limited number of people import these monumental stones. The great mass of the people have the poor monuments they can afford carved in Australia; but I suppose that the monumental stones are imported in the rough, and have the names added afterwards. In that sense, this is an item which affects all classes, and, therefore, an ad valorem duty seems to be the fairer. Why do the Government not accept the proposal of the honorable member for South Australia, whose arguments have convinced them? That honorable and learned member has enabled the Government to arrive at the proper basis for the duty, and the least they can do is to accept his amendment. It is owing entirely to the arguments which he and others adduced that the Government have abandoned the cubic-foot basis, and adopted an ad valorem duty, which will be clearly a revenue duty.

Question - That the words “ and on and after 21st February, 1902, 20 per cent.,” proposed to be added to the duty - “ Stone . . monumental, wrought, per cubic foot 5s., and 15 per cent. ad valorem,” be so added - put. The committee divided -

Ayes ……… 20

Noes……… 24

Majority …. … 4

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (Sir George Turner) put: -

That the words “and on and after 21st February, 1902, 25 per cent.” be added to the duty - “ Stone . . . monumental, wrought, per cubic foot 5s., and 15 per cent. ad valorem.”

The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 25

Noes…………. 20

Majority……… 5

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

–If the item “ wrought, n.e.i.” is to be agreed to by the committee, it certainly should include a number of articles which are now upon the free list. I have previously made a suggestion to that effect, and I understood that the Government required certain information.

Sir George Turner:

– We will strike out the exemptions when we reach them.

Mr HUGHES:

– Whatever happens with reference to “ n.e.i.” I am quite prepared that articles like millstones and grindstones, that can be made in New South Wales, shall be treated with other wrought materials.

Mr REID:
East Sydney

– One thing that is troubling me is that I notice a printer’s dagger against the word “wrought,” corresponding with a memorandum at the foot of the page. Will the same principle of measurement be applied to wrought stone, n.e.i., as that which is indicated in reference to monumental stone ?

Sir George Turner:

– There will be no measurement at all ; the two notes at the foot of the page will be struck out.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– I cannot understand why the Government have not proposed a small duty on unwrought marble. A very large quantity comes into the Commonwealth, and we have in New South Wales deposits of marble sufficiently extensive to supply the demands of the civilized world for a hundred years to come. It is a peculiar thing that an effort should not be made to develop these quarries, now that we are putting on duties ostensibly for that purpose.

Mr CLARKE:
Cowper

– I also ask the Government to accept a duty on unwrought marble of, say, 10 per cent. Almost every day new quarries are opened up in New SouthWales. The marble is of very good quality for mantels and tables, and probably later on marble will be found that will be fit for monuments. At any rate, there are quantities of marble of a useful character which can be employed. I move -

That after the words “wrought n.e.i., ad valorem 20 per cent.,” the following words be inserted - “Unwrought marble, ad valorem 10 per cent. “

Mr. REID (East Sydney).- I am astonished at the moderation of the honorable member for Cowper. Why only a 10 per cent. duty for one of the great national resources of the country ? May I tell the honorable member that an enormous deposit of marble has been discovered in Japan? That ought to goad him on to propose an increased duty.

Mr. HUGHES (West Sydney).- I do not wish to goad on the honorable member to propose a higher duty, but I suggest that he should amend his amendment so as to include all stone.

Mr Reid:

– Hear, hear. There is sandstone at Pyrmont.

Mr HUGHES:

– Yes. They certainly turn out some of the best stone in the world in New South Wales, and since it is proposed to place a duty on marble, I fail to see why my honorable friend should not include stone generally in his amendment. There is any amount of genuine, excellent stone in the Commonwealth, and there is no reason to go outside for supplies. Stone can be brought here, and is brought here, as ballast ; and therefore, if the honorable member is going to deal with the matter thoroughly, he should amend his amendment in the way I have suggested.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– I would call the attenion of the honorable member to the fact that the large descriptive words, “Stone, including marble and slate,” are placed at the head of the item, and if he wishes to deal generally with stone which we have not provided for, the addition of the words, “ unwrought, n.e.i.,” will accomplish all that he desires.

Mr Watson:

– I suggest to the honorable member for Cowper that he should amend his amendment by providing for a 10 per cent. duty on stone unwrought, n.e.i.

Mr. REID (East Sydney).- Does the honorable member for Cowper seriously intend to select marble for the imposition of a duty without imposing a similar duty upon other stone?

Mr Barton:

– The right honorable member can move a further amendment.

Mr REID:

– I will not have anything to do with this Tariff except in the way of trying to make it less monstrous than it is. I am not going to put my work into it. I shall have enough to do to put it right hereafter.

Mr. HENRY WILLIS (Robertson).Would the amendment include ballast that might be brought by ships to Australian ports ?

Sir George Turner:

– Ballast would be liable if it were landed.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– Marble which has no commercial value might be brought here as ballast, and yet a duty would have to be paid upon it if it were landed. I think that we are reducing this proposal to an absurdity.

Mr. HUGHES (West Sydney). - I understood that the Government were going to add to the item the words, “unwrought, n.e.i.,” so as to cover all stone.

Sir George Turner:

– We suggested that such an amendment would cover everything if the committee desired to do so.

Mr HUGHES:

– What I desire to do is to place the common or ordinary variety of stone on the same footing as aristocratic marble.

The CH AIRMAN. - The honorable member can move to amend the amendment.

Mr HUGHES:

– I suggest to the honorable member for Cowper that he should amend his amendment so as to cover stone generally, otherwise I shall be obliged to do so myself.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– In my district the best marble to be found in Australia, if not in the world, is produced. As an illustration of how perfect it is, I would remind the committee that, when I was a Minister of the Crown in New South Wales, a piece of marble shaped like a man was found in my electorate, and a medical man made an affidavit that it was a petrified man. The marble workers, however, do not want any protection for their products. They are not bolstered up by protective duties ; they are able to take care of themselves. No one has heard of the producers of marble in New South Wales coming down here and representing to honorable members the desirability of imposing a heavy duty on imported marble. They never make any claim for the assistance of their industry.

Mr. HUGHES (West Sydney).- I would again appeal to the honorable member for Cowper to apply his proposal to stone generally. I shall certainly vote against the imposition of a duty on marble only, which, as the honorable member for Macquarie has said, does not require any protection so far as his district is concerned. I am sure that my own electorate is just as well able to get on without protection, but if the honorable member for Cowper sees his way clear to cover stone generally by his amendment, I will sacrifice my principles so far as to vote for it. If not, I shall vote against the duty on marble.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Special exemptions - Earthen wave, viz. : - Spurs, Stilts, and Thimbles. Glass, viz. : - Lenses, unmounted, Locket, Brooch, and Watch Glasses. Bottles, empty, of not more than six fluid drams capacity. Scientific Instruments and Apparatus, viz. : - Instruments for measuring the density of liquids. Scientific Apparatus (glass) vis.: - Beakers, Flasks, Test Tubes, Vacuum Tubes, Burettes, Pipettes, Weighing Bottles and Tubes, Eudiometers, Nitrometers Radiometers, Fat Extraction Tubes, Filter Pumps, Gas Washing, Reduction and Absorption Bulbs and Tubes, Test Measures in centimetres and grains ; also Carbonic Acid, Sulphuretted Hydrogen, Decomposing Water, and Bacteriological Apparatus of Glass. Dry Gums, Shellac, Dextrine, Sandarach, and Mastic. Bath Bricks, Oil and Whet Stones, Grindstones, and Millstones. Pestles and MortarsAgate. Stone, viz. : - Sawn or in the rough, n.e.i.

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

– I have been informed that unmounted lenses are not brought into Australia ; that the mounting costs only, about 2s. 6d. each, and that it is essential that the lenses should be mounted before they are sent out. A lens is valued at from £5 to £10. Some photographers called upon me in Adelaide, and pointed out that the trade would be considerably inconvenienced if mounted lenses as well as unmounted - lenses were not exempted. I move -

That the word “unmounted,” line 3, be omitted.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

– If the amendment were carried, it would give rise to a difficulty in administering the Tariff, because many of the mounted lenses form part of instruments which are dutiable. I am told by an officer of Customs that my honorable and learned friend’s desire will be carried out if he amends his amendment so as to provide for the omission of the word “unmounted,” and the insertion of the letters “ n.e.i.” in its stead. Then all lenses, which are not part of instruments declared to be dutiable, will be free.

Mr Glynn:

– Very well, I will adopt that suggestion.

Amendment amended accordingly, and agreed to.

Mr. REID (East Sydney). - I cannot understand why locket, brooch, and watchglasses should be on the free list, because they relate to articles which are subject to a high rate of duty. If I mistake .not, there is a duty of 20 per cent, on watches. There are a great many big industries which are not protected by such a heavy duty, but their raw material is taxed.

Sir George Turner:

– These glasses are not used largely. We are trying to omit everything that is used so far as we can.

Mr REID:

– Is it to be clearly understood that once bottles have paid duty on importation, Australian manufacturers can send them out with aerated waters to other ports and get them back empty without paying duty again 1

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– If bottles have been imported and have paid duty once, they should be able to go and come absolutely free. That is the intention of the Government, and that, I understand, was the instruction sent out to all the officers, and, so far as we know, it is being carried out. My honorable colleague will make special inquiries in regard to the matter. Perhaps in the first few weeks of administering the Tariff some mistakes may have been made, and if there are any cases of that kind we shall take care that special consideration is given to them.

– The proposal is that bottles empty if not more than 6 fluid drams capacity shall be exempt from duty, but I am advised that the exemption should not extend beyond bottles of 5 fluid drams capacity. What are known as one ounce bottles usually contain from 6½ to 8 fluid drams, and if we admit only bottles up to 6 fluid drams capacity the tendency will be to import bottles of less capacity in order to save the duty. The importers of goods for which bottles are required would use larger bottles, because they would not have to pay any duty upon them, and as a consequence the local manufacturers,who would have to use smaller bottles, would be placed at a disadvantage.

Sir George Turner:

– The glass companies told us that they did not make bottles of a capacity of less than 8 drachms, and we adopted 6 drachms, as we thought that would allow a sufficient margin.

Mr HARPER:

– If the exemption were restricted to bottles of not more than 5 drachms capacity, it would meet the case.

The question raised by the honorable member for Bland with reference to bottles imported full, is a very important one. I understand that in cases where an ad valorem duty is charged upon goods packed in bottles, the bottles will be included in the invoice, and will thus be subject to duty. On the other hand, where goods are subject to a fixed duty, no charge will be made for the bottles. It will be found therefore that goods subject to a fixed duty will be imported in large bottles which would not be exempt from duty if they came in empty. The Government must face this question and settle upon some plan by which all imported bottles, whether full or empty, shall be chargeable with duty. If that is not done another complication will arise. If a large number of bottles containing oil are imported here, they will not be chargeable with duty because the oil duty alone will be levied. The bottles on being emptied may be used for packing some article for sale in another State. Then the bottles will be subject to duty, although they were originally admitted into the Commonwealth free.

Sir George Turner:

– That is within the two years.

Mr HARPER:

– Yes. The consequence will be that at every turn goods that are packed in bottles will cause difficulty if sent beyond the State in which they are packed. Let us suppose that in South Australia, where olive oil is produced, certain bottles containing oil were imported, and did not pay any duty. If these bottles were used again for packing South Australian oil, intended for sale in Melbourne, the exporter, in order to secure free admission of the bottles, would have to declare that duty had already been collected upon them. This he would not be able to do.

Sir George Turner:

– But as the honorable member puts the case, the bottles would not be dutiable.

Mr Kingston:

– We are not charging duty on bottles or cases used for packing goods sent from one State to another. That would involve too much trouble.

Mr HARPER:

– Then that means that bottles imported full, and without the payment of duty, may be sent throughout the Commonwealth without contributing to the revenue?

Mr Kingston:

– We cannot help that.

Mr HARPER:

– These difficulties are arising every day. Certain classes of bottles come in duty free because they happen to contain goods which are subject to a fixed duty, whereas if they contained goods subject to an ad valorem duty, they would be included in the duty charge. This is a matter more for conference with those acquainted with the business than for discussion in this committee at this stage, and I suggest that the Government should give it their most serious consideration. I move -

That the word “ six,” line 5, lie omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “five.”

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. REID (East Sydney). - A very strong case has been made out by the honorable member for Canobolas. He pointed out that an Australian exporter of aerated waters, who sent his goods beyond the Commonwealth in bottles of Australian make, was compelled to pay duty upon the bottles on their being returned to him. That is exacting a duty from an Australian on an Australian manufacture, and it amounts to an . outrage. I can scarcely credit that such a thing has been done. There is no equity and no law in such a proceeding, and we had better clear the matter up by providing that returned empty bottles shall not be subject to duty. That would lay down a principle, and if the Government had a case of mal-administration brought under their notice, they would be able to deal with it.

Mr KINGSTON:

– There is a provision in the Customs Act as to the return free of duty of Australian goods. Section 151 provides -

Goods, the produce of Australia, or samples of duty-paid goods sent out of Australia may, sub- ject to any prescribed conditions, be re-imported or brought back to Australia without payment of duty.

Mr KINGSTON:

– Of course it will. I move -

That the words “ and fire bricks for special use in reverberatory furnaces,” be inserted after the words “bath bricks,” line 21.

This is a description of brick which cannot be manufactured locally. I believe it is known by the name of the Dynos brick, and is able to resist extreme heat.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. Kingston) agreed to-

That the words “ also lithographic and emery stones” be inserted after the words “whet stones,” line 22.

Mr. HUGHES (West Sydney).-I move -

That the word, “grindstones,” line 22, be omitted.

I am quite certain that these stones can be manufactured in Tasmania and New South Wales.

Mr Kingston:

– We will accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. CLARKE (Cowper).- I move-

That the word “millstones,” line 23, be omitted.

These millstones are made of the same kind of stone as grindstones, and I have authority for stating that they are manufactured in New South Wales of the very finest quality.

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

– I was about to suggest that before the word “ millstones “ the words “ upper and nether “ be inserted, as typical of the position of Australians after this Tariff has been passed. Why it should be sought to take millstones from the free list I do not know, and I should like the honorable member to explain his object.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HUGHES (West Sydney). - I move -

That the words “stone, viz., sawn or in the rough, n.e.i.,” lines 24, 25, be omitted.

Mr. REID (East Sydney).- I have listened with deep attention to the remarks of the honorable and learned member for Corio, and they rather puzzle me. In connexion with industries far more artificial and far less germane to the natural resources of Australia, I have noticed that the honorable and learned member is prepared to impose enormous duties quite irrespective of the unfortunate persons who have to use the manufactures. This is another conspiracy against the great natural resources of Sydney. The honorable member for West Sydney represents one of the most populous and democratic constituencies, where there are limitless quarries of the finest sandstone. Now that bonuses are going about, the honorable member is anxious that the unfortunate quarrymen, who work under a burning sun, should have the advantage of some slight encouragement. But he finds himself confronted by a gentleman like the honorable and learned member for Corio, who is prepared to swallow the most extravagant protectionist proposal so long as it refers to some part of Victoria. However, at this late hour of the evening I do not propose to raise an international question on this item. At first sight I thought the amendment most admirable, but the honorable member for North Sydney, where there is no sandstone worth speaking of, has raised a number of serious objections.

Mr. HUGHES (West Sydney).- I am very much disheartened at the way in which all my chosen supporters have one by one left me. I had thought that the proposal would have won support, but the honorable member for North Sydney has pointed out endless difficulties which he thinks the Custom-house officers will meet. But all these difficulties can be dissipated, or are, in fact, non-existent. For instance, the officer could get a cinder-sieve, and after putting the ballast through it, might decide that all that remained should be deemed building stone. If we substitute for the words which I have moved shall be omitted the words, “road metal and ballast,” we shall have done all that we can be expected to do.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. THOMSON (South Sydney).- I observe that glass meat jars are not placed amongst the exemptions. I do not propose to move an amendment, if the Minister will make the reasonable statement that drawback will be allowed when such meat jars are used for export purposes. Already the meat extract companies have to face severe competition from other countries, and their difficulties are increased by the ordinary charges upon the import of meat jars. The competition of the Argentine is one difficulty we have to face. Unless I have an assurance that drawback will be allowed I shall have to move that these articles be exempt from duty.

Mr KINGSTON:

– If the honorable member moves such an amendment now I shall have to oppose it. Certain general rules have been laid down with respect to drawback, and I am sure that the honorable member would not expect me to make a special statement with regard to meat jars. If these articles are capable of drawback they will not fail to get it ; but as to whether they will get it or not I shall require time for consideration.

Mr Thomson:

– Will the right honorable gentleman promise that if meat jars are not subject to drawback under the regulations he will make them subject to it ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– We desire, of course, to encourage local manufactures for export purposes, and the drawback regulations will be liberally construed, but I can give no promise except that I will look into the matter ; and if I cannot meet the honorable member’s wish an opportunity will be given for the further consideration of the point.

Amendment (by Mr. Tudor) agreed to -

That the following exemption be added : - Process engravers’ screens.

Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).- I have given notice of an amendment to place printers’ roller composition upon the free list.

Sir George Turner:

– We have already made that article dutiable.

Mr GLYNN:

– I have also given notice of an amendment that certain articles connected with assaying be placed upon the free list. I move -

That the following exemptions be added : - Crucibles, scorifiers, roasting dishes, muffles, assay furnaces, cupels.

I am informed that crucibles are now admitted free under a construction of the Tariff, but that upon scoriflers and muffles duty is collected. They are the same class of goods, and are used in connexion with mines for assaying purposes as well as by private assayers.

Mr Kingston:

– The report from the officers is that there is no objection.

Amendment agreed to.

Special exemptions, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment (by Sir George Turner) agreed to -

That the following foot notes be omitted - “ Measuring outside the packages as imported. For purposes of measurement each stone shall be considered a rectangular solid corresponding in measurement to the extreme length, width, and height of the stone measured.”

Progress reported.

House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 February 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1902/19020220_reps_1_8/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives20 February 1902

PETITION

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Mr HUGHES:WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BARTON:Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr KING O’MALLEY:TASMANIA, TASMANIA · IND; ALP from June 1901

Mr BARTON:

PAPER

SUPPLY

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

NATURALIZATION. - WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr MAHON:COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

QUESTION

UNIFORM POSTAL SYSTEM

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

TARIFF

In Committee of Ways and Means : -

Mr KIRWAN:Kalgoorlie

Sir GEORGE TURNER:Treasurer · BalaclavaTreasurer · Protectionist

Mr Kirwan:

Mr Reid:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Mr REID:East Sydney

Mr E SOLOMON:FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr Mauger:

Mr KIRWAN:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr KIRWAN:

Mr Mauger:

Mr KIRWAN:

Sir George Turner:

Mr MAUGER:Melbourne Ports

Mr Kirwan:

Mr MAUGER:

Mr Kirwan:

Mr MAUGER:

Mr Kingston:

Mr MAUGER:

Sir George Turner:

Mr FULLER:ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir George Turner:

Mr FULLER:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr FULLER:

Mr Mauger:

Mr FULLER:

Mr Mauger:

Mr FULLER:

Mr Mauger:

Mr FULLER:

Mr Mauger:

Mr FULLER:

Mr Mauger:

Mr FULLER:

Mr Kingston:

Mr FULLER:

Sir George Turner:

Mr FULLER:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr Thomson:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr Reid:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr Reid:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr Poynton:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr Poynton:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr Fuller:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Mr G B EDWARDS:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr KINGSTON:Protectionist

Mr Thomson:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr G B EDWARDS:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

House of Representatives
20 February 1902

Mr HUGHES:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA · IND; ALP from June 1901

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

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

Mr KIRWAN:
Kalgoorlie

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Treasurer · BalaclavaTreasurer · Protectionist

Mr REID:
East Sydney

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

Mr FULLER:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

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 HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

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 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 THOMSON:
North Sydney

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 THOMSON:
North Sydney

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

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 HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports