House of Representatives
9 April 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- ARMY REMOUNTS
QUESTION
- CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION
QUESTION
- PEARL-SHELLING INDUSTRY
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
QUESTION
- MILITARY BOOT. CONTRACTS
PUBLIC SERVICE BILL
PAPERS
QUESTION
- TARIFF

I wish to know, in reference to that telegram, and the reply previously given to a question asked by me on the subject, if the Government have considered, or are going to consider, the position of the pearl shelters of Thursday Island, Port Darwin, and other ports on the northern coast of Australia? Is there any possibility of so administering the Immigration Restriction Act as to enable these people to obtain crews, and to prevent the trade which should belong to Australia going to Dutch New Guinea?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– The Government have had under consideration a communication from the honorable member and a communication from the Government of Queensland, and have decided that the matter calls for investigation. They therefore propose to have an inquiry undertaken immediately, to ascertain to what extent the circumstances call for action on our part, and -whether the provisions of the Immigration Restriction Act will permit such action to be taken.

page 11503

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr MACDONALD-PATERSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FT

– PATERSON. - I desire to make a short personal explanation in reference to a circumstance which occurred yesterday afternoon, in regard to which a misunderstanding about a pair between myself and the honorable member for Maranoa was created. I consulted the Government “ whip “ about obtaining a pair to enable me to attend to some very urgent telegrams. The honorable member for Maranoa was sitting beside the honorable member for Eden-Monaro, and in the course of the conversation he observed that he did not think that a division would take place before the dinner hour. Several sentences were spoken by the three of us, and the conversation ended in my saying - “ I shall not leave the precincts of the Chamber unless I am assured that I can safely go away until half-past seven o’clock.” Accordingly a tacit arrangement was made, and I turned to the Government “ whip “ and said - “ Please make misunderstanding of it.” It is in justice to that honorable gentleman that I make this statement. I sincerely regret that a misunderstanding arose ; but it was incomprehensible to me when I came back after the dinner adjournment to find that the arrangement which was entered into in a friendly spirit had broken down.

Mr Reid:

– The arrangement between the honorable member and the Government “whip”?

Mr MACDONALD-PATERSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND

– The arrangement between myself and the honorable member for Maranoa. The proposition was that I should pair with him, and I said - “ It is understood that we shall be paired.”

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– While I was sitting on the back Treasury benches yesterday afternoon, the honorable member for Brisbane asked me how I felt on the matter under discussion, and I told him that I was quite free. He then asked me if I would pair with him, and I said “No,” and that I understood that a division would not be taken until after the dinner hour. What transpired in the conversation between him and the Government “ whip “ I do not know ; but had I agreed to pair with him I should certainly have kept the pair. I am sorry that a misunderstanding arose. What made me speak about the matter yesterday was that I thought that the Government “whip “ was trying to bounce me into a pair.

page 11503

QUESTION

MILITARY BOOT. CONTRACTS

Mr TUDOR:
YARRA, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Is it a fact that persons not themselves manufacturers, but only middlemen, have had their tenders accepted for the supply of boots for military contingents ?
Does he not think that such a practice of virtual sub-letting is injurious to the public interest ?
Will he take steps to prevent such a course being pursued in the future

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

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

Not that I am aware of. The contract wa3 given to the contractor for the “Victorian State Government, whose price was also the lowest quotation.
I have no information that these contracts acted injuriously to the public interests.
Care will be taken to prevent sub-letting.

page 11503

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

“Bill returned from the Senate with the following message : -

Mr. Speaker, -

The Senate returns to the House of Representatives the Public Service Bill, and acquaints the House of Representatives that the Senate insists on that part of Amendment No. 10, to which the House of Representatives has disagreed, and disagrees to the consequential amendment made in clause 5, agrees to the first and amends the second of the amendments to Amendment No. 42. does not insist on Amendment No. 45, and agrees to the consequential amendments made in clause 63, does not insist on Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 25, 28, 32, and 61, and insists on Amendments Nos. 9, 13, 24, and 40, as set forth in the schedule herewith .

The Senate desires the concurrence of the House of Representatives in the amendments to the amendment of the House of Representatives, and desires its reconsideration of the Bill in respect of the amendments insisted on. (Signed) R. C. Bakes,

President.

The Senate,

Melbourne, 4th April, 1902.

page 11503

PAPERS

Ministers laid on the table the following papers : -

Articles of agreement between the Govern.ment of the Commonwealth, and Messrs. Burn3,

Philp, and Company; in reference to the carnage of mails to the New Hebrides, &c.

Return of votes recorded at the by-election to the House of Representatives, in consequence of the vacancy caused by the decease of Mr. F. W. Piesse.

page 11504

QUESTION

TARIFF

In Committee of Ways and Means (Recommittal.)

Consideration resumed from 8th April, 1902 (vide page 1H4S).

Amendment (by Mr. Kingston) proposed -

Division VI. - Metals and machinery.

That the following new item be inserted : - “70a. Iron, galvanized, plain and sheet, on and after 10th April, 1902, per ton los.”

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

– When this matter was under discussion yesterday, objection was taken, not so much to the amount of duty proposed by the Government, as to the recommittal of the item itself. The arguments advanced against the action of the Government have not yet been answered, and no reason has been shown for the recommittal of the item. Honorable members will recollect that the duties proposed to be levied upon galvanized iron were discussed in a very full committee, and that by a majority of seven, it was decided to place the article on the free list. If an item of this importance can be recommitted under such circumstances, there are scores of cases in which the Opposition might reasonably ask for the recommittal of proposals which were carried against their wishes only upon the casting vote of the Chairman. It has not been suggested that honorable members misunderstood what was being done when the votes were taken on the former occasion, and it cannot be urged that the duty now proposed is required for revenue purposes. The Opposition have been charged with having delayed the business of the country by causing a waste of time, but the action of the Government in this instance lays them open to even more serious reproach, because it will have the effect of deferring the final disposal of the Tariff. I should like to hear from the Minister for Trade and Customs some reason why this item should be reconsidered. It may be argued that since the duty upon galvanized iron was first discussed the Committee have decided that duties shall be levied on a number of the materials which go to make up galvanised iron, and that it is only fair to impose a countervailing duty of 15s. per ton, equivalent to 5 per cent, ad valorem, in favour of those who are engaged in the manufacture of the iron. It may be supposed that this argument will place the free-traders in a corner, but no embarrassment is felt by me in this matter I decline to acknowledge the right of the Government to ask me to reverse my vote in order to do an act of justice to the galvanized-iron manufacturers. I am not called upon as a freetrader to relieve the Government from the difficulty in which they have been placed by their own bungling tactics. If it can be successfully urged in this case that because duties have been imposed against the wishes of the free-traders upon the articles which are used in the manufacture of galvanized iron we should now support the proposal for a duty upon the finished article, the same argument might be used with equal success in many other instances. The Government may consider that they have made a very astute move in this matter ; but I wish to utter my protest against their attempt to place us in such an embarrassing position. As a free-trader, I throw the whole onus of the present difficulty upon the Government, because they have persisted in levying duties upon the raw material after the manufactured article had been placed upon the free list. I realize thoroughly the dilemma in which the Government are placed by the cry which has been raised on behalf of Mr. Sandford, who owns and carries on a galvanized-iron worksat Lithgow. I can fully understand his claim to be. considered, owing to the duties which have been placed upon the raw materials ; but, as free-traders, we decline to be held in an)’ way responsible for the injustice which may result ‘ to him from the action of the Government. Free-traders will be perfectly justified in adhering strictly to their fiscal views in connexion with this proposal, and whatever injury may be done must be laid at the door of the Ministry. The Government cannot ask us to adopt this duty because of the Commonwealth necessities. It may be urged that a 5 per cent, duty upon galvanized iron is only a small matter, but the Commonwealth is not in such straits that it urgently requires the £33,000 that will be realized. The mere statement of the Treasurer that he will have over £700,000 in excess of his original estimates is sufficient to show the weakness and even the absurdity of any such suggestion. The Government have voluntarily surrendered a large amount of revenue in connexion with duties that have been remitted at the instance of their supporters, and they cannot reasonably plead the Treasurer’s necessities in this case. Honorable members should not be carried away by any specious cry that the imposition of a duty upon galvanized iron is necessary in order to do an act of common justice, and I trust that if any honorable members have signified their intention of reversing their votes, they will reconsider the position and realize that if they are to consider the galvanized iron workers, the operatives engaged in many other industries have equally strong claims. Although in many cases we, as innocent free-traders, may have been caught napping, we are able in this instance to see the cunningly-devised net which the Government have set to catch us, and I wish the committee to understand that we are not to be entangled in such a way that the Government will be enabled to hold us up as an object-lesson before the whole country. If free-traders, by reason of the imposition of a countervailing duty, are to be placed in such a position that practically they are compelled to vote for a tax upon a particular article with which they do not agree, they may be obliged to take up a similar attitude in regard to hundreds of items included in the Tariff. We are told that the proposed tax of 5 per cent, is only a small one, and therefore we are invited to ignore it. But the financial position of the Common wealth is not so desperate that it is absolutely necessary, in order to maintain its solvency, to collect the £30,000 which the Treasurer expects to derive from this duty. The manufacture of galvanized iron is essentially a New South Wales industry. A large factory exists there which has hitherto carried on operations without the aid of any artificial stimulus. Protectionists, however, out of their boundless generosity, now propose to give that industry the large benefit represented by a duty of 5 per cent., as a recompense for the blunder of the committee in placing certain articles which go to make up galvanized iron upon the free list ; whilst Victorian industries have been encouraged by the imposition of a du by of 30 per cent. It is just as well -that New South Wales protectionists should know that their interests are not being ignored by this committee. If 5 per cent, represents the measure of protection which it is necessary to afford to any industry, that industry is upon a very sound footing. When this question was previously under discussion, the honorable and learned member for Indi - who is a strong supporter of the Government - said -

I should like to see the Government place galvanized iron, corrugated, and plain, upon the same footing. I do not think there is any element of protection worthy of consideration in this matter. It is purely a question of revenue. I regard galvanized iron as an absolute necessity, and I think that, treating it as a revenue question only, we are justified in making the impost as light as we can

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

– The information supplied to me is that plain galvanized iron is manufactured within the Commonwealth only in New South Wales, amd the action of the representatives of that State in connexion with this proposal affords -one of the strongest rebuttals of the statement that they favour proposals for the imposition of duties only when they are intended to benefit their own State. This duty would, for the present, be beneficial, to the Skate of New South Wales only, and yet even the honorable member in whose electorate the works are situated is antagonistic to the proposal. If anything could prove the worth of a cause it is the rejection by the free-trade members of a bait such as is now thrown down by the Government. They have absolutely repudiated the invitation offered to them, and have adhered to their principles. I would point out that under the Tariff the revenue derived from this duty will very soon die out. In New South Wales ‘the galvanized iron industry has been carried on very well under conditions of freedom, but it is now proposed to give the protection of a duty of 5 per cent., which .will after a time be converted into a 10 per cent, duty, if the Ministry induce Parliament to declare that the industry is sufficiently established to justify the increase. Under Division VIa, the 10 per cent, duty there provided for will take the place of the 5 per cent, duty as soon as Parliament has declared that the industry is. sufficiently established. The industry is being carried on, and is even now sufficiently established, and, therefore, in .all probability, if there is anything in Division VIa, the 5 per cent, duty will soon be converted into one of 10 per cent. With an increase of duty, imports will be very largely restricted, if not absolutely abolished.

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

– That will all depend upon what the Bonus Bill provides.

Mr GLYNN:

– But the Bonus Bill must follow the provisions of the Tariff as to the rate of duty,- and I think that my present assumption is a fair one. According to the Treasurer’s figures, South Australia would derive between £3,000 and £4,000 from this duty ; but as that amount would gradually disappear, and as the operation of the duty in the meantime would be pernicious, I shall oppose the Government proposal.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– I think the leader of the Opposition made a very fair suggestion when he said that if there were any honorable members who intended to change their votes upon this question, they should give some reason for it. I intend to reverse my previous vote. As most honorable members know, I have been fairly consistent in voting with those who1 favour a set of moderate protective duties. Upon reflection I am disposed to think that I made a mistake in voting for the admission of galvanized iron free of duty. Personally, I should never lay down the rule that a man is not entitled to change his opinion upon any matter, and in this instance I intend to reverse my previous vote, just as I purpose adopting a similar course in regard to the duty levied upon machinery. I think that that duty is altogether too high, and lam prepared to vote for a lower rate. The people engaged in the galvanized iron industry in New South “Wales are entitled to some consideration. They have struggled hard to keep their heads above water, and to that end have been assisted by the New South Wales Railway Commissioners who have imposed a differential rate in their favour, ranging from 20s. to 40s. per ton upon all iron taken either west, south, or north from the metropolitan area. Buteven with this concession the industry has endured a hard struggle, and I fear that when the Inter-State Commission is established - as it shortly will be - it will be deprived of this advantage. From my point of view, therefore, I am quite justified in extending to the industry the benefit of a 5 per cent, protection. The revenue which it is estimated will be derived from this source - some £30,000 - is a very small matter indeed, although I cannot agree with the honorable and learned member for South Australia, Mr. Glynn, that it will be a totally disappearing factor, because the advantage of 15s. per ton, which the Government proposes to extend to the industry will not be sufficient to enable the New South Wales people to send their iron to Western Australia, South Australia, or the northern portion of Queensland. On the other hand, the imposition of a duty of 5 per cent, is not sufficient to encourage the local production of black plate, with a view to galvanizing, and possibly corrugating, iron. It is true that in New South Wales galvanized and corrugated iron is made from locally-made black plate, but there the manufacturers are assisted by local circumstances. They enjoy the advantage of having a coal-mine almost at their furnace door. Altogether the present proposal is such a moderate one that I feel perfectly justified in. reversing my previous vote in connexion with this matter. The people engaged in the industry in New South Wales are entitled to some consideration, and I am prepared to extend it to them.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

– From the observations of the honorable member for Bland it appears that he is desirous of granting a concession to the galvanized iron industry in view of the prospective establishment of the Inter-State Commission. But the appointment of that commission is very distant, and altogether I am inclined to believe that the honorable member has not made out a strong case in favour of altering his previous decision. Although the manufacture of iron - galvanized, plate, and sheet - was a thriving and prosperous industry in. New South Wales prior to the introduction, of the Tariff, as soon as that instrument of taxation was submitted to this committee,, the manufacturers increased the price of their product to the consumers by the; amount of the duty. I would further point out that the people who live in cities, as compared with country, residents, use but a very small proportion of galvanized iron. In the interests of the primary producers, and of. those who have to conserve water in the back country, by means of iron tanks, we should allow corrugated iron to be obtained at the lowest possible price In some of the States,, houses are built entirely of galvanized iron. In the suburbs of Brisbane and Adelaide this commodity is used. almost1 exclusively for the roofing of dwellings. The proposed duty therefore constitutes, a tax, more particularly upon the smaller States. In my judgment, the committee acted deliberately when they agreed to place thisitem upon the free list, and, so far, I haveheard no argument in favour of reversing” that decision. It is most unreasonable for the Government to expect that itemswhich have been fully discussed upon a.. previous occasion can be recommitted,, with a view to reversing the decision arrived! at, without strong opposition being provoked. The manufacturer of galvanized! and corrugated iron in New South Wales has become a rich man under the operation of a free Tariff, and yet it is now proposed to force upon him a protection of 5 percent., which additional tax will be immediately passed on to the consumer. I donot think the committee should reversetheir previous decision.

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

– I have beenasked to reconsider the vote which I gavein connexion with this item, and in view of the facts submitted to me, I felt veryanxious indeed to give the most favourableconsideration to the men engaged in the galvanized iron industry. But after having; given the case very full consideration - more particularly as it affects Western Australia - I feel obliged to carry out the policy which I have consistently adopted, in regard to relaxing the burdens upon the people of that State. It is true that the proposed duty does not represent a great deal as regards the individual, but when I remember the amount of taxation which. this Tariff imposes upon the people of Western Australia, I feel in duty bound to vote in the direction of reducing it wherever it is possible to do so. Therefore, although I should have been glad to have given some support to the men engaged in the galvanized iron industry, I am compelled, in the interests of Western Australia, and of the policy which I have hitherto followed, to vote for the condition of things which prevailed prior to the present Government proposals.

Mr. WINTER COOKE (Wannon).Very late in this discussion we have heard the reason why this item has been recommitted. It seems that in New South Wales an industry exists which deserves protection, although it has hitherto managed to live without any such adventitious aid. The honorable member for Bland says that it has “just contrived to keep its head above water.” But, seeing that it has managed to exist in a free trade State, surely its position is materially improved when it can command the wider market offered by the whole Commonwealth ! The honorable member for Robertson declares that the firm engaged in the industry is a thriving and prosperous one. In view of the conflicting testimony of two New

South Wales’ representatives, are the committee justified in sanctioning the proposed ‘duty, small though it may be ? According to the honorable member for Bland, this duty is not intended for revenue, but for protective purposes. Seeing that the industry has . thrived without the .aid of any protection, surely the consideration which has induced the honorable member for Bland to change his opinion in regard to this matter is not a sound one. “To me it is amazing that he should now seek to impose a duty upon a commodity which is in such general use throughout Australia. I do not wish to repeat the argument in favour of consideration being extended to the primary producer; but, unquestionably, if we impose a tax upon galvanized iron, which is used not only for roofing purposes but for the construction of whole buildings, we might as well impose a duty upon bricks. However, I suppose that the numbers are up, otherwise the Government would not have the temerity to take the action which they have taken, and, therefore, all that members of the Opposition can do is to offer their protest.

Mr. REID (East Sydney). - I am glad the honorable member for Bland has taken the course he has, because it is the course which every honorable member ought to take when he changes his public decision in a matter affecting the Tariff. But it is. most remarkable that the New South Wales brigade, in the Ministry - the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs, and the Vice-President of the Executive Council - could not do anything for this great iron industry at Lithgow. An unofficial member from New South Wales now comes forward, and even he proposes only a miserable 5 per cent. duty. Would such a duty have satisfied the tinsmiths and all those other people who are making all sorts of things in Victoria ? There would have been a riot in the Ministerial ranks if 5 per cent, had been proposed for hats, boots, shoes, crockery, and teapots, which are all made in and about Melbourne. We have an affecting disclosure now from my friend, the moderate protectionist, that he can screw up enough courage to give 5 per cent, protection to a New South Wales industry, which he himself says is struggling for existence. I simply want to point out that in order to have an industry thoroughly protected, that industry must be either in Adelaide or Melbourne. That is the plain English of the matter. I do not speak of any improper motive - it is merely a geographical slice of good luck. The men who look after South Australia are differently built from those who look after New South Wales. Prom the protectionist point of view, New South Wales has been treated with abominable meanness and unfairness. Unfortunately our hands are tied. Even when we see the principle applied unfairly, we have to go on practically aiding the injustice that is being done, for the reason that we are accustomed to deal with the interests of the great body of the taxpayers and not with the interests of any particular manufacturer, who may have been able to- button-hole us in the street or elsewhere. Unfortunately we cannot vote to give a little encouragement to this most worthy gentleman at Lithgow, for whose enterprise I have always had the greatest respect. He has worked his way up in a way which would, indeed, command the respect of every one. It is one of the hardships of the belief we have that we must act impartially, and that we cannot pick out men,- however deserving, for any special favour. If we did so in the case of one we should feel bound, by all the rules of fairness, to do so all round ; and in the general interests of the community we are unable to help this gentleman. The Government now come forward, and say that the present proposal is not to help the New South Wales industry - the Government would not deal with a trifle of that sort. I understand that the Minister for Trade and Customs said yesterday that it was for purely revenue purposes the item had been reintroduced. It would appear, therefore, that this little crumb of protection is given to the New South Wales industry, not by the Minister for Trade and Customs, but by the honorable member for Bland.

Mr.E. SOLOMON (Fremantle). - It had not been my intention to speak on this item, but I think that every honorable member should give the reasons for his vote. I intend to vote in the same direction as before, namely to place this item on the free list. It has struck me very forcibly that while, on the one hand, the Government have not considered the desirability of recommitting many items which were decided by a small majority they have proposed the recommittal of other items such as that under consideration, which it was decided, by a majority of seven, should be placed on the free list. It appears to me that the Government are rather afraid of trusting these matters in the hands of the Ministers in another place. The course which the Government have taken has. been the cause of a lot ofdelay which might have been avoided, had they trusted to their Ministers in the Senate to re-introduce many of the items determined by this committee. If a suggestion were made in another place, it would come before us again ; if, on the other hand, no suggestion were made, we should hear no more of the matter. The Government have been in error in bringing forward many of these items for reconsideration. The people generally are taxed upto the hilt, and the pioneers, who have been the mainstay of Australia from the early times, are now being made to pay for theconfidence they have placed in the people who advocated federation. I hope the committee will stick to their colours and show that, having voted in one direction, they are determined to maintain their position.

Mr KIRWAN:
Kalgoorlie

– Are the Ministers at the table going to ignore the appeals made from this and other parts of the House for an explanation as to why they have recommitted this item? The least the Ministry can do is to explain more fully than was explained last night by the Minister for Trade and Customs, who said that this re-committal was “ for financial reasons.” How has the financial position changed from what it was four months ago ?

Mr Kingston:

– The revenue has been diminished.

Mr KIRWAN:

-I understand that the revenue has come in much better than the Government expected, and that we are now in a better position to forego duties. It is singular that the Government should choose this item for recommittal, seeing that the decision to place it on the free list was carried by such a large majority. There is a good deal of talk about “ lobbying “ and “ touting “ in connexion with this item. I do not say for one moment that the charges conveyed in this talk are correct, but in the interests of those who are accused, the least the representatives of the Government might do is to afford the explanation for which Ihave asked. If the Government recommit items carried, as this was,by a large majority, the Opposition may be tempted to endeavour to recommit numerous other items, which were decided by only one or two votes ; and the result will be that the Tariff discussion will be endless. At present the discussion appears to be a sheer waste of time. Even if this duty be reimposed, there is a freetrade majority in another place.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is not in order in referring to what may occur in another place.

Mr KIRWAN:

Mr Kingston:

– I have not spoken to him on the subject.

Mr PAGE:

– Some one must have spoken to him, because the honorable member tells me that he has promised to give his vote with the Government. Then there is the honorable member for Southern Melbourne, who has on other occasions loudly denounced revenue duties and yet has expressed his intention to vote for this impost. I would ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether New South Wales or any other State has asked for this duty. Even the honorable member for Bland, whom I look upon as one of the most solid men in the Chamber, has seen fit to change his attitude on this subject, and it seems to me very curious that so many honorable members should be ready to reverse their votes without being able to give one solid reason for doing so. The honorable member for Yarra also is as silent as the grave on the subject of “his change of front in regard to the galvanized iron duty. What can we gather from the silence of Ministers and honorable members, except that some unholy compact has been entered’ into between the Minister for Trade and Customs and the runaway labour representatives 1 If the principles of the labour members are to be changed as quickly as their votes have been, God help the labour party. This duty concerns my constituency more than any other part of the Commonwealth. Every house in the district I represent is built of iron, and this duty practically amounts to a tax upon improvements - an impost which was not in any way foreshadowed in the Maitland speech.

Question - That the following new item be inserted - “Iron, galvanized, plate and sheet, on and after 10th April, 1902, per ton, l5s.” - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … :.. … 33

Noes … … … 25

Majority … … 8

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

–I wish to know whether it is intended to post the names of those on the other side who have reversed their previous votes?

Honorable Members. - Chair, chair.

Mr CONROY:

– The Government and their supporters should advertise themselves as much as possible as open log-rollers.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order. The honorable member must not cast reflections upon the votes of honorable members.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– As a consequential amendment, I move -

That the words “except as to iron, galvanized, plate and sheet,” be inserted after the word “meantime” in the introductory paragraph of Division VIa.

It is declared in Division VIa. that as regardssome of the duties there provided for, which are to come into force at a certain time, the goods shall be free from duty in the meantime. It is necessary to exempt “ iron, galvanized, plate and sheet,” from the operation of this provision. The effect of the amendment will be to declare that, notwithstanding anything contained in the division, what we have just done shall stand.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

– I move -

That the following new item be inserted : - “ Sheet lead and lead-pipe, on and after 10th April. 1902, per ton, £2.”

The Tariff originally provided for a duty upon lead, sheet and piping, but for some reason or other it was omitted. I do not know the circumstances under which the duty was surrendered, but I believe it was done under a misapprehension. From 5,000 to 6,000 tons of Australian lead are annually used in this industry. The raw material is very largely produced in New South Wales, and also in Queensland and Western Australia. I am anxious to avoid occupying unnecessary time, and I shall therefore content myself by moving the insertion of the item.

Amendment negatived.

Item 74. - Manufacturers of metal, viz. : . . . traction and oil engines, free.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

– I move-

That the words “ and oil “ be omitted.

As this item at present stands, traction and oil engines are admitted duty free. When this matter was discussed on a former occasion the Government had no objection to allowing traction-engines to be exempt from duty, but a misunderstanding occurred in regard to oil-engines. To me it is perfectly clear that whatever duty is imposed upon gas.engines should also operate in the case of oil-engines. The former at present bear a duty of 20 per cent. I am informed that oilengines of very good quality are being made in two or three of the States, and are being largely used. It has also been pointed out that oil-engines can readily be converted into gas-engines, and vice versa. We have already declared that gas-engines shall be protected, and we shall simply be destroying that protection if we allow oil-engines to be admitted free of duty.

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

– I regret that the Government have not brought forward their proposal in a different form, as it touches the question of the duty which should be levied upon both gas-engines and oil-engines. It is worded in such a way as to preclude any honorable member from moving to have gas-engines placed within the Same category as oil-engines, either by making them free or dutiable at a lower rate. I think it will be generally conceded that 20 per cent, is a ridiculously high rate to impose upon them. I do not know how to test the question whether the two articles should not be placed upon the free list. Why should a distinction be made between them? Oil-engines are chiefly used in the country, whereas the use of gas-engines is largely limited t« cities. I believe that both oil and gas-engines are manufactured in Victoria, and that the total number of persons employed in the industry is 35. I have been informed that the locallymanufactured engines are made upon expired patents - that is, upon models of machinery the patents for which have expired. Consequently, they are not of the latest patterns, and the new engines, I am assured, effect an economy of about 40 per cent, as compared with them. I would point out that both classes of engines enjoy a natural protection of about 20 per cent. The oilengines are chiefly used in the country for irrigation and mining purposes, whilst gas-engines are used in the city, principal]) by small men, who are anxious to become manufacturers. To a large extent the latter are used by small printers. Although the Government have exhibited a desire to assist the large printers by placing linotypes, monotypes, and monolines upon the free list, they now propose to levy a tax of 20 per cent, upon the small printers. To my mind no duty upon either oil or gas engines is justifiable. I may mention that when gas-engines were admitted free - as they were in South Australia, prior to the introduction of this Tariff - a contract was about .to be entered into for the supply of a gas plant and engine for mining purposes, valued at £5,000 ; but immediately the duty of 25 per cent, was imposed, the contract had to be abandoned, because the cost of the plant was increased by £1,350. That is one instance of the iniquity of this Tariff. Even a 20 per cent, rate is practically prohibitive. I think that the Government should accept the vote upon this matter as a test of the feeling of honorable members in regard to both classes of engines. If they do not do so, I shall move for the recommittal of item 74, with a view to rendering gas-engines dutiable at the same rate as oil-engines. As a matter of compromise I suggest that the Ministry might accept a duty of 10 per cent, upon both. Considering that only 35 persons are engaged in the industry in Victoria, and that these engines already enjoy a large measure of natural protection, I ask the committee to reject the amendment.

Mr MACDONALD-PATERSON:
Brisbane

– I ask honorable members to facilitate a speedy vote being taken upon this matter. It is not worth debate. I think that the honorable and learned member for South Australia has under-estimated the number of persons engaged in this industry. I only rose for the purpose of contradicting the statement that the imported engines are better than those manufactured in Australia. It has been alleged that there is a saving of 40 percent, or 60 per cent, of motive power in the use of the imported engines as against those made here ; but I can give the name of a firm in Victoria who manufacture engines more effective and more economical than those imported. During the last twelve or eighteen months I have been inquiring into this matter, with a .view of substituting a gas-engine of Victorian manufacture for a gas-engine which I use for pumping purposes in my own city.

Mr Reid:

– - Would it be patriotic to desert the Brisbane makers for Melbourne makers ?

Mr MACDONALD-PATERSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FT

– PATERSON. - With our vast area, and our small population in Queeusland, we have not reached that stage of manufacture. The right honorable member for East Sydney would not expect the manufacture of pianos olgas - engines to be conducted on spots where Burke and Wills camped ? Several special inventions in connexion with gasengines have been made in Victoria, and, being patented, cannot be used in any part of the world.

Mr Thomas:

– A patent does not require protection.

Mr MACDONALD-PATERSON:

– I hope there will be no more talk about this miserable little tax. Gas is being discarded as a motive power in favor of electricity ; and, I believe, that in five years’ time the former will not be much in use. I think the modest duty proposed is necessary to cultivate the manufacture of the articles under discussion.

Mr Reid:

– What does the honorable and learned member call “ a modest duty “ -100 per cent.1?

Mr MACDONALD-PATERSON:

– I think the proposal of the Government is one that should have the support of the leader of the Opposition.

Mr. CONROY (Werriwa).- Even from a protectionist point of view oil - engines ought to be free, or, at any rate, admitted at a very low rate of duty. In the case of steam-engines, where shafts and pulleys are attached, there must be sufficient power generated to carry on all the work at all times. If the engine be capable of giving 50 horse-power, that power must be there, although all that is required is 25 horse-power. With oil-engines, the tendency will be to decentralize to a large extent manufacturing work, which will be carried on in country towns and other places of small population. Such a result, from a protectionist point of view, ought to commend the free admission of oil-engines. In many manufactures it is of great advantage to be able to get an engine of, say, 5 or 10 horse-power devoted to the particular work in hand, rather than to have engines of unnecessarily great power. It is argued that there are certain persons engaged in the manufacture of these engines in Australia. That is true, but if the price is to be raised 20 per cent., the duty proposed is far too high, and one which the committee have shown by a previous vote they did not intend to impose. Recollecting how advantageous are these engines in all parts of the country,

I trust the committee will adhere to its previous decision, and not consent to the amendment.

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

– This is another of the items the recommittal of which is calculated to cause a good deal of surprise amongst members on this side of the Chamber.

Sir George Turner:

– I have said two or three times that it was my mistake to allow this item to go on the free list, and that I intended to recommit the item.

Mr MAHON:

– What the Treasurer should have done, in order to rectify the original blunder, was ito put gas-engines on the free list. This is a Victorian industry, pure and simple, there being no oil-engines manufactured to any- extent elsewhere. When this matter was previously before us, I showed that the chief manufacturer of oilengines, Mr. E. Coulson, of Melbourne, was a man who actually used an imported engine to drive his own machinery.

Sir George Turner:

– The manufacturer absolutely denied that statement immediately afterwards.

Mr MAHON:

– I shall give the Treasurer an opportunity of hearing what the manufacturer’s denial amounts to. This gentleman had the impertinence to write to me concerning my remarks in this committee, remarks which he calls personal. In a letter, dated 13th January, he . writes : -

With reference to your personal remarks made before the House of Representatives on Wednesday, 12th ultimo, when discussing the item, oilengines, I am sorry you should have seen fit to use my name without first having my sanction « to do so, or ascertaining from a direct source if the remarks made were true. I am a machinery merchant in so far as dealing in second-hand gas-engines is concerned. I am frequently called upon to remove imported gas-engines to make room for those of my own manufacture. These engines I convert to my own system of working, which is simpler and better than that employed in engines of other makers.

If that be so, why does he want to be bolstered up with a duty 1 His letter proceeds : -

These exchanges cause me to have as many as six or eight gas-engines of -other makers by me at one time, and it sometimes happens that I let the engine of my own manufacture go to prevent a buyer waiting-

Mark the value of his denial : – and for a few days’ work my factory with a second-hand engine of another maker, but under no other circumstances. I have never at any time imported either a gas or ap oil engine. “J have never at any time used or worked my factory by imported engines of any description, excepting under the conditions stated ; ‘ and certainly never from any -want of faith in my own. The engines I sell I make, and they are my own absolutely, and I hold letters patent in this and other States. As to my faith in my own engines, will you be good enough to peruse the testimonials herewith relating to both classes of engines.

We all know what testimonials are worth, and how easily they can be obtained.

The sale of my engines is increasing fast, and at times, as last week, I had to borrow an engine of another maker to run my shop while I completed some of my own in progress of manufacture.

– I am not claiming that his word is better ; my desire is to give both statements. My informant writes : -

The information was obtained from a direct source, and was perfectly reliable.
The reason he (Coulson) is called upon to replace imported engines with his own, is for the simple reason that the engines bought ten or twelve years ago by parties have got too small for them, and the local makers by allowing so much for the old ones, of course, secure the new business. Agents for imported engines do not generally deal in second-hand ones.
He has no system of his own. The oilengine is an exact copy of the imported engine of ten years ago, with the addition of an old-typo Hornsby Ackroyd vapourizer, and the gas-engine, as is only too well known, has been copied from the old-type engines. Innumerable instances can be given of this. The 30 Brake h.p. engine he talks so much about at the Herald office was copied from one of the imported engines in Melbourne, with possibly just one or two very small alterations. He also applied to the engineer of a large printing concern for permission to take away a part of their gas-engine to copy it, but was refused.
He has worked his workshop for years with a Crossley engine, and only occasionally running one of his own for a time to test it before selling

Mr McCay:

– Which of the two witnesses, admitting both to be of equal value, is more likely to know the facts 1

Mr MAHON:

– I may tell the honorable and learned member for Corinella that the information which ram reading is basedon facts gleaned from workmen in the establishment to which it refers.

Sir John Quick:

– From traitors !

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

– Are men traitors simply because they tell the truth 1

Mr MAHON:

– I have no doubt that the honorable and learned member for Bendigo will magnify this matter into a great scandal. My informant proceeds -

It is known that he has never imported an engine. He had no need to ; and, besides, no man would let him have one, unless he went about it in a back-handed way. Ho has magnificent opportunities for copying without any expense.

Mr. Coulson says

The engines I sell I make, and they are my own absolutely, and I hold letters patent in this and other States.

The answer to that statement is this -

No one disputed this, but it is disputed when he says they are his own ideas. They are really imported gas-engines of ten years ago. The following comparison will illustrate the difference. The amount of power given ona fourteen nominal horse-power gas-engine of to-day is much greater than one of ten years ago.

The best of it is Coulson and other makers, with out testing their engines as. they should do, sell, say, a 14 nominal horse-power engine, which gives possibly 23 horse-power, as a 36 -5 horse-power engine, which is equivalent to one of the latest imported engines of one of the best makers. They have, of course, to compete with these, and this is how they do it.

The number of persons employed in this industry throughout the Commonwealth has been set down as 35. I believe that Coulson has at times employed about 25 men, and these are the particulars which I have ascertained concerning them -

The average number of men and improvers he employs is ten. Only three of these would be tradesmen, and earning full wages ; the balance receive only ?1 10s. and downwards per week.

– No doubt that is a consistent position to take up, but it is not proposed to exempt steam-engines. If it can be shown .that there is something in the construction of oil and gas engines which prevents them from being made within the Commonwealth, they should be admitted free ; but otherwise there seems to me no reason for treating them differently from other engines.

Mr Glynn:

– It is the Ministry who made the distinction.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– The Ministry originally made a distinction between gas and oil engines, owing to a misapprehension, and they have since stated that they will endeavour to place them both upon the same footing. Before the committee agree to exempt oil-engines some reason should be given for treating such engines differently from gas-engines, or for treating either oil or gas engines differently from steam and electric engines. It seems to me that, whatever we do, we should treat all kinds of engines alike.

Mr. GLYNN (South Australia). - Of course honorable members cannot know what actuates the Ministry in their various proposals. We can only infer the causes from the facts themselves. They proposed a duty of 15 per cent, on oil-engines, and of 25 per cent, on gas-engines. I could not understand why such a distinction was made, because both engines are used for the same purposes, though oil-engines are more largely used in the country than are gasengines. Gas engines are being used owing to. their greater economy and safety. “Why do the ‘Ministry make this distinction ? Victoria is the only State which turns out oil engines.

Sir George Turner:

– They have started making them in Sydney since the inauguration of the Federal Tariff.

Mr GLYNN:

– Victoria is the only State in which the oil-engine making industry has been established, and it is somewhat significant that the duties previously levied in the States upon this class of machinery do not average more than 5 per cent. In New South Wales, Queensland, and South Australia it was admitted free, in Tasmania a duty of only 10 per cent, was levied, and in Western Australia only 5 per cent. In the last named State I believe oil-engines were admitted free of duty for a considerable time until an all round duty of 5 per cent, was imposed upon machinery.

Mr Kingston:

– A 10 percent, duty was levied upon repairs which could be locally undertaken.

Mr GLYNN:

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– The local consumption will not bring about that development.

Mr WILKINSON:

– There is no reason why the matter should not be finally decided within a day or two.

Mr THOMSON:

– No loss of revenue could accrue from the adoption of the course which I suggest, because it will be known that this item is to be recommitted. Why come to a tentative decision now, when we shall be deciding the whole question within a day or two ? .

Amendment agreed to.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– I move-

That the following new line be inserted: - “Mining machinery n.e.i., on and after 10th. April, 1902, ad valorem 20 per cent.”

When this matter was previously before the committee, I made certain remarks which went further than I had intended them te go and which apparently misled some honorable members. Thereupon I promised to give the committee another opportunity of discussing mining and electrical machinery and appliances. I submit, the present motion in order to redeem that promise. The motion simply affirms the duty which is at present in operation.

Mr. KNOX (Kooyong). - I move -

That the’ motion be amended by the omission of the figures “ 20,” with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figures “ 15.”

– We might insert words to make our intention more clear.

Mr McCAY:

– The intention should certainly be made perfectly clear. I regard 20 per cent, as better than 15 per cent., and I shall certainly vote for it. I believe that, except on special occasions, such as those to which the honorable member for Kooyong has referred, when machinery of a special kind which cannot be made here because of the patent rights is introduced, Australian makers can supply all the Australian mining machinery that is required as efficiently, as effectively, and as cheaply as it can be obtained from abroad. So far as patented machinery is concerned, we are all agreed that, whatever rate is fixed, we cannot distinguish between machinery that is protected by patent rights and that which is not. We can supply mining machinery as cheap and as effective as that which is imported ; the reason why I say it can be done is that it has been done. One honorable member suggested that I represented the manufacturers of metals. He is entirely mistaken.

Miners constitute the most numerous class in my constituency, and then come farmers, traders, and manufacturers in the order named. The experience of Australia is that mining machinery can be manufactured locally. Irrespective of what duty may be imposed upon it, I submit that the internal competition is sufficiently great to insure that prices will be kept down In 99 cases outof 100 these goods are supplied to tender, and not to order, and just as often those tenders are the result of honest competition. In my opinion 20 per cent, is not too high a margin to insure that the source of supply shall remain Australian. Therefore I intend to vote for the retention of the present duty, which I have no hesitation in affirming will not injuriously affect” the mining community.

Mr KIRWAN:
Kalgoorlie

– I quite agree with those honorable members who have declared that, in discussing this matter, it is unnecessary to traverse old ground. The honorable member for Kooyong has delivered a very able speech, in which he fully stated the case for a reduction of the duty. With that speech I thoroughly agree. There is a matter of some importance, however, which has not yet been brought before this Parliament, although it should have been. I refer to a petition which was prepared in London at considerable trouble - a petition which comes from a very influential quarter indeed. That document was presented to the Agent-General for Western Australia, who promised to .forward it to the Minister for Defence, whom I am glad to see present. I understand that the petition was forwarded as far back as the 19th February. I have been in possession of a copy of it for the past two weeks, and I should like to know whether the Minister for Defence has yet received the document ; if so, why has it not been presented to Parliament? The signatures to the petition are those of men who have invested no less than £13,000,000 in Western Australia. They are not interested in an industry which employs three men and a boy. They do not plead for additional taxation upon the people. They do not represent any of the paltry manufactures to be found in the suburbs of Melbourne, for the sake of which we are sacrificing the primary industries of the Commonwealth. They do not employ a handful of operatives at a starvation wage, but they provide employment for more than 10,000 men, at an average wage of £i weekly. It will thus be seen that in wages annually they disburse over £2,000,000. Surely the representations of these men are worthy of consideration. I owe nothing to them personally ; they did not assist me in my election campaign, and I “did not hesitate to oppose them when I thought they were wrong. Now, however, that they have a good case, I am perfectly ready to present it to this committee.

Sir John Quick:

– Has the honorable member a copy of the petition 1

Mr KIRWAN:

– I have, and as I shall not have another opportunity of presenting it, I wish to refer to the statements made by the representatives of English companies which are interested in the gold-mines of Western Australia’. The document is addressed to the Parliament of the Commonwealth, and is in the usual form, so that no objection whatever can be taken to its wording. It brings under the notice of Parliament -

The disastrous effects which the Commonwealth Tariff will have upon the trade and future prosperity of Western Australia, and the hardships which it will impose upon the businesses carried on by your petitioners. Your petitioners are large importers of machinery, railway, and tramway material, and their various business engagements for the supply of such material have been based upon the rates of duty existing prior to the Commonwealth Tariff coming into force, and which provided, on machinery of all kinds, unless specially mentioned or exempted, 5 per cent., ad valorem, and upon rails, fastenings, and rollingstock for railways and tramways, free.

The petition goes on to compare the conditions which existed prior to the introduction of the Federal Tariff with those prevailing at the present time. It proceeds -

Your petitioners are astonished to find that under ohe Commonwealth Tariff the duties on the articles enumerated, which are absolutely necessary to the future development of various industries of that State, have been increased to an enormous extent.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Minister for Defence · Swan · Protectionist

– Perhaps the committee will allow me to make a short explanation. Some time ago it was published in the newspapers that this petition had been presented to the Agent-General of Western Australia, and I received a telegram giving the purport of the petition. I tried my best, under the rules of the House, to have this message placed on the table, but was unsuccessful ; I had to wait until the petition itself arrived. The petition was addressed by the Agent-General of Western Australia to his Government, and forwarded by the Premier of that State to me. It was only last night that I received the letter from the Premier of Western Australia, and but for the unfortunate fact thatI was absent when the House met today it would have been possible for me to have laid this petition on the table. I was not aware, however, that this item would come up for discussion to-day. I have made arrangements for the petition to be presented both in this House and in the Senate to-morrow. The letter from the Premier of Western Australia, which is dated the 26th March, reads : -

. I have the honour to enclose herewith four (4) copies of a petition presented to the AgentGeneral for Western Australia by a deputation of gentlemen interested in mining and financial concerns in London doing business in Western Australia. The petition, you will perceive, is addressed to the Commonwealth Parliament, and I am informed by the Agent-General that, in the absence of any federal representative in London, he consented to be the vehicle for its transit.
As the deputation expressed a wish that the petition should be presented by you, I have pleasure in transmitting it to you, and requesting your kind offices in the matter.

That is the whole of the information I have in regard to the petition, four copies of which were sent, and two of which I have given to a representative in the Senate to present to that Chamber. The honorable member will see that, excepting to-day, there has been no delay on my part. Although there is not much in the petition, the document is important. The petition sets forth, first of all, that the duty on mining machinery in Western Australia has hitherto been 5 per cent., and that now the Commonwealth proposes to impose 25 per cent.; and then the petitioners point to the hardships under which they will suffer in regard to contracts and other matters.

They pray that any increase in the import duties under the Commonwealth Tariff, as compared with the previous rates, shall remain inapplicable to contracts and engagements entered into prior to the date of such Tariff coining into force, in the same way, as they say, His Majesty’s Government deal with coal contracts in the United Kingdom in relation to the export duty upon coal. The petition is signed by representatives of all the mining companies doing business in Western Australia, and having their head offices in London. I shall have very much pleasure in placing this petition on the table as requested, and in the meantime the letter of the Premier of Western Australia and the petition itself are open to the perusal of any honorable member.

Mr.V. L. Solomon. - Is it not competent for an honorable member who quotes from any document to lay that document on the table whether we are in committee or in the House?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– If I can do so, I shall be very glad.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister for Defence can please himself whether or not he lays this document on the table of the committee, but officially it can be laid on the table of the House only.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– Under the circumstances I shall lay the document on the table of the committee, and present it more formally in the House to-morrow.

- Mr. Waddington, addressing Mr. Lefroy, the Agent-General for Western Australia, said -

I understand that a copy of this petition has already been handed to you, and you will have observed that the signatories represent about £13,000,000 of capital registered for the industrial development of the State of Western Australia. This capital represents many thousands of investors in this country. Had we had sufficient time, it is possible we should have trebled the weight of representation that we bring before you to-day.”

He further stated that -

Many investors appear to regard their investments in British countries in the nature of contracts, to which theGovernments of those countries are parties. They regard the Governments as saying - “Here we are with rich resources inviting capital for development. Here are our just laws, reasonable regulations, and moderate taxes. Your security is assured, and your burden will be light. “Invest your money under the British flag, which assures protection and justice to every one beneath it.” Assuming that the £13,000,000 which we represent to-day was invested by people who reasoned in this way - and I know they were many - what will be their views when they realize the excessive character of this prohibitive taxation ?

He concluded his speech with this observation -

I regard this Tariff Bill as calculated to not only shutout that capital and enterprise, but also likely to alienate the good-will, sympathy, and cooperation of those merchants and capitalists in this country who have hitherto been Western Australia’s best friends.

Mr. Oliver Wethered supported Mr. Waddington, and he said that -

They all hoped and expected that an end would shortly be put to the present war, and it was a fact that with many investors it was a question of Africa versus Australia as a field for investment. He feared that much money would be diverted from Australia to Africa by the natural advantages of the latter continent without the Australians imposing further taxation. He would instance a Western Australian company with which he was personally connected, which dealt with ore of a low grade. That company had already installed 20 stampers of a proposed battery of 100 stampers, and another 20-head would by now have been on the way had not the local manager cabled that the duties were heavily increased by the proposed Tariff.

There are some people who say that the Tariff will afford employment, but there we have a special instance of the way in which it will preventmen from being employed in Western Australia. It is not some paltryfactory near Melbourne, employing half-a-dozen men and a boy, that is concerned

Mr Mauger:

– The honorable member must not get angry.

Mr KIRWAN:

– I am sorry that there are men like the honorable member, whose views of the whole Commonwealth are obscured by the smoke of the Melbourne factories. Mr. Wethered went on to say -

Under the circumstances they were sitting on the fence, and it was hard to say when the second twenty stampers would be despatched if the heavy duty was persisted in. He had nothing more to add except that he supported the petition in its entirety.

Mr. Lefroy, in replying to the deputation, said -

I fully recognise the influential character of the deputation, and also the fact that the development of Western Australia, which during the last ten yearshas been born again, has largelybeen achieved by the investment of outside capital. I feel that the investment of capital from outside should be encouraged in every possible way, not only by Western Australia, but by all the other Australian States. Having said that, I am fully in sympathy with the deputation. I would not be justified in entering into the controversial side of the matter, and discussing protection and freetrade. At the same time, I trust that your petition will bear some considerable weight.

– The duty cannot help having a protective incidence.

Mr FISHER:

– And it ought to have a protective incidence. I am as strong in freetrade principles as are many other honorable members, but should the engineering works of the Commonwealth fail, I should -strongly advocate their being taken up by the States or the Federal Government. The industry can only succeed by paying high wages and getting competent men, and it is for the committee to say whether that end should be brought about by a protective duty or a bonus. The honorable member for Kooyong has stated that he can buy good and cheap machinery at the present rate of duty, and I do not see why he should advocate a reduction.

Mi. Knox. - Because it is the higher class of machinery we desire to bring in.

Mr FISHER:

– The honorable member admits that three-fourths of the machinery he uses is made in the Commonwealth, and that it is satisfactory ; and if he desires that only the higher classes of machinery should be imported, he should specify what that machinery is. I appeal to the committee not to reduce the dutv below 20 per cent.

Mr BROWN:
Canobolas

– I have previously addressed the committee at some considerable length on this item, and if all honorable members exercise their right of speech the discussion of the Tariff will be dragged out much further than it ought to be. I shall content myself by saying that when this question was previously before the committee I fought hard to have this machinery placed on the free list as the best means of serving the great mining industry. I fail to understand the logic which asserts that a 4 prohibitive duty cheapens the article to the consumer ; and, in view of our failure to get mining machinery on the free list, I shall support the proposal of the honorable member for Kooyong. Honorable members on all sides will recognise a great similarity between mining and agricultural industries, so far as the effect of the Tariff is concerned. Both are primary industries, and both have to be carried on in the different States under very adverse conditions. The committee have decided to put agricultural machinery at 15 per cent., and as a matter of justice no distinction ought to be drawn between this and mining machinery.

Mr. FOWLER (Perth).- The honorable member for Wide Bay is evidently in a state of great alarm. He thinks the engineering industry of the Commonwealth will be extinguished if anything less than a duty of 20 per cent, be imposed on mining machinery. I can assure the honorable member that in Western Australia, where there was no protection worth speaking of on machinery, there is a larger number of engineers in proportion to the population than in any other State, and, moreover, they are paid higher wages than engineers elsewhere within the Commonwealth. The honorable member for Wide Bay has said that none of the working miners have protested against these duties, but it is a fact that all over Western Australia they have protested by every means in their power. Not only the miner, but practically everybody in the State of Western Australia, is anxious that these duties should, if possible, be reduced to the old Western Australian limit. The people recognise that their welfare is bound up with the mining industry, and that they cannot afford to take any risks. In Perth, without protection, there has been a steady growth of engineering enterprise. I have seen small works, started merely as repairing shops, enlarge their sphere of action until now they are turning out very fair mining machinery. All this goes to show that the principal factor in determining the existence of any trade is the sufficiency and proximity of consumers. Other things being equal, the man who is nearest to his consumers has an immense advantage, and I believe that under the present ordinary circumstances, a large portion of the mining machinery required will always be made within the Commonwealth. But it is the necessity for the best machinery being available at the lowest price that makes me anxious to see this duty as moderate as possible. If there be a high duty there is, as we have seen in Victoria, a temptation to carry on the industry in a less progressive way than would otherwise be the case. It is important that the committeeshould realize that it isnot so much a matter of what machinery is produced within the Commonwealth, as a mutter of allowing the admission of the best possible machinery, in order to keep the local manufacturer up to the mark. Honorable members for Victoria and South Australia are fully aware of the tremendous benefit which the Australian mining industry has been to their States in connexion with the large consumption of produce on the gold-fields. It is admitted that, but for the great development of mining in Western Australia, Victoria and South Australia would have been in a very low state indeed. There are industries now flourishing in Victoria and South Australia which would not have been existent but for the fact that they found their best markets in Western Australia. We have it proved by the honorable member for Kalgoorlie that so far as the English investors in Western Australian mining is concerned - and the old country is the principal source of the capital for our mines - they regard with alarm these heavy duties, the undoubted result of the continuance of which will be to render more difficult the placing of our mining shares on the London market. That would be a blow to the development of the mining industry of Western Australia. But while this duty will seriously affect the mining industry in Western Australia, it will to the same degree affect those who in Victoria and South Australia depend upon the Western Australian gold-fields for a market. Therefore I ask those who are interested in the Melbourne and Adelaide factories to consider whether they will not be better off with a low duty upon mining machinery. Whatever encouragement is given to mining in Western Australia will lead to an increased consumption of the productions of Victoria and South Australia, and for that reason alone we are justified in asking the representatives of those States to give consideration to an industry which, vast as is its development in Western Australia, is only beginning to show its possibilities, and has a practically unlimited field of development before it, so that it should ultimately become the greatest industry in the Commonwealth.

Mr. MANIFOLD (Corangamite). - I am one of those who voted for a duty of 20 per cent, on mining machinery, because I misunderstood what the Treasurer said in regard to the exemptions. I understood that the list of exemptions would be a very heavy one, and in fact that all mining machinery which could not be made here better than in other parts of the world would be exempt. As that is not so, I intend now to vote for a duty of 15 percent., because I do not wish to over-burden the mining industry.

Mr. KIRWAN (Western Australia). - I wish to ask the Treasurer if he has discovered that the statement of the Minister for Trade and Customs that the signatories upon the petitions to which I have referred do not represent capital to the amount of £13,000,000 is incorrect? He appeared to think that the four petitions which have been referred to are duplicates, whereas they are four separate petitions.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– I have already stated that there appears to be four separate petitions, and that they probably represent capital to the amount of £13,000,000. A mistake arose through the wording of the letter which we received from the Premier of Western Australia, who said that he enclosed four copies of a petition presented to the Western Australian AgentGeneral. We naturally assumed that the four copies he enclosed were copies of the one petition, and two of them were given to the representatives of the Government, in the Senate, while the other two were retained here. The Minister for Trade and Customs, when he said that the signatories represented something under £3,000,000 of capital, was under the impression that the petition to which he referred was the only petition. Subsequently the honorable member for Kalgoorlie allowed me to see the petition from which he was reading, and we found that the signatures to it differed from those to the petition which we had. I immediately called attention to the fact that there appeared to be four separate petitions, and that it was therefore probable that his statement that the signatories represented a capital of £13,000,000 was correct.

Mr McDONALD:
Kennedy

– As the representative of a mining constituency, I desire to intimate that I am going to vote for a duty of 15 per cent. I should have liked to see the duty reduced to 10per cent., or done away with altogether, but as it is probable that if such a proposal were moved it would not be carried, I shall be content to vote for a duty of 15 per cent.

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

– I visited Mount Morgan only last year, and when there I saw thousands of pounds worth of machinery which was not being used. When I asked why it was lying idle, I was told that almost every year improvements are being discovered, and that, therefore, what is practically new machinery, has constantly to be replaced by machinery of still later design. The world knows that the Mount Morgan mine is a very large one, and therefore the money which those connected with it expend upon machinery must be very large. The honorable member for Wide Bay says that the miners do not ask for this reduction of duty ; but I would point out to him that within the last five years the number of men employed at Mount Morgan has been doubled. What is happening at Mount Morgan is happening all over the Commonwealth.

Mr Thomas:

– Does the new machinery come from Walker’s foundry?

Mr PAGE:

– Most of it is imported, though some of it is made in Rockhampton.

Mr Tudor:

– Was there not a duty upon machinery under the Queensland Tariff.

Mr PAGE:

– That is no reason why we should continue to tax the mining industry. Queensland would be in a very queer position to-day if it were not for her mining industry.

Mr Fisher:

– Queensland is in a queer position.

Mr PAGE:

– Things will be far worse there if we retain this high duty upon mining machinery. It might be argued that these big mining companies should be forced to contribute more largely to the revenue ; but by improving their methods of working, and thus increasing their output and the number of men employed, they very largely increase the revenue indirectly. I should like to see mining machinery admitted free, and I shall certainly vote for a reduction of the present rate of duty.

Question - That the figures “ 20 “ proposed to be omitted stand part of the item, “Mining machinery, n.e.i.” - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 21

Noes … … … 28

Majority … … 7

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment of the amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

– The Minister for Trade and Customs has given notice of his intention to impose a duty of 20 per cent, upon electrical machinery, but in view of the decision just come to I move -

That the following new line be inserted : - “ Electrical machinery, on and after10th April, 1902,ad valorem 15 percent.”

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
Tasmania

– I should like to know whether it is contemplated to add to the exemptions electrical rock drills, which cannot be made here, and regarding which I have made representations to the Government.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– If the rate had been fixed at 20 per cent, some further exemptions might have been made, but with a 15 per cent, duty we do not propose to add to the exemptions already in the Tariff.

Mr THOMAS:
Barrier

– I am not satisfied to impose a duty of 15 per cent, upon electrical machinery. There is a great difference between electrical and other machinery, and I think that it should be admitted free. The great motive power of the future, if not of the present, is electricity, and all the great nations of the world are using electricity, inorder to cheapen production. We are also beginning to utilize electrical power very largely in Australia, but we are not making electrical machinery here. It cannot reasonably be expected that for at least a generation we shall be able to compete in this department with the great manufacturers of the old world, and we should therefore introduce the machinery free of duty. We find that, notwithstanding the heavy protection extended to the engineering industry in Victoria, and in some of the other States, nearly all the machinery used in our largest and most important factories has been imported. There are at least 34 electric lighting plants in operation in the various States, and every one of these has been imported. The New South Wales Government has during the last few years spent £350,000 upon electrical machinery, and, notwithstanding the fact that a large proportion of this has been purchased by protectionist Administrations, the whole of it has been imported. It is very desirable that in all our industries we should utilize the very best and most modern appliances, in order that the cost of production may be so cheapened as to en able us to enter into successful competition in the markets of the world. Imove -

That the amendemnt be amended by theinsertion of the word “free” after the figures “1902.”

Mr McCAY:
Corinella

– The honorable member for Barrier says, in effect, that if we continue to use steam instead of electricity we shall be left behind in the industrial race. If, however, we are to admit electrical machinery free, and are not to afford opportunities for the establishment of electrical machinery works in Australia, our steam appliances will gradually become displaced by imported electrical machinery, and we shall have no engineering establishments left in Australia. It is absolutely essential that in the fight between steam and electricty, both classes of machinery should be placed upon the same footing. According to the honorable member’s own showing, if we were to admit electrical machinery free of duty we should bring about the distraction of our engineering establishments.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta).The honorable member for Corinella has assumed that we cannot do anything unless we have high duties to help us. I wish to know why we cannot make electrical machinery here without any such assistance. Does the demand for a duty come from men who are down-trodden in the world, and who are struggling for an existence ?

Sir William Lyne:

– The machinery comes from the highly-protected country of America.

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

– It is said that we cannot compete with older countries. Why? Are our brawn and brain of an inferior character ? The honorable member for Melbourne Ports would not subscribe to that theory.

Mr Thomas:

– We have not population enough.

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

– Will the imposition of a 20 per cent, duty give us the population ? I protest against the assumption that we cannot do anything here unless we impose high duties. In the first place we cannot expect to make this machinery because we have not the population to create the demand, and in the next place we cannot make it until the patent rights run out. I therefore hope that we shall have this article placed upon the free list.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania). - It would have been better if the Government had replied to the honorable member for Barrier, instead of allowing their case to be put by a sort of devil’s advocate, who dashes in at the very outset of the debate with the idea, I presume, of keeping Ministers straight on the protectionist path.

Mr Kingston:

– We have told the committee what we are going to do.

Sir EDWA RD BRADDON:
TASMANIA

– But we “have not yet reached the stage when an autocratic Government can tell the commit”tee what it is to do. It rests with the committee to decide for itself.

– The honorable member knows the effect of the gospel of cheapness.

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

– I do not understand the inane interjection of. the honorable member. . I have not been brought up in the atmosphere in which he has been reared. He has already pitied my state of mind tonight, but I will not reciprocate by pitying his. I content myself with repeating that he himself has furnished the most incontestable proof that the proposed duty is not required.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

– In the course of his remarks the honorable member for Laanecoorie declared that he was in favour of imposing a duty of 20 per cent, upon electrical machinery for the purpose of providing employment, although the honorable member for the Barrier has assured the committee that there are from 600 to 800 men engaged in working such machinery, while 40 only are employed in its manufacture. If the honorable member for Laanecoorie were sincere in his statement, he would be desirous of reducing rather than of increasing the duty upon electrical machinery. When he was a Minister of the Crown in Victoria, he found that the duty upon electrical machinery was excesssive, and accordingly recommended that a large portion of it should be remitted. In his administrative capacity, therefore, he did himself justice. He could see that the imposition of a high duty upon this class of machinery rendered it too expensive to import, and that the development of our mines was thus retarded. If he would return to his former frame of mind, he would realize that we are not warranted in adopting the Government proposal. In Australia we want to be able to secure electrical machinery at the lowest possible cost to assist in the development of our industries. Something has been said about the power of generating electricity at Niagara, but I would point out that we have the same means of conserving that wonderful force in Australia. In the Blue Mountains, New South Wales, there are numerous waterfalls which could be utilized in the same way. If we admit electrical appliances free of duty, our own engineers will be enabled to keep pace with the latest advances in electrical science and ultimately to compete successfully with foreign manufacturers. I see no reason to assume that they will not ultimately be able to succeed, but for many years to come we cannot expect our local engineers to compete with those of America, who have had quite 15 or 20 years’ start, with a vast population. People in places, remote from centres of population use electrical machinery largely, and the business of electrical engineering in Sydney is growing rapidly. Electrical appliances are being improved month by month. I have passed through towns in America where immense plants have been discarded and replaced by others more up-to-date. No doubt we shall have a similar experience here, and we cannot keep pace with the times unless we admit free the most approved appliances.

Mr. SALMON (Laanecoorie). - As a matter of personal explanation, I desire to state that the reason which actuated me in reference to the reimbursement of the duty referred to was not that advanced by the honorable member for Robertson. My reason was that this was the first machinery of the kind imported into the State, and that it was desirable to have it as a pattern.

Mr Henry Willis:

– And I commend the honorable member for doing so.

Mr SALMON:

– I did not urge the reimbursement of the duty in order to cheapen this particular machinery, which was intended for a wealthy company, who could well afford to pay for it.

Mr Henry Willis:

– But the effect would be to cheapen the machinery.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

– On the machinery referred to by the honorable member for Laanecoorie the duty was £6,000. The Government of Victoria deputed an inspector of mines to report, and he reported that the machinery could have been made within the State. Thereupon the Government refused to give a rebate. The honorable members of the Opposition pride themselves on being perfectly fair to all trades ; yet they wish to give an advantage to electrical machinery, which the honorable member for Barrier is of opinion will shortly supplant other machinery. I trust the committee will not reduce the duty.

Mr Thomas:

– Surely the honorable member does not desire to keep the old plants.

Mr TUDOR:

– Then let those who want the newer machinery pay the duty.

Mr Thomas:

– Does the honorable member not want up-to-date machinery for the manufacture of hats.?

Mr TUDOR:

– The manufacturers of hats pay the duty, and do not growl, and they have imported machines which they have used as patterns.

Mr Winter Cooke:

– There is not much ingenuity about that.

Mr TUDOR:

– But hat manufacturers have also had some machinery on a new system made entirely in Victoria, for the making of which there would be no opportunity if honorable members on the other side had their way. We ought to agree to a duty of 15 per cent, on all classes of machinery without exemptions.

Mr. THOMAS (Barrier).- The amount of the duty payable on the plant which was imported for the Charlotte Plains Company was £6,000. The company did not ask to have the duty remitted merely in order that there might be an object lesson, but because they felt that they ought not to pay £6,000 duty on a plant that could not be made in the State. I am with the honorable member for Laanecoorie in the desire that the duty should be remitted in order to provide an object lesson ; indeed, I should like to see a thousand plants imported with that end in view, because they are not imported unlesspeopleare employed in working them. The mining inspector sent by the Government of Victoria stated that a similar plant had been manufactured for the Koch’s Pioneer Mining Company. The Brush Electrical Engineering Company had stated that they would be unable to supply a similar plant under fourteen months, because of other heavy orders they had to fulfil, and George Weymouth and Company, of Melbourne, who are the only people in Australia who pretend to be able to make this class of plant, said they could undertake to complete the contract in four months. The tender was signed, and one condition was that the Koch Company should be paid £5 a day as a penalty for every day’s delay over the four months ; and about a month ago the delay amounted to 643 days.

Mr Tudor:

– Was it the electrical part or the steam-engine part that would not work?

Mr THOMAS:

– George Weymouth and Company undertook the contract, and if it was the mechanical part that would not work, that part also was made in Victoria.

Sir George Turner:

– But by somebody else.

Mr THOMAS:

– I am informed by the secretary of the Koch’s Pioneer Company that they have paid £600 for firewood used in the efforts to make the machinery work. I have been given to understand on very good authority that the mining inspector has been asked to give a second report, and that he is more favorable to the refund of the £6,000 duty. I understand, further, that some time ago there was to be a meeting of the Koch’s Pioneer Company to decide whether a demand should be made for the penalty of £5 per day under the contract. It will be impossible for us to make this machinery in Australia for years to come, and the imposition of a duty of 15 per cent, will have no effect in bringing such an undertaking into existence. Therefore this is wholly a revenue duty, and to try to raise revenue by hampering the development of our resources is absurd. What we should do is to assist the development of our resources, and obtain revenue by the increased consumption which will be created by the employment of a larger number of people.

Mr KNOX:
Kooyong

– I ask the honorable member for Barrier not to press his amendment. He has uttered a very strong protest against the proposed duty, and has made out a good case for its reduction, and even for its abolition ; but we must be consistent, in this matter, and it seems to me that under the circumstances a duty of 15 per cent, may be regarded as a reasonable compromise. I wish to remind the Minister for Trade and Customs that a deputation representing £20,000,000 of capital invested in the great electrical works in the United States, Germany, and England, waited upon his department, and stated that they regarded a duty of 15 per cent, upon machinery, such as dynamos, motors, and generators as a reasonable one, but that they thought that a certain list of exemptions should be agreed to, and at a later stage I wish to have something to say in regard to these exemptions. I know from the time that the honorable member for Barrier has taken to collect his information that in his remarks to-night he has hardly done himself justice, but as he has made his protest I ask him now to consent to the proposal of the Minister. When we come to deal with the exemptions, we shall ask the Minister to give favorable consideration to certain representations.

Amendment of the amendment,by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Sir George Turner) agreed to -

That the following new line be inserted : - “ Electrical appliances, n.e.i., on and after11th April,1 902, ad valorem 15 per cent.”

Mr. TUDOR (Yarra) : I move-

That the following new line be inserted : - “Galvanized iron roofing screws, on and after 11th April, 1902, ad valorem 20 per cent.”

The committee on a former occasion decided that all screws should be admitted free of duty, because nine-tenths of the screws in use are carpenters’ screws; but the screw to which my amendment refers is a screw which is manufactured in Australia, and patented here. I have it upon the authority of the patentee that if the duty is not agreed to he can manufacture the screws in England and send them out here. Honorable members know the conditions under which work of this kind is performed in the manufacturing centres of England, and they are not such as we should like to see here. If the screws continue to be made here, we shall be able to regulate the conditions under which they are made.

Mr Thomas:

– How many men are there employed in the industry ?

Mr TUDOR:

– I cannot tell the honorable member.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– Although the Government ‘ sympathised and voted with the honorable member on a former occasion, the matter was so thoroughly thrashed out then that we are inclined to think that it is inadvisable to try to alter the decision of the committee in regard to it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

– I move -

That the following new line be added : - “Springs, on and after ]lth April, 1902, ad valorem, 20 per cent.”

I have moved the amendment for the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, who I am sorry is not here, because he had strong reasons to urge for his proposal, and what he had to say would have come with additional weight, owing to the fact that he originally voted, for the reduction of the duty. He has since been convinced, however, that the industry is an important one, and that the reduction of the duty has had the effect of throwing a number of men out of employment.

Mr KINGSTON:

– The Ministry must oppose the amendment for the same reason as that for which they opposed the amendment of the honorable member for Yarra. This proposal was defeated on a former occasion by 31 votes to 14, after the matter had been thoroughly thrashed out.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta). - I move -

That the following exemptions be added : - “ Tanners’ squeezing machines, staking machines, shaving machines, sawyer measuring machines, fleshing, scudding, and unhairing machines, whitening and blackening machines.”

I should like to know if the Minister has looked into this matter?

Mr Kingston:

– Yes ; and my information is that these machines are made here.

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

– Has the Minister anything to show that the local manufacturer makes any one of these machines ?

Mr Kingston:

– I have the officer’s report, in which I place the utmost reliance, hat the local manufacturer has furnished direct proof that he makes or has made all these machines, or others that do the like work.

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

– “Others that do the like work.” I am surprised that the Minister should be satisfied with a statement of that kind. All the machines I have enumerated are patented, and the local manufacturer says that he has old machines that will do the work as well. Upon the strength of this, the Minister is prepared to tax the new and improved machines out of use in favour of the obsolete machines which have been largely superseded. They are not now being used throughout the trade, and if the duty is retained upon modern tanners’ appliances we- shall be taxing science and progress, and continuing the old order of things from which it should be our aim to emerge. The locally-manufactured machines will no doubt do the work, but not so cheaply or so efficiently as the improved imported articles. I am now asking the Minister to decide whether he will compel tanners to use obsolete machinery of local manufacture in preference to the up-to-date appliances employed in other parts of the world. The tanning industry is in a very depressed condition, as little or no profit has been made by those engaged in it during the last five or six years. Their products have to compete in the markets of the world, and it is necessary that they should be equipped with the most improved appliances in order that they may be placed on an equal footing with their outside competitors. Perhaps one or two of the machines named in my amendment are made here, but the bulk of them certainly cannot be locally manufactured, because they are covered by special patents. These machines are a few out of the many which were rejected on a previous occasion when I urge( the Government to make some additions to the free list, and I would strongly impress upon the committee the desirability of adopting my proposal.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I hope the Government will reconsider this matter, and that it will be borne in mind that the tools of trade used in a great number of highly protected industries carried on in Victoria have already been exempted from duty. (Committee counted.) The Government have been ready enough to comply with the requests of some of their own supporters for the exemption of tools of trade, used in industries in which they were specially interested, and in view of the strong case made out by the honorable member for Parramatta, I hope that they will be equally considerate in this case. The tanners have greater difficulties to contend with than have those engaged in most other industries. They export a large proportion of their product, and compete in the open markets of the world, and in order that they may be able to carry on successfully it is desirable that they should be equipped with the best of appliances, including many patented machines which cannot be made here. We have had no evidence that machines as suitable to the trade as those imported can be locally manufactured. One of the Victorian manufacturers, who has been most loudly calling for a protective duty has his establishment equipped entirely with imported machinery, upon which he had to pay duty to the amount of £1,500. He could not obtain this machinery from local makers, and the tanners are in a very similar position.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– I understand that the honorable member for Parramatta specially desires that certain of these’ machines should be exempt from duty, and perhaps we may be able to meet him to some extent. I am prepared to concede to the honorable member that squeezing machines, shaving machines, and whitening and blacking machines shall be admitted duty free.

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

– I shall be happy to take all I can get.

Amendment amended accordingly, and agreed to.

Mir. KNOX (Kooyong). - I desire that high-speed engines shall be treated in the same way as turbines. They are used for the same purposes in electrical machinery ; that is, for securing a high amount of speed for the dynamo. That cannot be secured by any such machine at present made in Australia. I am indifferent whether the machines are placed upon the free list or are made subject to a duty of 15 per cent., but in justice to the various electrical companies with agents in Australia, it is of importance that these motive powers, which are necessary to the high speed of electrical machinery, should be in the same position. Of course I should prefer to see the high-speed engines on the free list ; that is not what I am concerned about. The engines are confined, and protected from the slightest grain of sand, and so delicate are they that they run in oil. Their revolutions average 300 and 500 per minute. Of course they cannot possibly be made in Australia. I move -

That the following exemption be added : - “High-speed engines.”

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– A mistake was made in putting turbines on the free list. I agree that it would be wise to treat both turbines and high-speed engines as being on the same footing, but we are not prepared to admit them free. It is too vague altogether to say that high-speed engines be placed upon the free list. I suggest that both turbines and high-speed engines be dutiable at 15 per cent.

Mr. THOMAS (Barrier).- I hope the Government will not propose that turbines be made dutiable. They cannot be made here, and surely the protectionists themselves would desire that they should be admitted free.

Sir George Turner:

– We have declared that electrical machinery shall pay 15 per cent., and I am quite willing that these machines should be treated on the same footing.

Mr THOMAS:

– No one seriously contemplates high-speed engines being made here, and they should not be taxed.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania). - It would simplify matters if the honorable member for Kooyong would amend his motion. I take it that what he wants is that high-speed engines shall be admitted duty free. A division upon that point would settle the matter.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

– Those who know a little about machinery will be exceedingly anxious to know what are included under the head of high-speed engines. I know a little about engines, and I am inclined to think that under this definition I could bring in any kind of engine I liked. No one could tell what is a high-speed engine or what is a low-speed engine. I do not know what the honorable member for Kooyong meant when he drafted his amendment in this way.

Mr. KNOX (Kooyong). - I wish to avoid what I believe to be the undesirable practice of mentioning makers’ names, or stating any special characteristics in the Tariff. It is known all over the world that high-speed engines will run up to 300, 400, and 500 revolutions of energy. We have not succeeded in making them here. The honorable member for Wide Bay is running away with the idea that the ordinary engine can be brought up to that speed. Any engine which exceeds 150 revolutions a minute is a high-speed engine. I came here to-day believing that it was a fair thing for the Government under the circumstances to ask for a 15 per cent, duty on high-speed engines as well as turbines, and so avoid any difficulty or complication. My desire is to secure simplicity in the interpretation of the Tariff. I appreciate the very great difficulty there is in defining what is a highspeed engine unless we give the names of the manufacturers) who have a world-wide reputation.

Mr Kingston:

– Could it be done by fixing the number of revolutions ?

Mr KNOX:

– I do not feel myself qualified to-night to answer that question, but if the Minister will afford me on opportunity to consult with engineers on the subject, I may be able to do so in the afternoon. My feeling is that it would be better to impose a 15 per cent, duty on both lines.

Mr. FISHER (Wide Bay). - I am glad that the honorable member for Kooyong has made this explanation. I agree with him that if the object is to get revenue, the fewer exemptions we have the better. As he desires that turbines and high - speed engines shall be put on the 15 per cent, list, that will get over the difficulty very easily. It is desirable that they should be taxed at the same rate as other machinery. If they are not made here now, I hope that they will be made here soon. I trust that the Government will accept the suggestion to impose a 15 per cent. duty.

Mr. SYDNEY SMITH (Macquarie).- I hope that the Treasurer will adopt the suggestion of the honorable member for Kooyong to adjourn, so that he may have an opportunity to get the necessary particulars to distinguish the engines. We do not propose to debate the question at any great length to-morrow if an adjournment is granted.

Progress reported.

Houseadjourned at 12.53 a.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 April 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1902/19020409_reps_1_9/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 9 April 1902

QUESTION

ARMY REMOUNTS

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · PROT

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

QUESTION

CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION

Mr E SOLOMON:FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

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

QUESTION

PEARL-SHELLING INDUSTRY

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

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr MACDONALD-PATERSON:BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FT

Mr Reid:

Mr MACDONALD-PATERSON:BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND

Mr PAGE:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

QUESTION

MILITARY BOOT. CONTRACTS

Mr TUDOR:YARRA, VICTORIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

PAPERS

QUESTION

TARIFF

Mr WILKS:Dalley

Mr Batchelor:

Mr WILKS:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr WILKS:

Mr MAHON:Coolgardie

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr MAHON:

The CHAIRMAN:

Sir Edward Braddon:

Mr Reid:

The CHAIRMAN:

Sir Edward Braddon:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr Conroy:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr MAHON:

Mr Reid:

Mr MAHON:

Sir George Turner:

Mr MAHON:

Sir George Turner:

Mr MAHON:

Sir George Turner:

Mr MAHON:

Sir George Turner:

Mr MAHON:

Sir George Turner:

Mr MAHON:

Sir George Turner:

Mr MAHON:

Sir George Turner:

Mr MAHON:

Sir George Turner:

Mr MAHON:

Mr REID:East Sydney

Mr GLYNN:South Australia

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

Mr GLYNN:

Mr WATSON:Bland

Mr HENRY WILLIS:Robertson

Mr FOWLER:Perth

Mr KIRWAN:Kalgoorlie

Mr Kingston:

Mr KIRWAN:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr KIRWAN:

Mr KIRWAN:

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

Mr KIRWAN:

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

Mr KIRWAN:

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:Tasmania

Mr BROWN:Canobolas

House of Representatives
9 April 1902

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · PROT

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

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

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

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

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr MACDONALD-PATERSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FT

Mr MACDONALD-PATERSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr TUDOR:
YARRA, VICTORIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

Mr REID:
East Sydney

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

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

Mr WATSON:
Bland

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

Mr KIRWAN:
Kalgoorlie

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

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

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
Tasmania

Mr BROWN:
Canobolas

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

Mr MACDONALD-PATERSON:
Brisbane

Mr MACDONALD-PATERSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FT

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

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

Mr BATCHELOR:
South Australia

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

Mr MAUGER:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

Mr WILKINSON:
Moreton

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT