House of Representatives
6 September 1906

2nd Parliament · 3rd Session



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

page 4086

QUESTION

MAIL SERVICE TO EUROPE

Mr WILKINSON:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I wish to know from the Postmaster-General whether he is prepared to reply to my questions of Friday last regarding a paragraph which appeared in the Age newspaper on the 30th ultimo, wherein he is reported to have said that the Government had a written pledge, in a letter from the contractor for the new mail service, to the effect that Melbourne and Sydney would be ports of call, &c. ?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

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

  1. The report referred to is substantially correct.
  2. A letter from the contractors’ representative, written voluntarily more than a fortnight before the contract was accepted, intimated that the steamers under the contract would proceed to Melbourne and Sydney for commercial purposes.
  3. No.

I hope that the steamers will go on to Brisbane.

page 4087

QUESTION

PENNY POSTAGE

Mr LEE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– When will the PostmasterGeneral proceed with his penny postage proposals ?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

– At the earliest possible moment.

page 4087

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Royal Commissions and Select Committees

Report (No. 3) presented by Mr. Poynton, and read by the Clerk.

Motion (by Mr. Poynton) proposed -

That the report be agreed to.

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

.- Although the Printing Committee has recommended the printing of a paper relating to the bursting of rifles, it has omitted from the list of papers to be printed a return ordered on the motion of the honorable member for New England, asking for a detailed account of the expenditure upon Royal Commissions and Select Committees. I cannot understand why it has not recommended the printing of a return of so much public interest.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- So many Royal Commissions and Select Committees have been appointed since Federation that I agree with the honorable member for Dalley, that the country should know exactly what expense has been incurred thereby. A return giving the information has been ordered by the House, and no attempt should be made to smother it.

Mr Watkins:

– That is not worthy of the honorable member.

Mr KELLY:

– I do not reflect upon the honorable member or upon any other member of the Committee, but I think that when a return of this importance is ordered, it should be printed. In my opinion, any information ordered to be furnished by the House is of sufficient importance to be printed and published broadcast for the information of the people.

Mr WILSON:
Corangamite

.- As a member of the antiSelectCommitteeandtoomanyRoyalCommissions party now being led by the honorable member for Dalley, I feel that the information to which he has referred should be printed and published broadcast. The people desire to know how their money is being spent. I shall not discuss the question whether the expenditure on Royal Commissions and Select Committees has been a wise one, but the Printing Committee should have allowed the return ordered by the House in relation to it to be printed, so that honorable members could use it when questioned on the subject. I hope that the Committee will again consider the matter, and I therefore move -

That the following words be added : - “ and that the return presented to the House on29th August’ last in regard to Royal Commissions be also printed.”

Mr LIDDELL:
Hunter

.- The public have a right to know how their money is expended, and whether members of Parliament receive more remuneration than the£400 to which they are entitled under the Constitution.

Mr Chanter:

– The public have been given this information. It has already been printed in the newspapers.

Mr LIDDELL:

– I am frequently asked what I find in politics that it pays me to leave home and spend my time in Melbourne. It is suggested that I must be making money by attending the sittings of Royal Commissions, or in other employment of that sort. It should be made known that Royal Commissions are not appointed, as many people seem to think, in order to increase the salaries of members of Parliament.

Mr Mahon:

– I rise to a point of order. Is it competent for a private member to move now for the printing of a document laid on the table on a former occasion? I am under the impression that only a Minister can move such a motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Any member can at any time move that papers be printed. Standing order 322 says -

When a Paper has been laid on the table, a motion may be made at any time, without notice, that the Paper be printed.

Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle

.- As a member of the Printing Committee I repudiate the suggestion that we desire to prevent any document from being printed. The return in question was treated as other returns are treated. Generally, when an honorable member wishes for the printing of a return, he asks that it may be printed, or that request is made for him by some other honorable member. The Committee have allowed the printing of this return to stand over until some one asks that it be printed. I have no objection to the printing of it. The first consideration of the Committee is the keeping down of expense by preventing unnecessary printing.

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

.- It seems to me a strange thing that a return giving the details of expenditure amounting to £26,000 has not been recommended to be printed, while that recommendation has been made in regard to a paper referring merely to the bursting of rifles. Am I to understand that every paper recommended by the Printing Committee to be printed has formedthe subject of a request such as the honorable member has referred to?

Mr Watkins:

– No; but that is generally the case in regard to returns. There is no objection to the printing of this return so far as the Committee is concerned, but if honorable members had desired that it be printed, they could have gone the usual way about getting it done.

Mr WILKS:

– Then I must regard it as an oversight on the part of the Printing Committee that the printing of this return has not been recommended, and honorable members will be supplying that oversight if they support the motion for the printing of it.

Mr McDONALD:
Kennedy

– I think that it is time that a reform was carried out in regard to the printing and circulating of public documents. I do not know who is to blame, but only a fortnight ago I received three copies of a return by three different posts, and it is a common occurrence to receive two copies of the same return. No doubt my experience is the same as that of other honorable members. In my opinion, if the House does not order a document to be printed, the Printing Committee should not have power to do so. Another matter to which I wish to refer is the ordering by Ministers of the printing of papers prepared by private members. I do not wish to mention names, but that has occurred recently on two occasions. I called attention to the practice twelve or eighteen months ago. I should like to know whether, in the event of my deciding to write an essay, arrangements would be made for printing and circulating it. If that course is adopted in one case, it should be followed in regard to every honorable member who may desire to place his views before the House in that form. Personally, I do not think that such documents should be printed. With regard to the particular document which has been referred to by the honorable member for Dalley, there appears to be an impression that the mere printing of it will cause to be circulated information with which the general public have not yet been made acquainted ; but that is an entirely erroneous view to take.

Mr Wilks:

– The honorable member has not yet seen the details of the return?

Mr McDONALD:

– Yes, I have. The whole of the particulars have been printed in a numberof Queensland newspapers. If it had been desired that the return should be printed, the honorable member for New England should have moved in that direction - in fact, it is not too late for him to take that course. It is idle to contend that the mere printing of the return and its circulation amongst honorable members will lead to any further publicity than that which has already been given to it.

Mr Wilks:

– Would not that apply equally to all important papers and returns laid upon the table?

Mr McDONALD:

– No. I do not think so. I rose more particularly to express the hope that next year some more definite method would be adopted for the distribution of Parliamentary papers among honorable members. It would be sufficient to supply honorable members with a complete set of all papers laid upon the table of either House, without, as at present, duplicating the documents in many cases.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- I entirely agree with everything that has been said by the honorable member for Kennedy on the question of curtailing, as far as possible, the expense incurred in connexion with the printing of Parliamentary papers. I think, however, that it is very undesirable that honorable members who may desire to obtain, upon the spur of the moment, certain information contained in Parliamentary papers, should have to hunt through the files of the newspapers in pursuit of it.

Mr Carpenter:

– The honorable member has the contents of the return referred to pasted in his scrap book already.

Mr KELLY:

– Does the honorable member think that I desire to use the return for any particular purpose - is that the reason why my honorable friends do not wish to have it printed? I can assure honorable members that I have not the return pasted in my scrap book ; but since it is regarded as a proper document to appear there, I shall take care to possess myself of a copy. I do not know whether any honorable members are affected by the return. But, quite apart from personal or party considerations, it is due to the House that all returns containing information of importance should be printed. On the other hand, the abuses which the honorable member for Kennedy has referred to in connexion with sending out a number of practically private documents, and more than one copy of other documents, should be put an end to.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- I have no objection to the return as to the cost of Select Committees and Royal Commissions being printed. I think that the honorable member for New England is to be congratulated upon having so readily obtained the return he desired. During the last Parliament I moved for a return, and, although two years elapsed before the next Parliament was elected, the return was not forthcoming; presumably the reason was that it referred to the payment of the minimum wage in the Public Service. I moved for a return upon a certain Friday, and upon the following’ Tuesday the honorable member for ‘Grey moved for a similar return relating to another portion of the Public Service. The information that was brought to light showed that there had been such a. large amount of sweating in two of the States that I presume it was not considered desirable to make public all the particulars that had been asked for.

Mr Hutchison:

– The honorable member should have insisted upon getting the information he desired.

Mr TUDOR:

– I made frequent representations upon the subject, but I was always told that we should soon obtain the return. I do not think that the return furnished at the request of the honorable member for New England will be of very much use for election purposes in its amended form. If only the ‘particulars originally asked for had been given, such, for instance, as the amount of money received by each member, and not stating the number of days occupied by members of the Commission in travelling, and in attending meetings of the Commission, and the Administrations by whom they were appointed, some interesting facts might not have been brought to light. As it is, I do not think that the return will be so useful as an electioneering pamphlet as some honorable members seem to think.

Mr STORRER:
Bass

.- I suggest that the amendment should be withdrawn, that the report of the Printing Committee should be adopted, and that a motion should afterwards be tabled for the printing of the document to which special reference has been made. I am perfectly willing that the return should be printed, but I could not support the amendment, because I consider that it would cast a reflection upon the Printing Committee.

Mr LONSDALE:
New England

– I have only just heard that the Printing Committee have decided that all other papers except the return furnished at my request shall be printed. If the cost of printing the return would be so large as to involve the Commonwealth in a deficiency, I could understand why the expense should not be incurred. The question, however, is whether the information is such as should be communicated to the public.

Mr Tudor:

– The public already know; it has been published in every newspaper in Australia.

Mr LONSDALE:

– I do not think that any attempt should be made to hide the information contained in the return. The more honorable members fight against the details being made public, the more it will appear that there is something behind their objection. I never for one moment imagined that any honorable member would refuse to let the public know the cost of Royal Commissions.

Mr Watkins:

– Who has done so?

Mr LONSDALE:

– The Printing Committee.

Mr Watkins:

– No, they have’ not.

Mr LONSDALE:

– I understood so. I want to know what objection there is to having the return printed.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– I was unaware that the return had not been printed. There is no need to occupy any further time in discussing the matter. If the amendment be withdrawn, I shall immediately afterwards move that the return be printed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) agreed to -

That the Return to the Order of the House, dated 26th July, 1906, giving particulars in regard to Royal Commissions, which was presented on 29th August, 1906, be printed.

page 4090

QUESTION

ELECTORAL EXPENDITURE

Mr CHANTER:

– At the present time paid organizers of the Farmers’, Property Owners’, and Producers’ Association are travelling through the Commonwealth expending large sums of money, and I should like to know from the Prime Minister if, under the Electoral Act, that expenditure will be charged to the candidates on whose behalf it is being incurred?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– No doubt if this expenditure can be connected with particular candidates it can be debited to them.

Mr Chanter:

– That can easily be done.

Mr KELLY:

– Would a person be allowed to spend a large sum of money in an electorate in favour of a candidate to whom he was opposed, with a view to preventing him from being elected?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I believe that cases of that kind have come before electoral courts ; but am not sufficiently familiar with the exact wording of our section to be able to express an opinion off.-h.and.

Mr TUDOR:

– I also should like to ask whether the expenses incurred by the political organizations that are spending a large’ amount of money in supporting candidates for election to this Parliament, and are circulating a large amount of political literature, will come within the meaning of the previsions in the Electoral Act, which limit the amount of money to be spent by a candidate in securing his return ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I have looked at the Act, and find that the whole question turns upon what is meant by money spent “on behalf of the candidate.” Looking at the matter cursorily, I should say that the words “on behalf of” means something like agency, that the expenditure must directly and intentionally be incurred on behalf df the candidate. How much further the provision goes could only be settled bv the High Court.

Mr SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

– I should like to know whether, under section 185 of the Electoral Act, any one incurring expenses on behalf of a candidate without his written authority would render himself liable under the penal provisions of the Act?

Mr DEAKIN:

– The whole question rests upon the meaning of the words “on behalf of.”

Mr WILSON:

– 1 should like to ask a question relating to the numerous protectionist associations which are springing up. in Victoria and elsewhere. Since the Attorney-General visited my electorate, protectionist associations have been springing up like mushrooms. The Labour Leagues have also been working for a considerable time throughout Victoria and New South Wales, and have been spending large sums of money. I should like to know whether these organizations, and the farmers’, producers’, and property owners’ organizations, if they work impersonally, commit any offence in any way likely to affect the candidates supported by them?

Mr DEAKIN:

– The section to which reference’ has been made relates only to expenditure, and not to personal service.

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

– As the Prime Minister has just given a couple of interpretations to the provisions of our Electoral Act, I desire to know whether the term “on behalf of” will cover the expenses of the labour leader, who has been at such pains to secure the vote of the Hume electors for the present Minister of Trade and Customs, and whether it will also cover the expenses of Miss Powell, who has been doing so noble a work upon behalf of the labour members in New South Wales?

Sir William Lyne:

– The leader of the Labour Party has never visited my electorate, and the honorable member knows it.

Mr Wilks:

– Put them upon the free list, like oranges.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have already had occasio.ni to call members to order three times, and I would point out that it is of little use for honorable members to ask questions and for Ministers to reply to them if there is so much disturbance in the Chamber that the replies cannot be heard.

Mr DEAKIN:

– In only one of the cases referred to by the honorable member for Parramatta would I venture to express an opinion. I am sure that any Court would look with a lenient eye upon assistance rendered by a lady to my honorable “colleague.

Mr BROWN:
CANOBOLAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the number of questions which have been put to the Prime Minister regarding the expenditure of large sums in connexion with the approaching elections, I desire to know whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to ascertain the source of these political funds ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– The appointment asked by the honorable member would enlarge the expenses of Royal Commissions - a subject which we have just been discussing - because it is quite certain that contributions of one kind or another are made from all sources. There is one class of expenditure to which we ought to take exception, and that is where the interests of great corporations are sought to be assisted by large donations to party funds.

Mr LONSDALE:

-Why does the Prime Minister object to expenditure to assist great corporations? In my own electorate there has been for some time past an organizer of the Labour Party. I should like to know where the funds come from with which his expenses are defrayed ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I must request the honorable member to ask a question, and not to argue the matter.

Mr LONSDALE:

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that honorable members belonging to a certain party in this House who are responsible for raising the question of where the funds come from withwhich to prosecute the forthcoming campaign, are themselves employing in various electorates organizers who are being paid?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I do not know where the funds come from. I should be very glad if I knew a little more as to where they were going to.

page 4091

QUESTION

AMENDMENT OF ELECTORAL ACT

Mr HIGGINS:
NORTHERN MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the near approach of the general elections, he will consider the desirability of bringing in a Bill to remedy a. defect in the Electoral Act by providing that members who are found guilty of unfair practices at elections shall forfeit their seats?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– I will take the matter into consideration.

Mr CHANTER:

– With reference to the promise made to me during last session, that an opportunity would be afforded me to bring in a Bill to amend the Electoral Act, I should like to know whether the Prime Minister, in view of the crop of cases that will probably come before the High Court, will afford facilities for the consideration of the Bill before the session closes?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I should be very glad to say “Yes” to that and similar applications, but am afraid that, although the opportunity may be offered to the honorable member-

Mr Chanter:

– The Prime Minister promised to afford me an opportunity of dealing with the Bill last session.

Mr DEAKIN:

– And we cannot refuse the honorable member an opportunity to lay his Bill before the House. But I very much doubt whether the time available will permit us to dispose of a disputable question such as the measure would involve.

Mr Chanter:

– If the Government will give me an opportunity of doing so I shall deal with it.

Mr DEAKIN:

– But other honorable members will also desire to deal with it.

page 4091

QUESTION

TASMANIAN MAIL SERVICE

Mr STORRER:

– I should like to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has yet accepted a tender for the new Tasmanian mail service?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

– In reply to the honorable member, I desire to say that negotiations are proceeding, and I hope to be able to give the information desired in a day or two.

page 4091

QUESTION

DEFENCE ADMINISTRATION

Mr KELLY:

– I wish to ask the Minister representing the Minister of Defence whether the recent proposed changes in Defence administration were submitted to the Council of Defence or to the Military Board, with a view to obtainingthe advice of either of those bodies upon them ?

Mr EWING:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– I will endeavour to let the honorable member have a reply to his. question upon Tuesday next.

page 4091

QUESTION

TARIFF AGREEMENT: COMMONWEALTH AND NEW ZEALAND

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

– As I see the Minister of Trade and Customs in his place, I should like to ask a very important question. It has reference to oranges. Upon the motion for adjournment on Friday last, I asked the Minister why, under the Reciprocal Tariff Agreement, which had been concluded with the late Prime Minister of New Zealand, oranges were to receive no preference? The honorable gentleman’s answer was as follows: -

In reply to the remarks of the honorable member, I can only say that it was not for lack of trying that we failed to induce the late Mr. Seddon to extend preferential treatment to Australian oranges, Both the Prime Minister and myself went almost to the point of breaking off negotiations with the late Prime Minister of New Zealand, in order to secure a preference to oranges, and to various other articles. But we could not induce him to 3’ield.

At that stage the honorable, member for Hindmarsh interjected -

Did he give any reason for refusing to extend preferential treatment to oranges?

The Minister’s reply was -

He did. His reason was lhat their admission would interfere with the growers of oranges in certain parts of New Zealand.

I now wish to ask whether the Minister is aware that there is no dutv levied upon the admission of Australian oranges into New Zealand?

Sir William Lyne:

– I was aware of it, but the honorable member was not.

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

– Does the Minister say-

Sir William Lyne:

– Ask a question?

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

– The Minister has already answered my question. I now wish to ask whether he was aware, at the time that he made his statement, that there was no duty upon oranges in New Zealand, and never has been?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

– In reply to the honorable member’s question, I wish to saythat it is absolutely true that a long and very heated discussion took place between the Prime Minister, myself, and the late Mr. Seddon upon the question of whether New Zealand would extend a preference to both Australian oranges and lemons. Our .proposal was that a preference should be extended to Australian oranges by imposing a duty upon oranges from other countries. That is what took place, and the discussion was a very keen one. The honorable member did not know until he reached Sydney, and was endeavouring to make a little political capital out of the question, that he was barking up the wrong tree. «

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

– I do not believe a word that the Minister says

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the honorable member for Parramatta withdraw that remark.

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

– I withdraw it, sir.

Mr KELLY:

– I wish to ask the Minister whether that portion of his reply reported in Hansard, in which he says that the late Prime Minister of New Zealand refused to grant a preference to Australian oranges, because of the interference it would occasion to the industry in New Zealand, is correct ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I have already answered that question. Both the Prime Minister and myself desired that a preference should be extended to Australian oranges and lemons by the imposition of a dutv upon oranges which were imported from abroad.

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Minister what particular oranges he was referring to when he requested the late Mr. Seddon to levy a duty upon oranges imported into New Zealand from countries other than Australia?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– If the honorable member does not know, I am not going to enlighten him upon the subject.

page 4092

QUESTION

GENERAL ELECTIONS

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

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that, owing to the action of the Government in another place, a. proposition has been made which, if adopted, would prevent the possibility of the general elections taking place, at the very earliest, until the beginning of December?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– The Government are aware that, under the Standing Orders of another place, it has been discovered, in connexion with the Senators’ Election Bill, that a call of the Senate is required, for which three weeks’ notice has to be given. After taking the question into consideration with us, my honorable colleague has this afternoon given notice of motion to suspend that standing order. We had in view the very contingency to which the honorable member for Parramatta has referred, namely, that if the ordinary course of procedure were followed, it would involve a postponement of the elections. Otherwise we had no objection to it. If time had permitted we should not have objected to the delay of twenty-one days, but that- delay would have affected the date of holding the general elections as the honorable member has suggested, and consequently my colleague has to-day submitted a notice of motion, which I hope will be dealt with to-morrow, or at a very early date, thus permitting the Bill to be dealt with, and obviating the postponement of the elections.

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

– To what extent will the dealing with the Bill be delayed?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Till the 18th instant, so that every member of the Senate will thus be afforded an opportunity of being present, and of considering the question of whether the standing order shall be waived.

Mr.Joseph Cook. - That will involve delay until the 19th inst.

Mr DEAKIN:

– There was reason to ask for some delay, and under the circumstances I think that the date suggested is a fair one. The Bill has already practicallypassed through all its stages in anotherplace, and I do not apprehend that its consideration will occupy very much time in this House.

page 4093

QUESTION

ADDITIONAL SITTINGS : CLOSE OF THE SESSION

Mr POYNTON:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether there is any truth in the statement which is made in the newspapers to-day that he intends to ask the House to siton Friday evenings and also on Mondays, and if so, when these additional sittings are to be initiated? I should also like him to say when he anticipates that the session will close?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– I hope to make a statement upon that question not later than to-morrow. I have been engaged with my colleagues in. examining the measures which appear upon the business-paper, with a view to diminishing the size of some of them.

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

– Yet new Bills are to be introduced.

Mr DEAKIN:

– The two Bills of which notice was given to-day contain only about four or five clauses. I hope that the sittings of this Parliament will close about the end of the month. That will afford honorable members an opportunity to visit even the most distant electorates. To enable us to rise by the time I have indicated will necessitate extra days of sitting, and I propose to submit to the House a motion in reference to that matter.

Mr Poynton:

– Not this week?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Not this week.

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

– Perhaps if I am permitted to make a statement, it will facilitate matters generally. I hope that when the Prime Minister and his colleagues are taking into consideration the question of the remaining business of the session, they will jettison a portion of their programme - I mean as far as they consistently can do so. If they will do that, I promise upon behalf of the Opposition that we will use our best endeavours to bring the session to a close at the earliest possible moment, without involving extra sittings of the House.

page 4093

POSTAL OFFICIALS’ OVERTIME

Mr.JOSEPH COOK asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Is it a fact that sixteen officers of the Money Order Branch, General Post Office, Sydney, receiving salaries of£160 per annum and under, were compelled to remain after official hours, until 9 p.m., to bring up certain arrears of work, for which no payment has been made ?

Were such arrears caused by the delay of the Department in filling temporarily, or otherwise, vacancies on the staff caused by continuous illness and the death of two officers and the resignation of others?

What amount in salaries, if any, was saved to the Department by the delay in filling the vacancies?

What amount would be clue to the sixteen officers if overtime allowance were authorized for the period worked in May last (882 hours in the aggregate) ?

Does the Postmaster-General not consider that the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Regulation No. 62 should apply to the case under notice, that is, that “ overtime “ or equivalent time off be granted for every hour worked in excess of 88 hours per fortnight?

Will steps be taken to obviate in the future the necessity of requiring officers to work from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. for lengthy periods?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

– Inquiries are being made, and replies will be furnished in due course.

page 4093

POSTAL OFFICIALS’ TEA MONEY

Mr.JOSEPH COOK asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Is he aware that an order was issued some time ago directing that no tea-money be allowed unless the employe works until 9 D.m. ?

Will he direct that this order be withdrawn?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

– I am not aware that an order was issued to the effect referred to, but I am having inquiries made on the subject.

page 4093

QUESTION

TARIFF

Agricultural Machinery and Implements

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from 5th September (vide page 4022), on motion by Sir William Lyne -

That in lieu of the duties of Customs imposed by the Customs Tariff 1902 on the items shown in the attached schedule, duties of Customs shall from the 28th day of August, 1906, at 4.30 p.m., Victorian time, be imposed as follows : -

Schedule

Fixed Rates

Stripper harvesters, each,£16.

Strippers, each, £8.

Metal parts of stripper harvesters and strippers, per lb., 2½d.

Ad Valorem Rates

Stump jump ploughs ; disc cultivators ; winnowers, horse and other power ; combined com sheller, husker, and bagger; combined corn sheller and husker, ad valorem, 25 per cent.

Ploughs, other; plough shares; harrows; chaff cutters and horse gear ; cultivators other than disc; scarifiers; plough mould boards; corn shellers; corn huskers, ad valorem, 20 per cent.

The following goods shall be free of Customs duty : -

Manufactures of Metals, viz. : -

Hand-worked rakes and ploughs combined ; hay tedders ; maize harvesters ; maize binders ; maize planters; mould board plates, in the rough, and not cut into shape ; potato sorters ; potato raisers or diggers.

Upon which Mr. Johnson had moved, by way of amendment -

That after the word “ follows,” line 5, the following proviso be added : - “ Provided that every manufacturing firm engaged in industries within the Commonwealth, the products of which are protected by duties, shall distribute in increased remuneration to their employes the full amount of the duties imposed.”

Mr McCOLL:
Echuca

.- In resuming the debate on this very important question, I desire to say that I am pleased to see the Minister of Trade and Customs in his place. Last night several very important points were raised, but in his absence honorable members were unable to obtain the information required. I trust that the Minister will be able to supply these details, and so to clear up some of the doubts that exist. May I also express the hope that the discussion of this question, which last night engendered so much heat, will be continued to-day in a calm and deliberate manner. It is a purely business proposition, respecting which there is much room for honest differences of opinion. Let us try to approach it in a reasonable way, and to arrive at a decision that will meet with the approval of all parties. One naturally wonders why a proposal in regard to one, and only one, machine used by the farmers should have given rise during the last two months to so much turmoil in the House and in the country. It is, to say the least, remarkable that such bitter feelings should have been aroused in connexion with this matter, but I trust that these will be dissipated, and that we shall be able to arrive at a satisfactory determination. I address myself to this question entirely from the protectionist stand-point. I have always been a protectionist, and, as honorable members are aware, battled as hard as did any one for the Tariff introduced in 1901 by the right honorable member for Adelaide. I supported almost every duty proposed by the then Minister of Trade and Customs, and indeed have never changed my views on the fiscal question since I first entered the political arena twenty-one years ago. If high duties are required, and can be justified, I am prepared to support them ; but the sincerity of one’s views with respect to the policy of protection is not to be judged by one’s attitude with respect to a mere 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. duty. In the case of many articles, a duty of 10 per cent. might be far too high, whilst in others a duty of 50 per cent. might be insufficient. Everything depends upon the special circumstances relating to the proposed duty; we have to consider whether we have the raw material to enable us to produce at a satisfactory price the goods to which it is to be applied, and to have regard to various other considerations. It is impossible to lay down a hard-and-fast rule with regard to” the imposition of protective duties. Every proposition must be dealt with entirely on its merits. Whilst I am prepared to impose such duties as will enable local manufacturers to employ up-to-date machinery, to pay fair wages, and. to place their goods on the market at a reasonable price, I am not prepared to entirely remove the stimulus of competition. When a local industry is firmly established, competition will reduce the price of its products, and we should impose such duties as will enable the local manufacturers to give their employes a fair remuneration for their labour. Whilst I hold these views, I have also to remember that for the last twenty-one years I have been representing farmers, who do not look upon many of these proposals eye to eye with their friends in the cities. I have on all occasions been opposed by free-traders, but as a protectionist have always carried the day. At the last general election, when I stood as a supporter of fiscal peace, and preferential trade, I secured a larger majority than was obtained by any other candidate. I have always found that the farmers are not opposed to the imposition of reasonable duties, and that they are just as sincere as are residents of large cities in their desire to help town industries. They recognise what a large home market means to them, and that they cannot hope to obtain that market unless they are prepared to assist in establishing industries of all kinds in the Commonwealth. At the same time, the farmers want fair play, and I for one am determined that as far as lies within my power, they shall have it. I wish to view this question from every stand-point, and to do what is right to my own constituents as well as to those engaged in city industries. I also desire to be prepared to give a reasonable answer - one that will carry conviction - to any question that may be put to me in regard to any vote that I cast for the imposition of a duty, and I feel that it would be almost impossible for me at the present stage to satisfactorily explain the proposal submitted by the Government. At present, the whole question is much obscured, but I trust that the Minister of Trade and Customs will be able presently to clear up the differences of opinion that exist in regard to it.

Sir William Lyne:

– What differences of opinion?

Mr McCOLL:

– I shall indicate them presently. I have put to myself the questions : Is the duty proposed by the Government a justifiable one? Will it be fair to the makers of harvesters and those engaged in the industry as well as to the users? Do the circumstances connected with the industry warrant the imposition of the duty proposed by the Government? And these are points that we should carefully consider. I have taken part in the work of revising a good many Tariffs, and have always found that special attention is given to farming interests. It is invariably recognised that it is only at rare intervals that farmers can obtain from the policy of the protectionist the benefits derived from it by those engaged in many other industries, and that to place high duties upon their tools of trade would be to unfairly fetter their operations. In support of this statement I would refer honorable members to the duties on agricultural implements which prevailed under the various States Tariffs prior to Federation. In New South Wales they were free, and in Victoria they were subject to a duty of 15 per cent. I do not know that they were ever subjected to a higher duty in this State.

Sir John Quick:

– There was also a duty of 25 per cent, on agricultural machinery, as distinguished from agricultural implements.

Mr McCOLL:

– Quite so; but I am dealing with the duties on agricultural implements. Under the Victorian Tariff, as I have said, , those implements were subjected to a duty of 15 per cent., whilst certain agricultural machinery was dutiable at 25 per cent., and reapers and binders were free. In Queensland these implements - with the exception of a few rated under a general classification of 25 per cent. - were free. In South Australia some were subjected to a duty of 15 per cent., a few were rated at 20 per cent., and a number were free. In Tasmania they were free, and in Western Australia they were free in some cases and in others dutiable at 5 per cent. Five per cent, is the highest duty ever levied on agricultural implements in New Zealand. These figures support my contention that special duties to meet the requirements of the farming industry have always been imposed on agricultural implements. In the Tariff submitted by the right honorable member for Adelaide in 1901, a duty of 15 per cent, was proposed. We are now invited to make a very grave departure from that rate of duty, and I wish to know clearly and distinctly from the Minister of Trade and Customs why this proposal has been made. The honorable gentleman should give us an explanation, in order that we may be able to justify our votes. Is the industrystruggling? Is it being crushed by competition? We have no evidence that it is. On the contrary, all the evidence goes to show that under a duty of 12J per cent., those engaged in it have been able to hold their own in the Commonwealth, and to compete with foreign manufacturers in open markets abroad. Some of them have even done more than that, because, according to a return submitted last night, they have been able to find a market for their machines in countries where their foreign competitors have established factories. In these circumstances, one may well ask why we are invited to agree to this high duty on harvesters. Since Federation the local manufacturers have had a very much larger market open to them. There was no complaint that the Victorian Tariff of 15 per cent, was insufficient, and now local manufacturers, instead of being confined to the State market, have the markets of the Commonwealth open to them. The Victorian manufacturers of these implements, who number sixteen out of the twenty-four engaged in the industry in the Commonwealth, ought to be well satisfied.

Mr Mauger:

– These harvesters were not imported under the Victorian Tariff.

Mr McCOLL:

– I am referring to agricultural implements generally. According to the figures which have been laid before us, the local production of harvesters is increasing very rapidly. A few years ago the annual output was only 300, while at the present time it is over 1,900. Implements are a very costly item to farmers. A wheat farmer has to pay at least ^300 to equip his farm with all the implements necessary for its proper cultivation. That is a very large sum for a struggling man to find, and those who have not the money buy on credit, giving bills, and paying high rates of interest. It is not so hard for men who have made their way, and are prosperous ; but we should be careful not to increase the burdens of those who are only beginning, with very little but their strong arms and stout hearts to help them. The Tariff Commission found that the harvester industry is prospering, and the free-trade members of the Commission thought that it is doing so well that the present duty should not be increased. If I were a free-trader, I should be inclined to take that view ; but, as a protectionist, I am of opinion that the protectionist members have made a fair, reasonable, and even generous recommendation. They suggest that the duty shall be increased from 12 J per cent, to 25 per cent. I have not hitherto voted for a higher duty on agricultural implements than 15 per cent., andi am not sure that I am not pledged to my constituents not to do so. However, oni this occasion I shall support the 25 per cent. duty. The Commissioners give good reasons for their recommendation. They show that this is an Australian industry, evolved by Australian brains, and built up by Australian enterprise; that it is suited to our conditions and growth, and capable of very great development; and that its continuance will enable farmers to get replacements easily and at reasonable rates. Furthermore, they point out that if the industry spreads, it will provide work for a very large number of people. We must provide some stimulus for the inventive brains of the community, and let our young people know that if they are prepared to study hard, and submit inventions which will aid industry and help progress, they will be rewarded. The advantages of protection have been shown in America in nothing more clearly than in the stimulation of inventive talent. Every one there who thinks that he can devise an improvement in any piece of machinery sets his brain to work to do so, knowing that if he succeeds he will be sure of a reward. Coupled with the recommendation of a duty of 25 per cent, are conditions preventing the increasing of the present prices, and requiring that within two years not more than £jo shall be asked for a machine ; while the payment of fair rates of wages, and the provision of- proper conditions of employment, are also insisted upon.

Mr Batchelor:

– How does the honorable member propose to guarantee the observance of these conditions?

Mr McCOLL:

– I am not concerned with that matter at the present time, but I shall be glad to assist in framing measures which will secure their observance. The honorable member for Moira last night spoke as if these conditions had been: put forward by the Government ; but, as a matter of fact, thev were first suggested by the Tariff Commission. This is the first attempt that has been made to safeguard the interests of manufacturers, workmen, and consumers alike. The Commissioners probed this matter to the furthest limit.

Sir William Lyne:

– That is what they did not do. I take exception to that statement.

Mr McCOLL:

– It is very seldom that the Minister speaks in regard to Tariff proposals, although he is . in. charge of the legislation which we are discussing. The Committee will, no doubt, be glad to hear from him on this point.

Sir William Lyne:

– I shall not speak more than is necessary.

Mr McCOLL:

– The evidence taken by the Tariff Commission shows that a fair valuation for imported harvesters including an addition of 10 per cent., is £41; but the Government have insisted upon a valuation of ^65. We have received no information which justifies such a valuation. On the other hand, the evidence accepted by the Tariff Commission, and the statements of the late Minister of Customs, show that ^41 is a fair valuation. The honorable member for Gippsland told us last night that, when he was in office, he thought that the valuation was too low, and, therefore, caused inquiries to be made in the countries from which the machines were shipped, to find out their cost.

Sir William Lyne:

– Those inquiries amounted to nothing.

Mr McCOLL:

– They convinced the honorable member that£41 was a fair valuation. The Minister may have information justifying his action in insisting upon a valuation of£65 ; but that information has not been put before the Committee. If the Minister will lay it before us, it will receive due attention. It does not, however, seem likely that machines costing £65 in the country of origin could be shipped here at an expense of £12 or £14, and sold at a profit in competition with the locally manufactured machines. I think that if the cost of producing the imported machines were as high as the Minister would have us believe, the local manufacturers would not require the protection of a duty. The honorable member for Moira said last night that if it is provided that the cost of the machines to the producer shall not exceed a certain sum, it will not matter how high the rate of duty may be. I have had numerous letters from constituents asking me to vote against any increase of duty, but my reply to them has been that I shall consider, not the rate proposed, but the price which the consumers are likely to pay, and that I shall not vote for a duty which will make this price unreasonable. ‘ Hitherto therates of duty on agricultural implements have been lower than the rates on other machinery ; but if the Minister raises the duty on harvesters to 42 per cent. ad valorem on the Commission’s valuation, or to 25 per cent. on his valuation of £65, a new standard will have been created, and the rates of duty upon other implements may be raised correspondingly, while it will be impossible to protect the purchasers of those implements. It must be remembered that the conditions suggested for preventing an increase of price will be very difficult to inforce. Before the duties can be reduced to punish manufacturers for increasing their prices, resolutions will have to be arrived at by both Houses of Parliament, and other action will have to be taken. It would be easier for a back-block farmer to pay an extra charge than to go to the trouble of trying to move Parliament for a reduction of duties. Once the duty is raised, it will take a great deal of influence to get it lowered again. A good deal has been said about the conduct of the importers; but I do not think that we have any more reason for trusting the local manufacturers than for trusting other persons, since some time ago the largest local maker approached the other local makers and the importers, and got them to agree to increase the price. Then, I am given to understand, he began to secretly undersell those with whom he was in agreement, so that the arrangement broke up, and prices fell again. The Minister of Trade and Customs has claimed that prices were reduced because of his action in increasing the valuation of imported harvesters. It seems to me that the effect of such action could be only to increase prices. The real reason for the drop in prices was the breaking down of the conspiracy to which I have alluded. The Minister should be frank and straightforward with the Committee. No doubt the free-traders are opposed to any increase of duty, but I think that a large majority of honorable members are in favour of a duty of 25 per cent. Everything turns upon the valuation to be adopted. The rate proposed by the Minister, although only 25 per cent. on his valuation of£65, is 42 per cent. on the generally accepted valuation of £41. Last night statements were made by the honorable member for Moira and the honorable and learned member for Wannon with regard to the prices of stripper harvesters. The latter honorable member submitted price lists, in which the cost of the machine was given at . £70, and even less. I think that the limit of price fixed by the Tariff Commission is too high, and that we shall have to decide for ourselves what the price should be. I believe that very important developments will take place in the near future in connexion with the agricultural industry. In all probability large areas of country which are not now regarded as suitable for wheat growing will be brought under cultivation, and we shall need to carefully consider the probable effect of any legislation we may pass upon those settlers who may engage in the development of the arid lands of the Continent. We should do everything we can to encourage local industry. I believe that the Australians arc as bright a race as; can be found in any part of the world, and my desire is to bring the farmers and the manufacturers into line, so that one class may help the other, instead of them being brought into conflict. We need protection for our industries, but we should exercise wisdom and discrimination in imposing duties. We should not clap on high duties without considering their effects upon the consumers, as well as upon the manufacturers, and should be prepared to justify every impost. We all remember that, when reapers and binders were not subject to any duty, the farmers were robbed to the extent of 70 or 80 per cent, above the legitimate price, and we know that when attempts were made to develop our iron industry, they were blocked by honorable members holding free-trade principles. I trust that Ministers will afford the fullest information with regard to the proper valuation to be placed upon stripper harvesters.

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

– We have reached an exceedingly interesting stage of this discussion. We have amongst us scarcely any free-traders who are prepared to stand to their principles. The honorable member for Echuca stated that the free-trade members were prepared to vote for a fixed duty of ^10 per machine-.

Mr McColl:

– No; I stated that they might object, but that the majority of honorable members would vote for a duty of that amount.

Mr MAUGER:

– I understood that the free-traders were prepared to vote for the equivalent of a 25 per cent, ad valorem duty upon the machines. In my view any man calling himself a protectionist must be in a very bad way when he is prepared to accept what the free-traders will give him. It seems to me that some protectionists are apologizing for their principles.

Mr Wilks:

– It is about time that thev did.

Mr MAUGER:

– That is the opinion of honorable members opposite. When we do what thev conceive to be right, we shall be in a parlous case,. Some protectionists are willing to concede just sufficient protection to enable an industry to exist; but I think that we should endeavour to ascertain the amount of duty necessary to secure the home market to our manufacturers. I take it that the honorable member for Echuca will not for a moment contend that our manufacturers have the control of the home market at present.

Mr Poynton:

– Why does not the honorable member call it prohibition? - that is what he wants.

Mr MAUGER:

– I do not care what it is called. No duty will satisfy me unless it is sufficient to secure to our manufacturers the home market. The honorable member for Lang last night stated that the imported harvesters were not taking the place of the locally manufactured machines, but were supplementing them. What does he mean by that? Does he mean that the farmers are purchasing two machines instead of one, or that the imported machines are taking the place of articles that ought to be manufactured here? There can be no such thing as supplementing, the local supply, without displacement of the local article. Every machine made In America or Canada, and sent to Australia, displaces the Australian product, restricts the investment of Australian capital, and deprives Australian workmen of the employment that should be available to them.

Mr McColl:

– We are proposing to double the duty.

Mr MAUGER:

– My honorable friend appears to be afraid to grant too much protection, and yet I challenge him to cite a single instance in which an effective protective dutv has done any harm. I ask the honorable member for Echuca whether it is not a fact that in those cases in which the highest duties have been imposed the price of the article has been decreased, the quality has been improved, the workmen have had their wages increased, and the consumer has been benefited in every way. If that be so in the case of hats and clothing, and other goods, why should not the same conditions apply to machinery? The honorable member cannot cite a case in Australia. America, or Canada in which a good, stiff, effective duty has injured the consumer. My contention is that every machine that- is imported displaces the Australian article, and increases the difficulty of providing employment for the skilled artisans of the Commonwealth. In the pre-Federation days we were frequently told that New South Wales under free-trade was * progressing as rapidly as Victoria under protection. Some striking figures bearing upon this point are supplied by the Chairman of the Tariff Commission. The number of men employed in the agricultural implement industry in Victoria is given as 1,600 as against 300 in New South Wales. Under free-trade in New South Wales the number of men employed was 160, as against 1,500 in Victoria. These figures show conclusively that under free-trade the agricultural implement industry did not develop in New South Wales. I wish to refer to some statements made by honorable members opposite to the effect that the agitation for increased duties upon stripperharvesters is a purely Victorian movement. Some honorable members have gone the length of asserting that the increased duty is being proposed in the interests of one man. They forget that in Victoria alone there are a number of works in which stripperharvesters and similar machines are produced. I might mention, for example, the establishment of Messrs. Nicholson and Morrow - the firm from whom the stripperharvester was pirated. I am sure that if some of my free-trade friends could be induced to visit the works of the firm I have referred to to-morrow, they would recognise the possibilities for improvement, and would change their views with regard to the industry. The agitation for an increase of duty comes not only from the manufacturers, but from their employes, and the complaints that have been made by Victorian manufacturers have been repeated upon sworn evidence by manufacturers in other States. Take South Australia, for instance, Messrs. Martin and Company, Hawke and Company, J. and D. Shearer and J. F. Bagshaw and Sons Limited, manufacturing firms in South Australia were as emphatic as those in Victoria in denouncing the Tariff and foreign competition, the latter of which they described as destructive and illegitimate. Yet my honorable friends opposite prattle about this movement for increased duties as being a Victorian - a one-man agitation. They have entirely ignored the report that has been placed in their hands. The Tariff has had a detrimental effect upon manufactures, not only in Victoria, but in other States.

Mr Poynton:

– The protectionists sent a man over to South Australia to stir up the manufacturers there.

Mr MAUGER:

– The evidence to which’ I have referred was given long before we sent our man over to South Australia. Senator Trenwith went to South Australia at the invitation of men out of employment.

Mr Kelly:

– Who paid his expenses?

Mr MAUGER:

– The men paid his expenses. The evidence to which I have referred was given, not by the employes, but by the employers, and was recorded months before Senator Trenwith went to South Aus tralia. His expenses alone were paid, and they were not paid by the manufacturers, as has been alleged, but by the employes.

Mr Poynton:

– That the honorable member denied previously.

Mr MAUGER:

– I beg the honorable member’s pardon. The statement made was that Senator Trenwith was paid by the manufacturers.

Mr Poynton:

– So he is.

Mr MAUGER:

– Then my honorable friend knows more than I do about the matter.

Mr Poynton:

– He has never denied the statement, anyhow.

Mr MAUGER:

– It is a remarkable circumstance that honorable members who believe in organization, who belong to trade unions, and who are continually urging the working men to unite, should find fault with them because they see fit to defray the expenses incurred by one of their best friends in visiting South Australia. I repeat that Senator Trenwith’s expenses were paid by the trades-unions, and that they were perfectly right in acting as they did.

Mr Kelly:

– Was it because Senator Trenwith had done so much for the working men of Victoria that he was opposed art the last general elections?

Mr MAUGER:

– The honorable member may be acquainted with the politics of New South Wales; but when he makes a remark of that kind he does not know what he is talking about. At any rate, I have shown that South Australia is just as loud in its complaints regarding the effects of this combine as is Victoria. I come now to another firm in South Australia - that of Mr. Rees. His firm had spent nearly £2,500 to perfect its plants and to effect improvements to the machine before they received any return. “ We are now,” said Mr. Rees, “ threatened to be extinguished by this American combine. If the duty be not increased the Australian manufacturers will cease to exist as manufacturers, and will merely keep small repairing shops, which means very little work for the mechanics.” Complaints have been received from New South Wales, as well as from South Australia and Queensland. In Queensland the statement is made that there are hundreds - if not thousands - of men who have lost their employment owing to the effect of the Tariff upon the iron trade and implement trade generally.

Mr Fisher:

– No such thing.

Mr MAUGER:

– The Minister of Home Affairs assured me that that was so only as late as last night.

Mr Groom:

– The statement is made in thereport of Messrs. Walker Limited, of Maryborough.

Mr MAUGER:

– I say that hundreds of men-

Mr Fisher:

– The honorable member said that thousands had been displaced.

Mr MAUGER:

– I said nothing of the kind. I said that hundreds had lost their employment through the effect of the Tariff ; but I do not know that I should be wrong if I said thousands.

Mr Fisher:

– The honorable member said thousands.

Mr MAUGER:

– And I am right in saying that. There are 1,900 less hands employed now than there were prior to the introduction of the Federal Tariff.

Mr Fisher:

– They have not been displaced as the result of the operation of the Tariff.

Mr MAUGER:

– That is a matter of opinion. I have in my office letters from working men at Maryborough, who declare that the effect of the Tariff has been to throw them out of employment. They may be wrong, but that is the assertion which they make. Coming to New South Wales. I find that the Clyde Engineering Company Limited, and the Meadow Bank Manufacturing Company, supported the complaint,- and suggestions were made in Victoria and in South Australia. Now I ask honorable members what becomes of the statement that these complaints are confined to Victoria, and that it is only Victoria which is agitating for an amended Tariff? If honorable members realized the position, they would know that right through the States from Western Australia to the southern end of Tasmania, there has been an awakening of the people which is unprecedented.

Mr Poynton:

– Rubbish !

Mr MAUGER:

– It is not rubbish. There can be no doubt whatever that the complaints are far-reaching, that they have a good foundation, and that they are not confined to Victoria, to say nothing of one firm. The honorable member for Echuca spoke with authority in regard to the position of the farmers. I admit that he is an ideal representative of the farming community. I admit that he upheld the flag of protection very firmly at the last election. But I also know - because I accompanied him - that during that campaign there was no hesitancy upon his part regarding the measure of protection that he favoured. The burden of his speeches at Mooroopna and Echuca - and, indeed, in every other part of his electorate - was that the producer and consumer alike were benefited by a protective Tariff, and that when the fiscal truce expired he would be prepared to remedy existing anomalies.

Mr Frazer:

– He is receiving the support of the free-trade journal in his candidature for the Senate.

Mr MAUGER:

– The free-trade journal is wiser than is the honorable member for Grey. It recognises that the protectionist feeling in Victoria is too strong to be overcome.

Mr Poynton:

– Let the honorable member preach such rubbish to the farmer.

Mr MAUGER:

– I do not profess to be a farmer, but I do profess to know farmers. I have been privileged to speak with them quite as often as has the honorable member.

Mr Poynton:

– The honorable member takes all sorts of care that he does not contest a farming constituency.

Mr MAUGER:

– Why should I do so when such candidates as the honorable member for Echuca present themselves? I should be out of place. My candidature would not be in accord with the fitness of things. Seeing that I know more about city life than I do about rural life, I do not offer myself as a candidate for a farming constituency. But I would not mind contesting such an electorate if the honorable member for Grey opposed me as a free-trader. The honorable member for Echuca knows full well that the highest duty that was ever imposed in Victoria did not injure the farmer. He is also aware that the farmers of New South Wales have always returned protectionist candidates. The cry that we shall injure the farmers and the producinginterests by protecting our implement manufacturers is a mere sham. No one knows better than the honorable member for Echuca, and the honorable member for Gippsland, that protection has benefited the farmer since the very day that it was introduced.

Mr McLean:

– We are willing now to extend to the harvester industry a protection of 10 percent. more than was extended to it under the Victorian Tariff.

Mr MAUGER:

– But it is seven years since the Victorian Tariff was in operation.

Sir John Quick:

– It was considered a highly scientific Tariff.

Mr MAUGER:

– But the honorable and learned member knows from the investigations which he has made, that manufacturing and industrial conditions now are entirely different from what they were ten years ago. A Tariff which was effective ten years ago would not be effective to-day. There is no sphere of industrial life which has been more revolutionized than has that connected with the manufacture of harvesters. The honorable and learned member also knows that when the Victorian Tariff was in operation harvesters were not used to any appreciable extent. The present class of competition had not to be faced, and he is aware that -

New occasions teach new duties;

Time makes ancient good uncouth.

Mr Conroy:

– And new manipulators - lobbyists - get hold of new Ministers.

Mr MAUGER:

– The honorable and learned member can never be anything unless he is insulting. He cannot engage in discussion upon fair lines, and it illbecomes either him or his party to continue such tactics. I wish now to refer to another question to which allusion has been made during the course of this debate. We are continually being told by the freetrade members of the Committee that we are pleading for the fat manufacturers. As far as I am concerned, I have been fighting the big manufacturers in regard to the wages and hours of their workmen, and fighting them successfully.

Mr McWilliams:

– But the honorable member expects the farmer to pay for the concessions which he has obtained.

Mr MAUGER:

– Nobody supposes that the farmer pays for them. The farmer himself knows that he does not. He is served more cheaply now, and had less to complain about than he has under freetrade conditions. When the duty upon agricultural implements in this State was at its highest, the Victorian -farmer was better served than was the farmer of New South Wales.

Mr Conroy:

– That is why Victoria lost 110,000 of her population within ten years.

Mr MAUGER:

– She did not lose 110,000 of her population.

Mr Conroy:

– Allowing for the natural increase she did.

Mr MAUGER:

– That is another fallacy. Victoria lost her miners, her builders, her tramway constructors, and her artisans, but her manufactories maintained her in her hour of trial and difficulty.

Mr Conroy:

– They had to get 5s. in the£1 in order to keep going.

Mr MAUGER:

– The honorable and learned member is talking nonsense. I should like to know who are the fat men to whom such frequent reference has been made.

Mr McWilliams:

– Then the honorable member has only to read the evidence before the Tariff Commission.

Mr MAUGER:

– I will read something which is infinitely better than that evidence, namely, the income tax returns.

Mr McWilliams:

– Oh !

Mr MAUGER:

– Will not those returns constitute a test?

Mr McWilliams:

– No.

Mr MAUGER:

– Then I should like to know what will. Do the members of the Tariff Commission profess to have investigated the relative positions of manufacturers and primary producers ? Certainly not, and the honorable member is aware of that fact. There is no better test than that afforded by the income tax returns. I find that, according to the latest issue of the Victorian Year Book, apart from public companies, and the class described as “ indefinite,” the primary producers pay the highest amount of income tax. The Sydney Morning Herald points out that according to this authority -

The average paid by each taxpayer of this class is £5 12s.7d., the next highest being the commercial taxpayer with£5 5s. 3d., then following professional with £317s.10d., and industrial with £3 13s. 4d.

We find that the merchants - the importers - and not the manufacturers pay the largest amount of income tax. Honorable members opposite should speak, not of the “fat” manufacturer, but of the “fat” importer. Here are the figures taken from more detailed tables: - Merchants, an average of £1511s. per taxpayer; graziers - primary producers -£15 6s. 6d. ; lawyers, £11 8s. 4d. ; doctors, £9 11s. 4d. ; and manufacturers, £9 14s.1d. The manufacturers instead of being the wealthiest members of the community, and enjoying the largest incomes, are only fourth on the list, whereas the importers are first.

Mr McWilliams:

– Whom does the honorable member include in that category ?

Mr MAUGER:

– This return relates only to Victoria, where the manufacturers are supposed to have grown “ fat.”

Mr McWilliams:

– Some of them are doing very well.

Mr MAUGER:

– I hope that they are. I have shown beyond doubt that the importers in this State have the largest incomes, and that the primary producer comes next. These figures prove conclusively that there is nothing in the contention that the so-called “ bloated “ manufacturers are robbing the community. There are some 44,000 employes in manufacturing industries under Wages Boards in Victoria, and about 19,000 have yet to be brought under them., I am glad to notice that the present State Government have recently taken steps to bring something like another 5,000 employes under the operation of these Boards-.

Mr Tudor:

– But if the employers remove to the shires, they will be able to evade the Wages Boards provisions of the Factories Act.

Mr MAUGER:

– What we ought to do is to transfer to this Parliament the power to pass industrial legislation.

Mr Kennedy:

– Will our honorable friends opposite help us to effect that change ?

Mr MAUGER:

– They have shown very little inclination to do so.

Mr Batchelor:

– The honorable member should put them to the test.

Mr MAUGER:

– I have tried to, but have not yet had an opportunity to divide the House on a motion relating to the question.

Mr Wilks:

– Will the honorable member support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Lang?

Mr MAUGER:

– Certainly not ; no reasonable, sensible, or honest man would think of doing so. The workers recognise that capital and machinery are dearer and rents are higher in Australia than they are in other parts of the world, and all they ask is that they shall be paid a good day’s wage for a fair day’s work. The figures I have quoted prove conclusively that there is no foundation for the statement that manufacturers are making enormous incomes. I do not pose as their apologist. I know that there are selfish manufacturers, just as there are selfish importers.

Mr McWilliams:

– But the honorable member “plays their game.”

Mr MAUGER:

– The honorable member does not know what he is talking about. If my attitude on this question may be so described, I would sooner play the “game” of the Australian manufacturer than that of American exporting rings, trusts, and combines, which we cannot regulate. We cannot determine what shall be the wages and hours of labour of those employed by foreign rings, whose “game” is being played by the honorable member.

Mr McWilliams:

– I am playing the game of the man who uses these machines,,

Mr MAUGER:

– The honorable member ought to know that when reapers and binders were free under the Victorian Tariff, the local farmers were fleeced to the extent of £15 or £20 per machine by the very men whose cause he is now championing. He ought to know that the history of unrestricted imports is one of high prices, robbery, and jobbery. The honorable member is advocating the cause of the foreigner, whilst I am advocating that of the Australian manufacturer. In doing so, I maintain that I am championing the cause of the Australian worker, and seeking to lay a foundation for good wages and reasonable conditions and hours of employment in the Commonwealth. In taking up this position, I am supported by the representatives of the working classes in Victoria. When the Tariff was under consideration in 1901, the following; resolution was passed at a conference between representatives of the Trades Hall Council and the Protectionist Association : -

That this conference, while heartily supporting the principle of wages boards and arbitration, is strongly of opinion that protection at the Customs House is a first essential; and urges that, in the interests of wage-earners, effective protection should first be given to Australian producers and manufacturers, with a view to securing the “ new protection,” in the form of wages boards and arbitration.

The members of that conference recognised that protection must come first; that the work must be here before we can have good wages, and that when we have secured the work for the men, this Parliament - or as the law now stands, the State Parliament - must insist on reasonable conditions of labour being observed. I would direct attention to a very interesting return published in the Age on 24th ult., showing that the importation of goods, the manufacture of which offers scope for local employment at fair wages, is increasing at an alarming rate. I find, for instance, that the imports of machines and machinery last year were of the value of ^851,797, whilst those imported during the first seven months of this year were of the value of ^1,067,841. These figures show very clearly that there is every reason for passing a Tariff which will give our manufacturers a home market.

Mr Wilks:

– Most of the imported machinery is patented.

Mr MAUGER:

– That is not so.

Mr Tudor:

– That which is not patented here, could be manufactured in Australia.

Mr MAUGER:

– That is so. I believe that all machinery except that which is protected by patents should and could Le manufactured in Australia, and no duty will be effective or satisfactory to me unless it secures the local market to the local manufacturer.

Mr LEE:
Cowper

.- The honorable member for Melbourne Ports has directed attention” to a phase of this question that has not been considered as fully as it might have been. After referring to the cost of distribution, he urged that the profits made by the local manufacturers are not very large, and that the farmers could not do better than buy agricultural implements and machinery made in Australia. The honorable member also contended that every machine imported into Australia displaces an Australian machine, and an Australian workman. That assertion could be made of almost any imported article. It is worth v of note that the honorable member refrained from making any allusion to the way in which the farmers have been blackmailed by manufacturers, who have been demanding, very high prices for their goods. I have no sympathy with the Massey-Harris Company, or the International Harvester Company. I certainly have none for the local manufacturers who combined with the foreign firms to fleece the farmers.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– The local manufacturers lowered the price after they left the combine.

Mr LEE:

– And they could further reduce the price of their machines by ,£10 and yet secure a good profit. The Tariff Commission has revealed the fact that the farmers are simply being black-mailed by the local manufacturers of harvesters. As the result of the disclosures made by the Butter Commission, the dairymen have established co-operative societies to deal with their produce, and I think that the time is not far distant when those engaged in primary industries will co-operate to wipe out, not only the local, but the foreign manufacturers who have been fleecing them. I. for one, would give them every assistance in taking steps in that direction. It is outrageous that a profit of £4,0 should be secured on one of these machines. The Massey-Harris Company have conclusively proved what is the cost of their harvesters.. With all due deference to the Minister of Trade and Customs, I wish to say that I am prepared to accept the opinion expressed by his predecessor in office - the honorable member for Gippsland - that the invoices in respect of the Massey-Harris machines imported into Australia are correct. When holding office as Minister of Trade and Customs, the honorable member for Gippsland was disposed to believe that these machines were being invoiced at a price below their real value; but when he went to the fountain head he secured information that satisfied him that the invoices were correct. The report of the Tariff Commission shows that this industry, instead of languishing, is in a verysatisfactory condition. Indeed, I know of no more profitable industry in Australia. Instead of having under consideration a motion to increase the duty on harvesters, we should be taking steps to prevent our farmers being treated in such a scandalous way as they have been. The present state of affairs should not be allowed to continue. The farmers, by co-operation, could, like their fellow workers on the Continent of Europe, secure their machines at cost price. It is monstrous that £,o should be paid by way of commission on the sale of the harvester. I cannot agree with the proposal of the honorable member for Parramatta that an ad valorem dutyshould be imposed. As a rule, an ad valorem duty operates fairly, but it would not be safe to place the working of such a duty in the hands of a Minister who, for Customs purposes, has arbitrarily raised the valuation of these machines from ^38 to ^65 each. Under the Customs Act, the importers of harvesters have no right of appeal’ - they have no means of redress.

Mr Conroy:

– I think that they will have.

Mr LEE:

– I do not think that the Customs Act provides’ any means of redress. It must be given as a concession. It has been said that the Canadians and Americans have pirated the Australian machines ; but a plough which came from America was very quickly copied in Australia.

Mr Kennedy:

– Does the honorable member say that there is in Australia a good plough made on an American model ?

Mr LEE:

– Yes; the “Bluebird” is such a plough. If the Australian model has been copied, it is the greatest compliment that could be paid to its inventor.

Mr Salmon:

– If the honorable member were the inventor he would not be pleased about it.

Mr LEE:

– I might not like it. The stripper-harvester, however, is not the invention of the brains of any one man. According to the Tariff Commission, a harvesting implement was in use in ancient Gaul. This machine is the result of many brains, not all of them possessed by Australians, though I understand that the latest improvements are Australian, and I give every credit to those who have perfected it.

Mr Kennedy:

– The modern harvester is entirely the product of Australian brains and enterprise.

Mr LEE:

– Australian farmers should not be fleeced when they want to purchase it. The honorable member for Moira represents a farming constituency, and tried to prove that the local manufacturers do not receive too much for their implements. He denounced in unmeasured terms the importation of harvesters from Canada and America, but he did not mention the fact that Australian harvesters are now being imported into Canada, eleven having been sent there last year.

Mr Mauger:

– As patterns, I suppose.

Mr LEE:

– Stripper-harvesters have hitherto not been much used in Canada, but, -no doubt, the farmers there are beginning to try the Victorian implement, and I hope that there will be a good market for it in the Dominion.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– How can there be a good market for it there with a 45 per cent, duty against it?

Mr LEE:

– The Canadian rate, according to the Commission, works out at about 13^ per cent. Honorable members wish to impose a fixed rate of £16 per machine, although it has been shown that the locally made implement has an advantage of some £18 over the imported implement. The honorable member for Moira tried to show that’ the higher the duty the less the consumer has to pay ; but the Victorian stock tax did not work out in that way. Victorians could not buy cattle more cheaply because of the tax. The honorable member for Gippsland, although he has declared that he will support a duty of; 25 per cent. says that had he been a member of the Commission, he would not have recommended so high a rate. He considers that the locally made implement has an advantage of £20. The evidence before us shows that the Australian production of harvesters is increasing every year. Something like 4,000 machines are now being made in Victoria, and a fixed rate of £16 on each imported machine would make a difference of something like £64,000, which is too much to take out of the pockets of the primary producers to put into the pockets of the manufacturers. The farmers must take this matter into their own hands, and, bv co-operation, get rid of both the foreign and the local manufacturers who are living on the game. I am proud of our Australian workmen, who can turn out articles equal to any imported ; the advantages derived from High duties go, not to them, but to their employers. I do not blame Mr. McKay for trying to get as much as he can from a Minister who listens to his complaints with a sympathetic ear. His business, however, is not in a languishing condition. In 1897 he manufactured 75 machines, on which it is estimated that he made a net profit of £20 each, or £1,500 altogether. In 1898, his output was 150 machines1, and his profit £3,000; in 1899, his output was 301 machines, and his profit £6,000; while in 1.904, his profit was £30,000; and in 1905, £38,600. It is trying to throw dust in the eyes of the farmers to say that prices will be reduced if rates of duty are increased. They should bear in mind this profit of £38,600 made by one firm, and, by proper cooperation, supply themselves with agricultural machinery. I shall oppose the Government proposal.

Mr Storrer:

– I ask, as a point of order, whether honorable members must not confine their remarks to the amendment proposed last night, which deals with the subject of wages?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The whole question is so involved that it is impossible to confine honorable members to the amendment, and I have, therefore, allowed the usual general discussion.

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

.- The Government propose to levy a fixed duty on imported harvesters of j£i6 per machine. According to the report of the Tariff Commission, the natural protection given to local manufacturers against the competition of the Massey-Harris machines is £.14 16s. 6d., and against the competition of the International harvesters ,£12 3s. 6d., the difference being accounted for, I believe, chiefly by a difference in railway charges. If to this natural advantage the proposed duty is added, it will be seen that the local manufacturers are as’king for an advantage of £30 1 6s. 6d. in connexion with the Massey-Harris machine, and of £28 3s. 6d. in connexion with the International harvesters. We have the testimony of the chief of the Customs Office in Canada that the cost of the Canadian machines is each. Therefore, what is desired by the local manufacturers is a protection of more than 75 per cent. - a prohibitive rate such as must delight the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. It might be well contended that the existing duty is sufficiently high, seeing that none of the local manufacturers have shown that thev are suffering from the foreign competition. Mr. McKay, who is the prime mover in the agitation for prohibitive duties, has had to admit that last year his output was 1,930 machines, and the Tariff Commission estimates that his net profits on each machine, on last years selling price, which was j£&i, amounted to £18 2s. 7d. That being so, why should we impose the monstrous duty now asked for. On these figures his profits amounted last year to over .£34,700. which is more than 200 average farmers make in any one year. Those figures show that the industry is fairly protected. But still the manufacturers are not satisfied. It is evidently desired to shut out the imported article altogether, and leave the farmers to the tender mercies of the local firms. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports would have us believe that the consumers would be perfectly safe under these conditions. We have, however, had evidence that, some time ago, the manufacturers deliberately entered into a conspiracy to rob the farmers. It is stated in the report furnished by the protectionist members of the Tariff Commission that the local manufacturers increased the price of stripper harvesters from X63 to ^81. We are now asked to hand over the farmers body and soul to those who have had no mercy upon them in the past, and who would have as little consideration in t’he future if their operations were not to some extent checked by outside competition. It has been urged that a high duty should be imposed to protect local manufacturers, because higher wages prevail in Australia than in the United States or Canada. As. a matter of fact, however, the Commission show that the rates* of wages paid in Canada are practically the same as those ruling in the works of the Sunshine Harvester Company.

Mr Mauger:

– According to the statements made by some honorable members, the Sunshine Harvester Company pay lower wages than any other firm.

Mr POYNTON:

– I am not paying any regard to the statements made by other honorable members, but I am relying upon the evidence taken by the Tariff Commission. I intend to quote the rates of wages paid, and to make an allowance for the extra hours worked in Canada. According to the evidence given before the Commission, fitters in Canada are paid £2 13s. per week, whilst in t’he Sunshine Harvester works they are paid £2 ns. 6d. per week. Joiners in Canada are paid -Q2 15s. 5d., and in Australia £2 ns. 3d. Painters in Canada are paid £2 16s. 8d. per week, and in Australia 15s. 6d. Blacksmiths, in Canada are paid f.2 16s. 6d. per week, and in Australia £2 9s. 6d. per week! Right through, the piece, the rates paid in Canada are higher than those received by the workmen of the Sunshine Harvester Company. I desire to be perfectly fair, and I intend to make a deduction from the Canadian wages, owing to the fact that the operatives work for sixty hours per week, as contrasted with the forty-eight hours worked in Australia. According to the experts who were examined by the Commission, 30 per cent, of the cost of producing the machines is represented by labour. It is admitted that in Canada the cost of producing the machines is £38, but a South Australian manufacturer mentioned a much smaller sum as representing the cost. On the assumption that the machine costs £38 to produce, the wages represent 1^12 8s. If we make allowance for the extra hours worked by the Canadian mechanics, the local manufacturers are at a disadvantage, as compared with those in Canada, of j£a 9s. 4d. per machine, in respect to wages. And yet, in order to compensate the Australian manufacturer for this small loss, we are being asked to impose a duty equivalent’ to £30 per machine. It seems to me that the request that is now being made upon us is a most brazen one. Now I desire to say a word or two with regard to the action of the Minister of Trade and Customs in increasing the valuation of imported harvesters to . £65. It is a dangerous thing for a Minister to increase a duty at any time. He has very large powers, and they should be used with extreme care. The Commission have made a full inquiry into the valuation of imported harvesters, and the protectionist members - not the freetrade members - of that body have come to the conclusion that there is not a tittle of evidence to justify the increased valuation. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that the only manly course open to the Minister is to acknowledge that he has made a mistake, and to refund the duty collected over and above that which would have been levied upon the lower valuation.

Sir William Lyne:

– The Minister has made no such mistake. I would not give twopence for such protectionists as could bring in a report of that kind. They had not the evidence they should have had before them.

Mr POYNTON:

– The time will come when the Minister will be very glad of the support of the members of the Commission who came to the conclusion to which I have referred. His statement is a mere subterfuge. He should either prove that the evidence given before the Tariff Commission is wrong, or produce the testimony which he states that the members of the Commission have not seen, and which would prove that he was justified in increasing the valuation to£65. He should do this, or admit that he has made a mistake.

Sir William Lyne:

– I have made no mistake, and the courts will prove it, yet.

Mr Kelly:

– Is that why the Minister tried to prevent the courts from proving it?

Sir William Lyne:

– I do not like protectionists’ of the milk and water order. Witnesses were frightened to go before the Commission and give evidence, owing to the action of some members of the Commission.. I could not induce one witness to go. because he would not submit to be bullied by the Commission.

Mr Kelly:

– Was the Minister trying to find witnesses?

Sir William Lyne:

– No, I was not.

Mr POYNTON:

– Does the Minister mean to say that any witness who was willing to give evidence would not have received the protection of the Chairman, and fair play at the hands of the other members of the Commission.

Sir William Lyne:

– Some witnesses did not receive fair play. They were bullied by a member of the Commission from Tasmania.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I must ask the Minister to cease these continuous interjections.

Sir William Lyne:

– Let honorable members cease attacking me.

Sir John Quick:

– The Minister made an unnecessary reflection upon a public man. .

Mr POYNTON:

– The greatest care should be exercised by any Minister in raising the valuations of imports in such a manner as to practically increase the duty to which they are subject. I am prepared to believe that the Minister did what he thought was right, but now that the Commission, after due deliberation, have stated that there was not a scintilla of evidence to justify the fixing of the valuation of stripper-harvesters at £65, the Minister should justify his position, or withdraw the increased valuation.

Sir William Lyne:

-i shall withdraw the duty on salt if the honorable member likes.

Mr POYNTON:

– Does the Minister suppose that such statements hurt me? If so, he is mistaken. There is the more necessity for theMinister to justify his position, because his predecessor was so satisfied with the previous valuation that he declined to increase it.

Sir William Lyne:

– Buthe did increase it from £26 to£38.

Mr POYNTON:

– He obtained evidence which satisfied him that£38 was a fair valuation.

Sir William Lyne:

– But he did not obtainthe evidence.

Mr POYNTON:

– The Minister acted upon the evidence of a man who was interested in the trade, and that is a very dangerous thing to do in any case. The Minister acted upon the evidence of a man who, in the face of a sworn declaration upon the other side, said that to the best of his belief the invoices were wrong. The Commission have succeeded in obtaining very complete evidence as to the cost of stripper-harvesters, and, if I were the Minister, I would not sit in my chair an hour before I would justify myself or acknowledge that I had been misled by the information supplied to me, and take the manly course of withdrawing the increased valuation.

Sir William Lyne:

– I do not think that the honorable member can accuse me of having failed to take a manly course.

Mr POYNTON:

– I always thought that it was a dangerous thing for the Minister to increase the valuation. Such a course should be adopted only under extreme pressure, and after the Minister had satisfied himself that there was the fullest warrant for such a step. The conditions under which the local industry was being carried on were not such as to call for any special action. The local manufacturers were not being subjected to any very severe hardships. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports knows very well what was the reason for the agitation. The Minister cannot ignore the fact that eight gentlemen who must be credited with being as much concerned for the welfare of the manufacturing industries as he is himself, have come to the conclusion that there is not a scintilla of evidence to justify the increased valuation. In the face of the report of the Commission, the Minister should either produce evidence to justify his action, or acknowledge his mistake.

Sir William Lyne:

– I shall make the other side prove their case.

Mr POYNTON:

– I shall not occupy any further time. I am satisfied that there is no justification for an increase of duty equivalent to£30 per machine, or 75 per cent. The direct and indirect protection now afforded to local manufacturers is quite sufficient, and I would not grant them one penny more. I would not give them a fraction more. I will vote with the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, believing that in doing so I am extending to the industry more protection than it really deserves. I need scarcely mention that one manufacturer connected with it has netted no less a sum than£34,000 during one year. An industry which can yield such returns ought tobe very well served by a fixed duty of £10 per machine.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

.- By way of personal explanation, I should like to say that the Minister of Trade and Customs has seen fit to make a remark which seriously reflects not only upon the Tariff Commission, but upon myself as Chairman of that body. He has stated that he understood that witnesses were afraid to appear before the Commission

Sir William Lyne:

– I not only understood it, but I know it. I could give the names, if necessary.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– The Minister stated that he understood that witnesses were afraid to come before the Commission lest they should be bullied and insulted, and be denied fair play. All I can say is that every witness who came before us received a fair hearing. He was fairly examined as to his evidence-in-chief, and in the ordinary course he had to submit to cross-examination all roundthe table - cross-examination by protectionists and free-traders alike. It is quite true that at times a witness may have been pressed severely by members of the Commission in the exercise of their undoubted rights. But whenever witnesses were frank in their answers they had no reason whatever to complain of being pressed unduly, and when they appealed for it they invariably received the protection of the Chair. I will say, on behalf of the free-trade members of the Commission, as well as the protectionist members of that body, that when-, ever the Chair decided in favour of a wit-‘ ness, he immediately received the consideration which the Chair directed should be extended to him. Although sometimes the protectionist, and at other times the free-trade, members of the Commission were severe in their cross-examination of witnesses, they always yielded to the Chair whenever the Chair appealed to them to give fair play to witnesses. Some witnesses wished to claim privilege, and did not want to answer questions - indeed, they had to be frequently appealed to by myself in that connexion. I had occasion many times to point out that, in their own interests, they ought to give full answers to the questions put to them, otherwise they would probably suffer, and be prejudiced. In the course of their examination, some manufacturers positively ‘refused to give evidence regarding the cost of the production of their manufactures. They were willing to give private and confidential information, but, as Chairman of the Commission, I declined to receive any information except such as we could publish to the whole world, and such as I could repeat upon the floor of the House.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

– I ask the indulgence of the Committee to make a personal explanation. I made a certain interjection which has produced a statement from the Chairman of the Tariff Commission. In reply to his remarks, I say that I can give instances - one in particular, in which a person - who was endeavouring to induce a man holding a very high position to give evidence before the Commission could not persuade him to do so in consequence - as he said to a number of people as well as to myself - of the bullying of witnesses by Senator Clemons.

Mr Page:

– The Minister failed in his duty by not reporting the matter to the House.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– It was published in the newspapers. The gentleman to whom I refer holds a very high position in New South Wales.

Mr McWilliams:

– Who was it?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I can supply the name, if necessary. Though that gentleman was prepared to give evidence, he would not do so because he would not consent to appear before the Commission to be bullied as certain witnesses had been bullied in Victoria by Senator Clemons.

Mr Fisher:

– I do not think that business should be proceeded with until this matter has been investigated.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Did not the honorable member read of it in the newspapers ?

Mr Thomas:

– Are we to accept every statement which appears in the newspapers ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– At any rate, this statement is true.

Mr Fisher:

– Then it is scandalous.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I must ask honorable members to maintain order.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

– I am very much surprised to learn from the Minister that manufacturers were afraid to appear before the Tariff Commission when they discovered that it was a real searching Commission of inquiry. I am interested to hear that they were not prepared to tender evidence which they had the power to offer and the withholding of which was calculated to prejudice their interests in the eyes of those who read the Commission’s reports. It does appear to me that the Commission has done a very great deal of good work, inasmuch as it has demonstrated that many men are prone to make statements which they are not prepared to substantiate upon oath. In the Parliamentary lobbies some men are quite ready to make all sorts of statements which they are not willing to subscribe to upon oath. I think that the Minister of Trade and Customs has shown very clearly that these individuals are not truthful, otherwise they would have appeared before the Commission and have given evidence. I say that the stripper-harvester industry appears to be a very flourishing one. No single firm enjoys a monopoly of the trade.. In Victoria there are sixteen firms engaged in the industry.

Mr Johnson:

– One firm practically enjoys a monopoly.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– I am aware that Mr. H. V. McKay does more business than does any other firm. He is an enterprising man, who has devoted his attention to perfecting the machine which he manufactures. I have no grievance against him. It is to his credit that he has perfected his machine by utilizing the brains of every inventor who has introduced an improvement which hehas not taken the precaution to get patented. In New South Wales there are five firms engaged in the industry. In South Australia there is a firm which is producing a machine that is quite equal to that turned out by Mr. McKay. During the course of this debate very little has been said about the firm of Messrs. John Martin and Co., of Gawler. When I was a boy the City of Adelaide was called “ the farinaceous village,” but it was there that the idea of the stripperharvester had its germ.

Mr Tudor:

– Messrs. Martin and Co. do not manufacture agricultural implements so much as they do general machinery.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– That is so. The firm has an immense business, and it undertakes even the construction of railway locomotives. There is not an invention which it has not the means of acquiring. It produces a harvester which is quite equal to that manufactured by Mr. McKay, and if there be any blame attaching to the latter, that blame also rests upon this firm. The price charged by Mr. McKay for his harvester would soon be reduced if the price of the South Australian machine were reduced. Why should we single out Mr. McKay for a special advertisement? Why do we not condemn the manufacturers of harvesters in New South Wales? If censure is to be administered, it should be apportioned all round. The Tariff Commission has thoroughly investigated this question- -

Mr Page:

– The Minister of Trade and Customs declares that it has not. He says that witnesses feared to appear ‘before the Commission lest they should be bullied.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– It appears to me that the Commission were not warranted in investigating the claim of the manufac- turers of stripper-harvesters as exhaustively as they did. ‘But they have chosen to do so, and the evidence which they elicited conclusively proves that the local manufacturers of these machines are able to produce them at a cost of £41 , including the cost of labour. An operator who is engaged in the industry informed the Commission that it cost £25 to produce a machine, and he estimated sundries at an additional £5. But accepting the Commission’s own figures as correct, the cost of manufacturing the stripper-harvester is£41, apart from an additional £21 for distribution. This would make a total of £62, and as these harvesters are sold to the farmers at£80, a clear profit of£18 is made upon the sale of each machine. In New South Wales and South Australia the manufacturers can make a profit of £18 2s. 7d. on each machine. Surely that is a sufficient profit upon an outlay of £62. Mr. Martin stated that it cost him no more to produce his machine than it would cost elsewhere, and that he was willing to sell it for £63. I admit that it was not the perfected machine of to-day, but, nevertheless, the cost of manufacturing it was quite as large. Honorable members must recollect that in twelve months the stripper-harvester will have been still further improved’ upon. Experience shows that when so improved, its cost of production will probably be less than it is at the present time. In these circumstances, why should the selling price be more than£60? When these machines were selling in South Australia at was being charged for them in Victoria. The farmer is well ableto take care of himself if he is given an unrestricted choice. He has the ready cash and. if fie is allowed to do so, will buy in the cheapest market. With reasonable competition, the man who has machines to sell will be ready to dispose of them at a fair profit. There’ may be a combination to keep up the price of harvesters. Judging from the fact that a profit of£18 per machine is being made, I am inclined to think that there is. As one who has had considerable business experience, I am disposed to think that many people will be crowding into this industry if they are once satisfied that they can secure such a profit.

Mr Salmon:

– Why is not the sewing machine industry crowded, since in that a profit of 300 per cent. is made ?

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– As a matter of fact, many firms have crowded into that industry, and different fields are allotted to them. The names of certain makes of sewing machines are familiar to us in Australia, but when we go to other parts of the world we hear for the first time of entirely different brands. The position is the same in regard to the manufacture of agricultural implements and machinery. In Victoria machines that are not employed in New South Wales are used, and vice versa. At present there are sixteen firms producing these machines in Victoria, three in South Australia, and five in New South Wales. I remember when the number was far less, and it seems probable that others will soon enter the industry, for a profit of£18 per machine is an excellent one. I can understand a protectionist arguing that an industry ought to be “ put on its feet” as it were, and protected from competition abroad, where the cost of production is less. But the position is very different in regard to the harvester industry. The local manufacturer can compete with the foreign makers of these machines. According to the report of the Tariff Commission, a Massey-Harris machine costs£60 to produce and land and an International harvester, whilst locally the cost of manufacture is£41.

Sir John Quick:

-£38 is the factory cost of the Massey-Harris machine.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– In support of m.v statement. I would draw the attention of honorable members to paragraph 16 in the report of the Commission on stripper harvesters.

That accepting the figures as sworn to by the Massey-Harris and International Harvester Companies' representatives and accepting the estimated factory cost and the estimated selling expenses of an Australian-made stripper-harvester, the following three tables will show the merchandising profit on the sale of these three machines : - {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: *- £601s.* 4d. is not the factory cost of the Massey-Harris machine. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- It is the factory cost plus freight and other expenses incurred in landing the machines in Australia. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Including the profit. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- I shall say nothing about the profit, but the figures I have read cannot be disputed. The difference between the expenses incurred in selling these machines is certainly remarkable. I meet theagentsall over New South Wales, and, so far as I can judge, there is very little difference between the expenses incurred by the travellers of the several firms. If anything, the agents of the Massey-Harris Company travel in better style, and yet, whilst their selling expenses amount to £17 16s.11d. per machine, that of the Australian manufacturers is£21 17s. 5d. An allowance of £17 for selling expenses ought to be sufficient for any manufacturer to work upon. The Government now proposes to impose a duty of *£16* per machine, and if that impost were added to the merchandising profits already secured by the local manufacturers they would make a profit of£34 2s. 7d. on every machine sold by them. I do not think, however, that the increased duty would be added to the present selling price. It seems to me that the proposal is practically one to prohibit the importation of harvesters, and that even the reduced duty of *£10* suggested by the Chairman of the Tariff Commission may be regarded La the same light. If all that is desired is the imposition of a protective duty, why should such an impost be proposed ? If, on the other hand, prohibition is desired, why stop at a duty of *£10* per machine? Why not impose one of £50? I am satisfied that the introduction of American machines is advantageous to the local manufacturers, as well as to the farming community, since it compels the local makers to adopt up-to-date methods, and to produce an article equal to the imported one. The United States of America, with its population of 80.000.000, is the home of inventive genius. People of an inventive turn of mind in the old country, being unable to secure that assistance which should be accorded them, emigrate to America where they find scope for their genius. It is for this reason that the United States produces more improved machinery than does any other country. There is a field there for brains. Manufacturers there will improve on the machines that we bring out from time to time, and if we give them a chance to export to Australia our farmers will be advantaged. It seems to me, however, that both the Minister of Trade and Customs and the Chairman of the Tariff Commission desire to prohibit these imports, and that, if we are to Have prohibition, we might just as well vote for the motion as for the amendment foreshadowed by the honorable and learned member for Bendigo. That honorable member is a shrewd business man, who has presided in an admirable manner over the deliberations of the Commission. If he thinks that there is an opportunity for the local manufacturers to add the increased duty to the price which they charge the farmers for their machines {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: -- Is it not proposed to provide that the price shall be reduced within two years to£70? {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- That is a very plausible condition; but I would remind honorable members that one Parliament cannot bind another any more than a Ministry can bind its successors in office. The local manufacturers will treat with disdain any proposal we may make as to the way in which they, shall manage their own business. They would be quite justified in doing so. What right have we to interfere and to say that they shall reduce their prices? If we wish to secure reduced prices we should allow competition to prevail. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- Where was the competition during the reign of the combine? {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- The combination in Australia was to keep up prices and prevent competition. There is, undoubtedly, an understanding amongst the manufacturers that the price of these machines shall not be reduced, because the rates prevailing in all the States are very similar. It is a common occurrence for business men to meet at their clubs and elsewhere, and when they do so they naturally discuss business matters. The tendency amongst them is to keep up the price of their products, and to keep down the pr ice of their raw material. We cannot regulate their trade. They have to pay their way, and to take risks ; but, seeing that we have had in Australia a combination to prevent competition, is it reasonable that we should prevent the importation of machines bv persons who are not in a ring? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- The importers were in the combine. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- I think that a local manufacturer was in the combine. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- They were all in it. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- Quite so. There is nothing novel in such a procedure. Bv-and-by, when we reach that socialistic state about which we have heard so much, we may hear no more of this system, and it is just possible that when a member of a combine does something of which the others do not approve, the " fat will be in the fire," to use a colloquialism - and we shall have competition, and reduced prices. What will the effect be? Will not the farmer be able to garner more wheat, to put larger quantities on to the market, and thus to sell at lower prices? But, if you put him to the expense to which he was formerly put. the price of your loaf will be increased. I am not here to legislate for the primary producers as a class ; but I point out that they pass on the benefits given to them, and enable the consuming public to purchase more with its money. Those who wish well to the masses of the people should make things easy for the primary producers. I think that a profit of *£18* on a harvester is quite enough. The proposed duty would be prohibitive, and if, by prohibiting importation, we destroy competition, prices will keep up. Already machines have been sold for as little as *£63,* and, no doubt, the jealousies and rivalries of the local manufacturers, caused by the endeavours to get ahead of one another by purchasing large lines of timber, by buying up tin in large quantities, and by paying higher wages than are agreed upon, in order to get better men, will from time to time cause a falling-out among them, as the result of which prices will go down. But that is not a reason why we should prevent competition from outside. Such competition is likely to bring prices down to £63 per machine, and perhaps to an even lower sum. According to the Tariff Commission's report, ai number of farmers gave evidence in opposition to the proposal to increase the duty on stripper-harvesters. They evidently' thought that the prices would be increased if the duty was raised, and they considered that the existing rate is sufficiently high. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I was among farmers last week, and they were all of the contrary opinion. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- One witness said that it costs from £14 to £15 to bring a harvester from the factory in North America to the warehouse in Australia. Is not that natural protection enough? He arrived at his estimate by considering the cost of setting up the machine, taking it to pieces, packing it, providing cases, paying freight by rail from the factory to the shop, paying freight by sea, and the expense of insurance and landing in Australia. In the opinion of the farmers generally, according to the Tariff Commission, the local manufacturers already have sufficient protection. **Mr. James** McGregor, who is a farmer, estimated the actual cost of turning out a machine fit for work at *£30,* and, as an operator in one of the Victorian factories estimated the cost at £25, showing how it was made up, **Mr. McGregor** was not far out. He told the Commission that, if *£20* were added to the cost of production to provide for the cost of marketing, and another ,£10 to provide a profit, the manufacturer could afford to sell at *£60,* instead of at *£8i -* a difference of over -£20. The honorable member for Moira said last night that these machines would come down in price to *£yo ;* but his farming friends say that *£60* would be a sufficiently high price. This is not the opinion of a free-trader. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- Yes, it is. **Mr. McGregor** is the only pronounced free-trade farmer in that portion of my constituency in which he lives. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- 1 am pleased to learn that there is a free-trade farmer in the honorable member's constituency. If all his constituents are as intelligent as is **Mr. McGregor,** he represents a very intelligent electorate. I hope that, at the next election, he will find that the number of free-traders in his division is larger than it was at the last election. Very little has been said by the protectionists on behalf of the farmers. Thev do- not appear to care much about the farmers. Is it because the farmers have fewer votes to give than those connected with large manufacturing centres ? Their efforts are making things easy for the 500,000 manufacturing people round about Melbourne. The honorable member for Gippsland made a speech last night which ought to weigh with every protectionist. He is a protectionist whom every one respects, and told the Committee that, when Minister of Trade and Customs, he thought that more protection should be given to the harvester-making industry. But, having gone very thoroughly into the matter, he found that, on the information placed before him, he would not be justified in increasing the protection now enjoyed by the manufacturers. He discovered that the local manufacturing industry is standing on its feet. It has arrived at that position in which, theoretically, it is the object of protection to place industries; it is able to stand alone, without needing to be bolstered up. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- Why not say nursed up? {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- Even after industries are able to go alone, the protectionists are afraid that they may fall and insist upon bolstering them up to keep them on their feet. The free-traders, on the other hand, say, " Throw away the crutches. Let there be a fair field, and the local manufacturers will do well." As I have shown, the manufacturers of harvesters could make a profit of £18 or more if the price of their machines were only *£60* each. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- That is pure assumption, since the Tariff Commission was not able to obtain from the manufacturers all the figures necessary to determine the cost of their machines. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- Every department in a factory has to pay its way, just as every department in a soft-goods warehouse has to do so. The heads of the departments in these harvester factories have given evidence, upon which, in addition to the evidence tendered by the firms themselves, the Commissioners arrived at their conclusions. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- The Commissioners say that the manufacturers would not supply the facts which they wanted. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- They say that certain manufacturers would not produce their books to show the profits which they were making. Presumably those profits were so huge that the manufacturers are afraid that if they were known they could not obtain more protection. But the protectionists of Victoria vote for higher duties, not because they are needed, but because that is the policy of the State, which the people drink in every morning. As the public here believe in protection, their representatives feel that they must give it to them, and therefore the country is poor compared with other countries where the people have more of the comforts and blessings of life, and are able to put by more for rainy days. Of what use would it be for me to talk free-trade in the division of Moira ? But this is a national Parliament, and, while the people of Victoria may ask for high duties, the farmers in other States do not believe in paying from 20 to 30 per cent. more for what they buy than is a fair price. The farmers in my constituency think that they should not pay more than *£60* for harvesters, seeing that that price will give a good profit to the manufacturers. They do not like to be asked to pay *£81* when they know that a firm will sell three machines at£63 each. There are men in my constituency who could buy fifty machines at a time. The holdings in Victoria and South Australia are small compared with the immense areas under cultivation in New South Wales. The honorable member for Moira last night referred to the time when that State could not produce sufficient grain for its own requirements, and seemed to spurn it for that reason ; but I remember when Victoria used to get its grain from South Australia and when, even earlier, South Australia used to get its grain from Chili. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- We have found out how foolish we were. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- It is better to get grain from Chili than to go without flour; and everything must have a beginning. Every year the farmers of New South Wales are adding to their cultivation areas, and before long that State will be able to supply breadstuffs for the whole Commonwealth. It already supplies its own requirements, and has an export trade. The people of New South Wales did not go into wheat-growing formerly, because they could make more money in other ways. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- They could never make as much money per acre from wool as they have made from wheat. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- Perhaps not; but what they considered was their total income. In some parts of New South Wales there is now intense culture, and what were sheep-walks have been found to contain good agricultural land. In the early days, however, sheep-raising paid better than anything else, and therefore the people in the country districts stuck to sheep. Now that they can make more money by growinggrain, they are bringing larger areas under cultivation. They are carrying on operations on the same large scale as the farmers of California and Canada. There is no justification for prohibiting the importation of stripper-harvesters. It would be against the best interests not only of the consumers, but of the manufacturers themselves, to shut out the imported machines. Our object should be to obtain a perfect machine. The stripper-harvester in use today will not answer our purposes ten years hence. Our producers have to compete in the markets of the world with the farmers of Canada and the United States, and unless we are able to give our settlers the most up-to-date appliances they will be placed at a great disadvantage. A duty of£16 would undoubtedly prevent the importation of stripper-harvesters from abroad, because it would not be possible to add the duty to the present price. The. machines are sold at as high a price as the farmers can afford to pay, and there is no likelihood of their submitting to an increase of rates. The manufacturers would no doubt, obtain *£90* per machine as formerly if they could, but they knowthat the farmers would not stand such an imposition. The Government did not come into power as prohibitionists, and I do not think that they would be justified in imposing prohibitive duties. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- Could the honorable member say what reduction was made in the cost of machines when the duty was reduced ? {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- Business cannot be regulated in the way that the honorable member's question suggests. A manufacturer will reduce his price for various reasons. He may want money to meet his obligations at the end of the quarter, and he may bring down the price of his wares in order to turn them into cash. Sometimes his banker orders him to sell off his stock in order that he may obtain money with which to reduce his overdraft. All manufacturers have not large banking accounts or unlimited credit, and I know that many of them have a hard struggle to make ends meet. I think, however, that we shall do the best thing for the manufacturer as well as for the consumer by imposing only a fair duty. **Mr. McKay** sends his machines away to the Argentine. He states that if he did not get rid of his surplus in that way he would have to dismiss his men and shut down his works. He sells' his machines in the Argentine at a profit, but he would sell them all the same if he did not make any profit. It appears that, during the first seven months of this year, he has sold fifty more machines than during last year. It may be said that **Mr. McKay** dumps his machines into the Argentine in order to clear the market and make more money out of the local consumers. We must not take any notice of the bald assertion of the prices being brought down when duties are reduced. We are interfering too much with the manufacturers, and making things harder for the producers. We should not deprive ourselves of the opportunity to take advantage of the brains of American inventors and manufacturers. It would be against the interests of the farmers and of the whole community to do so. It must be remembered that South Australia, Victoria, and New South Wales are now exporting grain to the old country, and that our producers must keep themselves abreast of the times in order to successfully compete in the world's markets. The idea of the local manufacturers, apparently, is that the high duty will prevent the importation of harvesters from abroad, and enable them to obtain a higher price for their machines. The honorable member for Moira told us that the farmer had no right to complain, because, among other things, he obtained his land on time payment. But I would point out that the farmer buys his land on credit, and pays interest upon the principal until he has completed the purchase. Therefore, it cannot be urged that he is placed in any position of special advantage in that regard. The honorable member pointed out also that the farmer had received the advantage of technical education provided by the State. What does that mean? If by means of technical education the farmer is shown how to grow ears of wheat containing 120 grains as against 60 grains formerly produced, he will be able to grow a larger quantity, and as a result prices will be brought down, and the general community will be benefited. The farmer may be benefited by the increased output, but the consumer will also derive considerable advantage, and the little ones belonging to poor families in the old land will get more to eat. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- The landlords derive the advantage. The agricultural labourer in England is no better off to-day than he was fifty years ago. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- The whole community benefits. The land-owner is no doubt just as bad as the manufacturer. It must be understood, however, that he, as well as others, has to submit to competition. The honorable member for Moira also told us that railway freights in Victoria and New South Wales were reduced for the benefit of the farmer. They were reduced in order to encourage the farmer to put more land under cultivation and to provide more traffic and freight for the railways. If I had my way, a great deal of the produce grown in the far distant parts of the country would be carried at a loss, inorder to encourage the settlers to bring larger areas under cultivation. If the reduced rates had the desired effect, the railways would be amply repaid by the greater volume of traffic that would be carried over the lines in the future. The railways of South Australia have been the best managed in the Commonwealth, because they have been worked on commercial lines. The railway authorities of South Australia have afforded every encouragement to the settlers in the backblocks beyond Goyder's line of rainfall, where the crops no not produce more than three or four bushels per acre. Many farmers of South Australia have told me that at times they have been on the verge of starvation, and have not been able to obtain sufficient food for their little ones. The railways, however, which have been extended far into the interior havep roved a great boon to them, and have lightened their burdens very considerably. For instance, there is the railway to Farina, extending hundreds of miles into the interior. If the Government were to charge the farmers beyond Goyder's line of rainfall the same rate that they charge the men who are settled within ten or twenty miles of Adelaide, they would drive them off the land. It is necessary to open up railways to develop the country. By so doing we secure a greater volume of trade. We obtain more breadstuffs, and we bestow more blessings upon the community as a whole. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- But wheat is not grown at Oodnadatta. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- I am aware of that. Oodnadatta is in the centre of Australia - in the arid portion of the continent. I can recollect the time when the South Australian railway terminus was at Terowie, and when the railway system of that State was altered to the 3' ft. 6 in. gauge and extended to districts where the production of cereals was very much less per acre than it was in the more favoured spots. The South Australian Government has been constantly extending its railways beyond the area within which cereals are produced. Of course, I know that grain can be grown there successfully. One has only to read the articles which the honorable member for Echuca has contributed to the *Argus* newspaper to appreciate what can be accomplished by means of the system of dry farming, which really resolves itself into the conservation of the natural moisture by earth mulching. I hold that something should be done for the producer. He does not get any consideration to which he is not entitled. Everything that he gets is passed on to the consumer, and competition regulates the prices. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- There is no fund other than that which is contributed by the people. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- Exactly. The source of all wealth is the land. We can have no prosperity in the country if we injure the primary producers. Consequently I ask, " Are we going to give the manufacturers all the benefits which accrue from improved methods of agriculture? Are we going to assist them to make profits amountingto *£10,000, £20,000* and even £30,000 annually?" It seems to me that the policy of the Government is to impose a prohibitive duty upon stripper-harvesters and other agricultural implements and machinery. That, I contend, is a most improper thing to do. Ministers have no mandate from the country to give effect to such a policy, and I hope that, when they appeal to the electors, they will receive a lesson which will prevent them from again bringing forward similar proposals. **Mr. FISHER** (Wide Bay [6.3].- The question under consideration has been presented to honorable members in many aspects. The last speaker has adopted a line of reasoning of his own, which I do not propose to follow, beyond saying - in regard to his statement concerning the benefits which have been derived in Great Britain by reason of the adoption of improved methods of agriculture - that, in my opinion, those benefits have not been reaped by the persons who ought to have enjoyed them. The employes have not benefited to the extent that they should have done. They have not received the remuneration which really belonged to them as the result of the improved methods of labour which {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr Lonsdale: -- I am opposed t'o granting the manufacturers an increased duty for the purpose of levying an Excise. {: #subdebate-12-0-s8 .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I do not object to the honorable member's view. But, assuming that the Committee agree to the increased dutv proposed, what will he do? Some reference was made by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports to the effect that the Federal Tariff has had upon the iron indus {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- Are there increased wharfage charges at either place? {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- No. A perusal of the report of the Shipping Commission will disclose the reason for this state of things. The shipping combination can practically wipe out a small port. It can prescribe conditions regarding rebates which effectually prevent manufacturers from sending machinery by any boats other than its own. Upon every consignment of cargo carried by the combine a secret rebate of 10 per cent, is granted. Thus, if a manufacturer traded with a small schooner, he would by that innocent act sacrifice the whole of the rebate that would otherwise accrue to him. These conditions have militated against the expansion of the iron industry in Queensland more than has the Tariff. I do not say that the Tariff which Parliament passed extended sufficiently high duties to the iron .industry. In my opinion, those duties should have been much higher. Personally, I am of opinion that the iron industry should be nationalized. Another factor which has materially affected foundries in Queensland is that about the time of the establishment of the Federation, the Government railway workshops were established at Ipswich. This naturally deprived the foundry there of a large amount of work. Queensland's loan policy came to an end. and that end brought many changes. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- At the same time, InterState free-trade was established. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- Quite so; I shall refer presently to that point. With the cessation of its loan policy, Queensland had less money available than it had before for the construction of railways, bridges, and other public works, including sugar mills. T may say, in passing, that the people of that State, through the Government, have loaned over £500,000 to the sugar growers to provide the machinery necessary to enable them to get their produce to market. The point is often overlooked that a mill costing something like £50,000 is necessary to the successful production of sugar, and that where the area under sugar cane is not sufficient to justify the erection of a mill of that capacity, a crop is practically worthless. The cessation of the State borrowing policy, interfered with the erection of large mills and the carrying out of many public works, whilst the establishment of Inter-State free-trade enabled the ironfounders of other States, and mora particularly of Victoria, to enter into serious competition with the local manufacturers. Although I have not the figures at hand, I am clearly of opinion that the number of hands employed in the iron industry has not increased in proportion' to the increase in the output. The capacity of a worker is increased from time to time by the introduction of improved machinery, so that, whilst the output of an industry may increase, the number of hands engaged in it may concurrently be reduced. That is a well known feature of industrial life. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- The introduction of the riveting machine, for instance, has reduced the field of employment in the iron trade. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- That is so. By means of a small hydraulic machine, two men are now able to do what was previously the work of ten. I presume that honorable members do not regret the introduction of labour-saving appliances. It is said that improvements in machinery lessen the field of employment, but I do not think that that contention is altogether correct. It should not be the ambition of an intelligent democratic Parliament simply to make work for the people. It should rather be our desire to see that every person who is willing to engage in useful labour shall receive a wage sufficient to enable him to live in comfort and to enjoy a few of the luxuries of life. If we cannot do that, we ought to make room for others who nave some tangible and practicable ideas on the subject. Unfortunately, however, the Commonwealth Parliament has not the power to inforce wages conditions. Although, as the Prime Minister has said, the framers of the Constitution " builded better than they knew, " I think, in this respect, the instrument is defective. The Parliament which has the power to impose Customs and Excise duties is the only effective body to determine what shall be the wage conditions in the industries to which those duties apply. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- An amendment of the Constitution would soon remedy the trouble. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I am glad that the Opposition are not entirely opposed to such a proposition. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- Hear, hear. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- To use a well-known Australian term,, the Parliament, when imposing duties, is " hobbled " by the fact that it is not free to enact that those employed in the industries to which they relate shall not be in a worse position than they were before. Whilst some of the States Parliaments have devised various means to insure the payment of fair wages and the observance of reasonable conditions of labour, others, unfortunately, have made no such provision for the protection of the workers. In some cases high duties have had a mischievous effect. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- They have not helped the wage earners. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- Whilst high duties have been imposed the wage earners have been neglected. But of recentyears a new principle, that of "the new protection," has come into play. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- It is the oldest of old things. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I understand that those who support it desire that the manufacturer, who is benefited by the imposition of protective duties shall distribute amongst his employes a fair proportion of the advantage so obtained. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- That is the effect of the amendment moved by the honorable member for Lang? {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- If such an amendment were passed it would be futile. The Commonwealth has no machinery to bring it into operation. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- Then the duties would not come into operation. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- The honorable and learned member would be the last to penalize a good man. I would remind him that, although the great bulk of those engaged in the industry were ready and willing to pay fair wages, and to have regard to reasonable conditions of labour, these duties under the amendment would not come into operation if one manufacturer refused to do so. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- The amendment is absurd. It would not touch the question. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I think it would be futile. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- Does the honorable member agree with the statement of the Minister of Trade and Customs that the members of the Commission were grossly unfair to witnesses? {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I do not, and I regretted to hear the Minister make it. I am sure that if the honorable gentleman had given the matter a moment's consideration, he would not have made such a serious statement. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I have the newspaper containing a full statement of the whole matter. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I know that the honorable gentleman, whose goodness of heart no one will deny, speaks at times rather bluntly, and I think that, in this instance, he expressed himself rather roughly. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I did not reflect in the slightest degree upon the Chairman of the Commission. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I cannot indorse that statement. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- But I did not. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I do not wish to discuss the question. I have already said that I think the members of the Commission have done a great work. They have lived through many laborious days. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I quite admit that. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- They have struggled, I dare say, through laborious nights, but I do not think that any Commission ought to be empowered to bring down specific proposals as to the duties which should be imposed. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I quite agree with the honorable member that such recommendations are altogether outside the province of a Commission. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I should not find fault with a Government which refused to take notice of such recommendations. A Commission appointed by the Crown has none of the responsibilities of the Executive. It might bring down proposals for the imposition of certain duties which, if adopted, would deprive the Executive of the revenue necessary to carry on the administration of the country. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- The Commission has merely made recommendations to the Parliament. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- The terms of their appointment are very limited. The Commission was appointed to inquire into the effects of the Tariff, and its business was to report in general terms upon the result of their investigation. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- To diagnose the disease and not to suggest the remedy? {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- It is for this Parliament to prescribe the remedy. *Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.30 p.m.* {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- The honorable member for Corinella has asked, in effect, what would be the use of the investigations of the Commission if it did not make definite and distinct recommendations. I am surprised at such a question from so acute a mind. The Commissioners were appointed to inquire into the effects, good, bad, or indifferent,of the present Tariff. It would have been sufficient for them to report that certain industries were becoming lean and attenuated and others too fat and prosperous. While they might have indicated the remedy for both diseases - because it is as bad for the body politic that industries1 should be too lean as it is that they should be too fat - it would be for Parliament to prescribe the remedy to be applied. I have pointed out that a Government might be deprived of revenue as the effect of a report of a Commission. That of course is a side issue; but, undoubtedly, the action of a Commission in making definite proposals may be a source of embarrassment to a Government. The power to increase Customs valuations is vested in the Minister of Customs; but it should be most sparingly exercised, and when exercised, opportunity should be given to those aggrieved to test the matter in a Court of law without being met with technical points. In my opinion, there is nothing more dangerous than to allow the Executive to increase duties at will. This should be done only by the direct vote of Parliament. While I do not impugn the motives of the Minister of Trade and Customs or of the Government, I say that a democratic Parliament should guard with the greatest jealousy its right to impose taxation. I shall support the recommendation of the Tariff Commission, not because it is their recommendation, but because, in my opinion, the evidence permits of no other course being taken. No information has been laid before "us indicating that a fixed duty higher than£10 a machine is necessary. But as this Parliament desires to benefit the workmen as well as the manufacturers, and as it cannot appoint Wages Boards to determine questions of remuneration and conditions of employment, I think that the imposition of an Excise duty amounting to half of the import dutyshould be agreed to, giving a bounty of the same amount in every case where a manufacturer conforms with the conditions prescribed by a Wages Board or an Arbitration Court, or, where there is no such authority, pays the rate of wages which is the mean between the rates so prescribed. If this is done, our legislation will benefit the workers as well as the manufacturers. {: #subdebate-12-0-s9 .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby -- I am very glad that the honorable member for Wide Bay has brought the discussion back to the amendment, to which I propose to confine my remarks. The general debate has been useful, but it will be wise for us now to focus our attention on the point raised by the amendment of the honorable member forLang. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- That amendment is farcical. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- I admit that the honorable member's proposal is impracticable, and cannot be seriously considered ; but I assume that his object is that the workmen in protected industries shall share with the employers the benefits obtained from duties, an object with which all honorable members must be in sympathy. I ask the Committee to try to devise some scheme which will achieve that object. Notwithstanding the platform utterances of some honorable members, who suggest that the protectionists seek merely to fatten a few manufacturers, we know they credit us with the belief that good wages, short hours, and healthy conditions are more likely to be obtained for workmen under protection than under free-trade. Unfortunately, however, the workmen have not always participated in the benefits which have accrued, by reason of the imposition of the duties, to the industries with which they have been connected. I question very much whether the benefits given to the stripper-harvester industry by protection have been fairly shared by the men engaged in it. The fact that the largest manufacturer of stripperharvesters in Australia moved his works to Bray brook in order to escape having to comply with the conditions laid down by a Victorian Wages Board shows that manufacturers are not always ready to fall in with the desire of a majority of the people that the workmen shall share fairly in the benefits of protection. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- **Mr. McKay** has denied that he moved to Braybrook to evade having to comply with the conditions of a Wages Board. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- If he wished to be brought under a Wages Board, he could easily agitate for that to be done, and, no doubt, would be successful. I have been termed a weak-kneed protectionist; but I shall be still more weak-kneed unless I receive an assurance that what obtained immediately after the passing of the last Tariff will not be allowed to continue. I was prepared to impose pretty high duties on many articles, but became weak-kneed in regard to protection when I saw how some manufacturers, and some of those who were very prominent in advocating the new protectionist doctrines, neglected to fulfil their obligations directly they received, or were certain of receiving, the benefits of protection. I happened to be the chairman of the inaugural meeting held at the Town Hall, Adelaide, at which the Protectionist Association of South Australia was formed, about a year prior to the establishment of the Commonwealth. At that meeting the new protectionist programme was adopted as the policy of the party in South Australia. That programme included the passing of a Factories and Shops Act, containing provisions relating to Wages Boards and arbitration, and so on. The principle underlying the policy was that the workmen, as well as the manufacturers, should share in the advantages of any protection that might be granted. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr Lonsdale: -- Where does the consumer come in ? {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- I am now dealing with the question from the point of view of the producers - the manufacturers and their workmen. The question of where the consumer comes in is another matter, which I do not wish to consider just now. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- It is a very important question. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- I admit that. It must be acknowledged that the prices of many articles - I do not say all - upon which duties have been imposed, have not been increased as the result of the protection accorded to the local manufacturer. Where there is strong local competition and a sufficiently large output, the tendency is to reduce prices, and to thus confer benefit upon the consumers. The manufacturers and workmen, of which the Protectionist Association was composed, worked together loyally until the Federal elections were held. Just prior to that time the Holder Administration succeeded in passing through both Houses a Bill upon the lines of the Victorian Factories and Shops Act, providing for the establishment of Wages Boards in connexion with certain trades. The Legislative Council inserted a provision that the regulations made under the Act should be laid upon the table of both Houses, and that if disallowed by either House, should not become operative. The Federal elections were held, and the majority of the candidates elected were protectionists. Towards the close of the Tariff debate in this Parliament, the regulations under the South Australian Factories Act were disallowed by the Legislative Council. No particular reason was advanced, but it appeared that some manufacturers, having attained one of the objects for which the Protectionist Association was formed, desired to prevent the introduction of the Wages Board system. I do not accuse the manufacturers of having directly caused the disallowance of the regulations, but the Chamber of Manufactures did its best to prevent the passing of the regulations, and further, when somewhat later a Commission was appointed to take evidence in Victoria as to the working of the Wages Board system, it requested the affiliated body in Melbourne to bring forward the strongest evidence possible against the Wages Board system. If the manufacturers had desired to carry out their share of the compact, as members of the Protectionist Association, they might have petitioned the Legislative Council to allow the Wages Board regulations to pass, and thus bring the conditions in the State into line with those obtaining in Victoria, New South Wales, and Western Australia. From that day to this there have been no Wages Boards in South Australia, and whatever advantage has accrued from the protection given by the Tariff has been de rived by the manufacturers alone. Although I believe in protection, I do not propose to give one fractional part of a percentage of additional protection to any industry until I can feel assured that the workman will receive a fair share of the advantage conferred. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- Does the honorable member think that sufficient provision is made under the Government's proposal ? {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- No ; I propose to ask the Committee to adopt conditions similar to those which have already been foreshadowed by the honorable member for Wide Bay - conditions which seem to be fair and workable. I do *not agree* with the proposal that any manufacturer who fails to pay his workmen a fair and reasonable rate of wages shall pay Excise equal to the Customs duty levied on the imported article. Under that arrangement, the Minister of Trade and Customs would be called upon to decide what is a fair and reasonable rate of wages, and I do not think we should leave a question of that kind to the decision of any Minister. The question as to what is a fair and reasonable rate of wages must, of course, always be a matter of opinion. I much prefer the proposal of the honorable member for Wide Bay that an Excise duty shall be imposed, and that the full amount of the Excise shall be returned to the manufacturer in all cases in which the manufacturers are complying with the conditions imposed by a Wages Board or by an award of an Arbitration Court. " Fair and reasonable wages " might mean anything, but the award of a Court or the determination of a Wages Board would be definite in character, and could easily be enforced. Where no Wages Board existed the best plan would be to require that wages shall be paid according to the highest rates provided for in any Wages Board determination or Arbitration Court award. The honorable member for Wide Bay suggests that the wages should be paid upon the basis of the average of the rates ruling elsewhere under the Wages Board or Arbitration Court decisions. But if we required that the highest rate should be paid, the manufacturers would probably agitate for the extension of the Wages Board system, and I think that would be a good thing. The Wages Board systemis based upon co-operation, and is to be preferred to that under which an Arbitration Court is called upon to make awards. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- That is. providing that the workmen are not dismissed for sticking up for high wages. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- Of course, sometimes the object sought to be attained by those who favour industrial tribunals for the settlement of trade disputes are defeated by employers who take a mean advantage. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- What is the advantage of having Wages Boards, instead of an Arbitration Court? {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- In the case of Wages Boards, all the arbitrators are familiar with the actual conditions existing in the trade which is the subject of inquiry. Each Board consists of three representatives of the employes and three employers, presided over by a Chairman chosen by the parties, or appointed by the Government. Most matters in dispute are settled between the representatives of the respective parties, and others in regard to which no mutual agreement can be arrived at are speedily dealt with by the Chairman. I would ask the Committee to devote their special attention to the question of devising some scheme which will insure that the workmen shall obtain a fair share of the advantage derived from the protection granted to the industry immediately under discussion. Personally I strongly favour the scheme which has been outlined by the honorable member for Wide Bay, and I hope that it will be adopted. I believe that he has hit upon a plan which is practicable, and which will achieve the end that we have in view. I feel confident that the adoption of such a proposal would insure better conditions to the workers in these industries, and would prevent the possibility of the manufacturers reaping the whole of the advantage conferred by any duties that we might impose primarily for the purpose of benefiting the whole industry. {: #subdebate-12-0-s10 .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY:
Corinella .- I think that this debate has shown that it would be as easy to sink a cork as to sink the fiscal issue before it has been settled in some form or other. The strength of the feelings which still continue to be displayed by honorable members upon either side of the Chamber shows that there has been no surrender of principle so far as their fiscal views are concerned. I have listened attentively to the remarks of the honorable member for Boothby concerning the necessity for insuring that the employes, as well as the manufacturers, shall share in any benefits that may be conferred by any protective duties that we may impose. I do not commit myself to saying that the suggestion of the honorable member for Wide Bay is practicable or - if it is - that it is the most practicable way of achieving our object. But I do say, without any hesitation, that unless the protective system can be so developed as to insure to the workman his proper share of the benefits of Customs duties, I would cease to have any violent enthusiasm for those duties. It is a common charge against protectionists that they are in some mysterious way animated by a desire to fill the pockets of a few manufacturers at the expense of the community. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP -- There is a big difference of opinion upon the other side of the Chamber upon that question. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- The honorable member who has interjected ought to know that the gangway here is quite as significant as is that in the centre of the Chamber - more so, in fact, because he himself sits cheekbyjowl with some of the most violent freetraders in Federal politics. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- They are not nearly so violent as are some free-traders who sit in the corner occupied by the honorable and learned gentleman. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- At the present moment the only violent free-traders in my corner are members of the party which the honorable member himself leads. In connexion with the necessity for insuring to the workman his share of the advantages of the protection which we extend to manufacturers, we must remember that we have to begin with Customs duties, and I have never regarded those duties as anything but a beginning. In imposing Customs duties, it seems to me that it is necessary to impose duties which will give to the local manufacturer an advantage equal to the inevitable disadvantage from which he suffers in competition with his foreign rival. For instance, there are differences in the rates of wages which he pays, in the hours worked by his employes, in the rates of interest which he has to pay, and in the wideness of his market - differences which he cannot overcome by his own efforts. He can overcome differences in methods or defects in machinery, and. therefore, he is entitled to no protection so far as they are concerned. He is, however, entitled to protection in respect of the differences which he cannot overcome. But in extending that protection to him we are bound to see that these differences are real. In other words, when we are extending protection to the manufacturer because he has to pay higher wages, and to concede better conditions to his workmen, it is our duty to see that he does pay those wages and grant those conditions. It is because I believe that the unrestricted competition of foreign countries with Australia would mean either the stoppage of the development of our manufacturing industries or the decline of wages to a lower level than we conceive to be right, that I am a protectionist. To use the words of the leader of the Opposition - words which have been very freely criticised - " we cannot compete with the cheap labour of over-crowded countries." I do not think that we can, so long as we desire to maintain the rates of wages and the standard of comfort which obtain in Australia. Consequently if we desire to develop our manufacturing industries we must recognise the fact that the foreign competitor can beat the local manufacturer unless we extend to him some advantages to enable him to start on equal terms with his competitor abroad. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr Brown: -- Our farmers have to compete in the world's markets. {: .speaker-JWG} ##### Mr Fowler: -- What are the cheap labour countries to which the honorable and learned member refers? Do they include Canada and America ? {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I refuse to listen to the siren voice of free-trade upon my left rear. When we axe placing the local manufacturer upon equal terms with his foreign competitor there is no necessity to levy a higher duty than will achieve the results I have indicated. That would only be an encouragement to charge unnecessarily high prices. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- The proposal of the Commission is that the prices shall come down. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I am discussing the general question at the present moment. The proposals before the Committee are to increase the duty upon stripper-harvesters - to double it. The Government proposal, and the recommendation of the Tariff Commission, alike claim to constitute a doubling of the present duty. In other words, they claim to be equal to an *ad valorem* duty of 25 per cent. The Minister of Trade and Customs has declared that a duty of *£16* upon harvesters is equivalent to an *ad valorem* duty of 25 per cent, upon ^65, which is his valuation of these machines for Customs purposes. On the other hand, the honorable and learned member for Bendigo and others contend that their true valuation is ^40, and that a fixed duty of £10 per machine would be equivalent to an *ad valorem* duty of 25 per cent. I have read with a good deal of care the report of the Tariff Commission on this matter, and a portion of the evidence which was given concerning it. I do not pretend to have read all the evidence. If any honorable member has done so, I can only regard with humble respect the height to which he has attained. From what I have read, it is perfectly clear to me that there is a difference of opinion as to what is the proper dutiable value of the stripper-harvester. I frankly confess that, although I have an opinion as to which case is the better one, I do not pretend that a conclusive case has been made out by the evidence which is now before the Committee. We know that at the present time it is proposed to grant a commission to take evidence in Canada upon this very question. {: .speaker-KZH} ##### Mr Robinson: -- Which the Government are opposing. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I assume that the Government will not now oppose the issue of that commission any further. If they do they will be acting in contravention of the spirit of the Minister's promise. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- There was a reason given for their opposition. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- But no reason- would justify the Government in opposing the ascertainment of the true facts of a matter which is so vital. The evidence in support of the contention that ^65 is the proper valuation of these machines for Customs purposes is by no means conclusive, neither is the evidence in support of the statement that ^38 represents their proper value. Each piece of evidence is open to the objection that it comes from an interested quarter, and that there has been no opportunity of thoroughly testing its accuracy. Although the Tariff Commission came to. a clear decision - as it was. justified in 'doing - upon the weight of evidence presented to it, I hold that when we can obtain fuller evidence upon the point we ought to get it. All parties are agreed that a fixed duty, which would be equivalent to an *ad valorem* impost of 25 per cent., should be levied upon these machines. The real difference of opinion is as to what specific dutv would represent an *ad valorem* rate of *2K* per cent. The evidence upon that point is conflicting, and therefore we should not determine it until fuller information is forthcoming. Consequently, it is the duty of the Committee to revert to the recommendations of the Tariff Commission, and to levy a duty of 25 per cent, until the real dutiable value of the machines has been ascertained, when a specific duty can be imposed. I am not in a position to form a final opinion as to what the real dutiable value is; but I agree with the Government that a duty of 25 per cent, will afford sufficient protection' to the manufacturers of stripper - harvesters. It will fully cover the disadvantages under ordinary trade conditions to which they are subjected. It will cover whatever difference in wages may exist. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I must admit that the honorable and learned member has advanced a very strong argument in favour of an *ad valorem* duty for the time being. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I yet hope to see the Government recognise that we are not at present in a position to finally decide what is the true dutiable value of these machines, and that we should really prejudge the case by imposing a duty of £16 or £10. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- The Minister is preparing to climb down. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- The honorable member speaks as a free-trader, whilst I speak as a protectionist desiring to see a proper decision arrived at. I am satisfied to accept the *ad valorem* rate proposed by the Tariff Commission. It seems to me that, notwithstanding, the objections that there are to the rate, there is no way out of the difficulty except to revert to the proposal of the Commission that an *ad valorem* duty of 25 per cent, be imposed. I am sure that if the investigation now proceeding showed that the Minister's estimate of £65 was too high a valuation, he would not desire a dutv of *£16* per machine. If the investigation showed that the real dutiable value was *£50,* I am sure that he would be satisfied with a duty of £12 10s. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Certainly. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- If the investigation showed that £40 was the correct value, I feel confident that the honorable gentleman would be satisfied with a duty of *£10.* {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Yes ; but I am quite satisfied that such a valuation would be wrong. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I am aware that the honorable gentleman holds decided opinions in regard to this question. I doubt whether £38 is the full dutiable value of these machines. I think that there yet remain to be taken into consideration items which will increase that valuation by some amount large or small ; but in any event we wish to know what the real value is. If we had before us the result of the law suit now in progress, we could impose a fixed duty; as we have not, I think that, in fairness to all concerned, we are forced to revert to the proposal of the Tariff Commission that an *ad valorem* duty of 25 per cent, be imposed. I, for one, am ready to support the imposition of such a duty. I am not ready to support a duty of £16, because I am not satisfied that *£65* is the true valuation, nor ami I ready to support a duty of £10, since I am not satisfied that £40 is the true valuation to place on these machines. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- The existing duty is £8 per machine, and if, notwithstanding that duty, the local industry is endangered, surely the duty should be more than £10. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- The duty of £& has been in operation for only a month or two. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- Since October of last year. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- In estimating what duty should be imposed, we have always "to consider what are the disadvantages to which the local manufacturer is subjected as compared with his foreign competitor. I have not heard any one suggest that 25 per cent, will not compensate the local manufacturer for the disadvantages under which he labours. That being so, I am not prepared to agree to a fixed duty which would amount to more than 25 per cent. On the other hand, I am prepared to agree to an *ad valorem* rate of 25 per cent., in view of two proposals before the Committee ; the first being that the interests of the artisans shall be looked after in the most direct and effective way, and the second that the interests of the consumer shall be considered. I am not sufficiently expert in these matters to determine what should be the exact reductions in price insisted upon; but I do say that the evidence before the Tariff Commission - and the report of the Commission - leads one to the conclusion, from which it is hard to escape, that vendors of stripper-harvesters have been securing more than a fair profit. I care not how honorable members view the figures, the only reasonable inference to be drawn from them is that more than a fair profit is derived when these machines are sold at *£&* 1, and that, with one or two exceptions, was the combination price. Consequently it is our bounden duty to see that, whilst we are trying to benefit others, the consumers do not suffer bv being compelled to pay a price that is obviously greater than that which returns a fair profit. That, indeed, is the sole object of one part of the Bill for the Preservation of Australian Industries. On the facts before us wo are more than justified in declaring that the price of these machines must be reduced. We have been told that we do not know what is the cost of producing the Australian stripper-harvester, although there are indications that it is something like *£37 °r £38-* When those indications were brought under the notice of those concerned, they refused to give any information on the subject, and it is fair to assume that there could have been only two reasons for that refusal. In the first place, they feared, perhaps, that by giving the information required they would disclose to their competitors a trade secret the publication of which would injure them. I do not think that in this case any such injury could result from the disclosure of the cost of production. The only alternative reason is that the Australian makers considered that if thev disclosed the cost of production they would lay bare the fact that they were making an excessive profit. It seems to me, therefore - and if I am wrong I may easily be put right - that all the indications point to the conclusion that the price has been too high, and that the Government proposal to insist on a reduction in return for an increase of duty which will give to the local manufacturer a larger command - and I am inclined to think almost complete command - of the local market, is not only justifiable, but necessary. Lastly, I wish to refer briefly to the proposal of the honorable member for Wide Bay, that an Excise dutv should be imposed. My view of an employer of labour in Australia is that he is very much like an employer of labour anywhere else, and that he is very much like an employe. There is a great deal of human nature in a man, whatever his position in life may be, and he is liable to view many matters through spectacles which are coloured to a greater or less extent by considerations of self-interest. In these circumstances, we must do our best to see that a duty passed with the intent to assist the employer and employe alike, and controlled with the intent that the consumer shall not be injured, shall be so regulated as to control the industrial conditions largely on account of which it is imposed. It is comparatively easy to fix the rate of duty, and comparatively easy to control the selling price; but, in the absence of direct legislation, it is far more difficult to control the relations between employer and employed It seems to me that the main object of protection is, not to insure the aggregation of fortunes, but to insure the development of employment. That being so, any practical proposal - and I do not know that the honorable member for Wide Bay is wedded to that which he has put forward - which will insure that result deserves consideration. I should not say " I will not agree to the' imposition of a duty unless we can devise a satisfactory scheme to regulate the relations between employer and employe," because I believe that, with a duty, we should be more likely, by means of State legislation or otherwise, to arrive at a satisfactory position in this regard than we should be without it. We have not performed our duty as regards Customs .and industrial matters until we have insured the passing on to the employe of his share of the advantages to be derived from protective duties. That has always been my opinion. The other day I looked up the first speech I made on protection, and may say that I then founded my advocacy of the principle on exactly the same grounds that I have put forward this evening. I am very glad indeed that the splendid meeting which the Minister is said to have had at Albury last night has had such an excellent effect "upon him that he is prepared to consider favorably views that are put forward even from this Cave of Adullam. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I said that I was prepared to consider them. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I know that the Minister is very careful to leave a loop-hole by which he may escape. One can never build round him a wall so solid that he is unable to find in it an opening big enough to allow him to escape, if he desires to do so. But he said that I h~ad made out- a very strong case in favour of reverting to an *ad valorem* duty. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I said that the honorable and learned member had made out a good case for reverting to an *ad valorem* duty whilst the matter was in doubt. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- The honorable gentleman may have had such a proviso in his mind, but did not give utterance to it. If such a condition is to be imposed, all that the Committee can do at present is to revert to the *ad valorem* duty. We cannot say that the duty shall be " £ - per stripperharvester on the value being determined by the Courts." When the lawsuit has been determined, the Minister may bring down a proposal for a fixed dutv in lieu of an *ad valorem* one ; but I am dealing with the requirements of the present moment. A strong case has been made out for reverting to the *ad valorem* duty, and the Minister must refute it, if he is to adhere to his present proposal. The amendment which has been moved will achieve no result except that it will afford grounds for the employment of lawyers to interpret its meaning; but the lawyers' industry is one which seems to be able to thrive without assistance from the Customs. I am glad that the Minister is considering this proposal. These who advocate an *ad valorem* rate are as true protectionists as is the Minister, who has proposed a fixed rate of £16 per machine. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I much prefer a fixed to an *ad valorem* rate. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I see many reasons for adopting a fixed rate, and, if we knew the actual dutiable value of these machines, should be prepared fo agree to a fixed rate equivalent to 25 per cent, *ad valorem:* but, as we cannot get that knowledge in this Parliament, we must, in fairness to all concerned, adopt an *ad valorem* rate. I hope that the honorable member for Bendigo will carry out his intention of proposing such a rate in default of action by the Minister carrying out his suggestion. I hope, too, that the Minister will recognise what a strong case has been made out for this suggestion, and that we are on the horns of a dilemma from which there is no escape. If the suggestion is accepted, the question at issue can be quickly settled. The industry will then be given the opportunities which protectionists think that it requires, and time will be afforded for the discussion of proposals for assisting other industries requiring relief. {: #subdebate-12-0-s11 .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE:
Maranoa -- I am confident that the honorable member for Lang is not serious in regard to his amendment. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- He hoped to carry it, but it was a vain hope. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- A very false hope. When he builds his hopes on such proposals it is not strange that he comes to the ground. The members of the party to which I belong, whether free-traders or protectionists, will not give high protection to the harvester industry unless the workers employed in it are benefited. That is a plain and unvarnished statement of our position. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- The workers must have a "cut in." {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- Yes. That is the new protection introduced by the Labour Party. {: .speaker-KQ4} ##### Mr McColl: -- It was introduced by the Liberal party. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- It was not heard of until the Labour Party came into existence. The Liberals of Victoria have been very liberal to the manufacturers, but very illiberal to the workers. The Federal Labour Party has shaken them up a bit, and now they are claiming credit for what the Labour Party are forcing them to do. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- They were making the unfortunate employ^ find his own wages. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- So far as I am concerned, **Mr. McKay,** for whose benefit, according to the Opposition, the duty under discussion has beer.' proposed, will get no protection unless his workers are to receive advantage from the arrangement. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Customs have told us that the workers will be protected, but, with all due respect to them, I wish to see some tangible proposal put forward. This is what **Mr McKay,** according to the evidence given before the Tariff Commission, told his workmen on one occasion - >Be careful of what you do, men. If you' vote for factory legislation many of you will be put out, because I shall introduce labour-saving machinery. No labourite and no trade unionist objects to labour-saving machinery, because history shows that in the long run it means increased employment. Therefore, that threat will not scare the workers. Some sixty letters were sent to employers in the agricultural implement industry, asking if they were favorable to Wages Boards and the application of the Factories Act. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- Who sent the letters? {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- The secretary to the agricultural implement employes - I do not refer to the bogus union which the honorable member is faking up. Only thirteen replies were received, and only two firms said straight out that they were for the Act. One of these firms was John Buncle and Son, of Melbourne, whose managing director is the labour opponent of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, and the other was George Munro, of Ballarat. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- All the manufacturers have agreed to Wages Boards. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- Then it is strange that only thirteen out of sixty written to on the subject sent replies, and only two said straight out that they were for the Act. The firm of John Buncle and Son said, in its reply - >We are very desirous that a Wages Board should be in operation for the agricultural implement trade, as, in our opinion, it would be better for all parties concerned, and also bring the standard of wages higher than what they appear to be in some shops. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- That was written after Davidson was announced as a candidate. Why was that announcement not made long before ? {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- When a deputation waited upon **Sir Samuel** Gillott, who is charged with the administration of the Factories Act, he complimented **Mr. Davidson** on being the only member of it to speak in favour of Wages Boards. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- He had an axe to .grind, and was grinding it at a very bad time. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- He was grinding it at the right time. If it were not so, the honorable member would not be squealing. The firm went on to say that by Wages Boards good employers would be protected against unfair rivals. That is what we seek -to bring about. With regard to the Agricultural Implement Makers' Union, I have it on authority that the honorable member told Curwood, an employe of McKay, and the president of his " scab," or bogus, union, to call a mass meeting of the employers and employes as soon as possible after the resolution was passed by the State Parliament. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- That is not true. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- If the honorable member says that the' statement is not true, I withdraw it. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- Why did. not the honorable member mention the matter to me before ? {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- I am repeating the statement as it was given to' me. Does the honorable member know a man named Curwood ? {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- I am not sure that I do. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- Then I shall see that the honorable member knows him. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- What did I say that the meeting should be called for? {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- To send along the bogus union, and to " down " the legitimate union. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- I know nothing about the union. {: #subdebate-12-0-s12 .speaker-KXO} ##### Ms PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND -- The honorable member knows that there are two unions, one the employers' union, fathered by the implement makers, and the other the men who are standing out for their rights. The latter is affiliated with the Trades Hall, and the other with no one but the bosses. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- I know nothing of the kind. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- These are the wages paid by McKay, whom we are asked to protect: For the first year improvers are to receive 5s. a week of forty-eight hours ; for the second year, 7s. 6d. a week; for the third year, 10s. a week; for the fourth year, 12s. 6d. a week; for the fifth year, 15s. a week ; for the sixth year, *£1* a week ; and for the seventh year, £1 5s. a week. Men of twenty-one or twenty-two years of age, old enough to be married, are, after they have become journeymen, at the end of seven years, to receive the enormous sum of £1 5s. a week. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- Do they call them journeymen ? {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- Yes; at the end of seven years the improvers become journeymen, and as good tradesmen as they ever will be. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- Who gave that evidence ? {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: **- Mr. McKay** himself. {: .speaker-JWG} ##### Mr Fowler: -- There are no seven years' apprentices in **Mr. McKay's** establishment. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- Then the position is worse still. The maximum wage provided for moulders is 60s. per week, and the lowest 40s., whilst moulders' labourers receive the extravagant wage of 38s. a week. It is further provided - >One improver to every two journeymen or fraction thereof employed in the process, trade, or business of an ironmoulder, receiving not less than 8s. per day, employed on work other than pipe moulding, or on work incidental thereto. Where pipe moulding is carried on either alone or in conjunction with other work, one improver, or one additional improver, as the case may be, to every twelve journeymen or fraction thereof, exclusively employed on pipe moulding work, receiving not less than 8s. per day. On the 13th October, 1904, **Mr. McKay** addressed the following letter to the Chief Secretary of Victoria: - >With reference to the application of the Wages Board conditions to the iron moulding, steel moulding, and malleable iron departments of the Sunshine Harvester Works, I would respectfully point out that in consequence of the Act I am prevented from making any use of this costly part of my Ballarat factory. At considerable expense I have arranged for a temporary supply of castings from my factory in Braybrook. > >I would respectfully request that something be promptly done to remove the embargo of Wages Board conditions from the implement and harvester business. This is a man who wants more protection. I tell the Committee plainly that no member of the Labour Party, whether he be a protectionist or a free-trader, will give any further protection to this industry unless we are assured that the workers will be benefited to the same extent as are the manufacturers. I ' believe that the conditions proposed by the honorable member for Wide Bay will bring about that result, and I am satisfied that the Minister will carry out his promise in that regard. **Mr. McKay** continues - 1 further request that if this cannot be done at once you will give me an assurance that the Wages Board conditions will not come into operation at the factory in Braybrook. If you will do that 1 am prepared to considerably extend the factory, and will instal some more costly machinery, while if there is any chance of the Wages Board conditions being applied there I do not feel justified in spending the money. As this whole matter involves a most serious question, *X* would respectfully urge that it receive your early and earnest consideration. Why did **Mr. McKay** remove his works to Braybrook, if not with a view of placing himself beyond the jurisdiction of the Wages Board and of obtaining cheap labour ? He stated in his sworn evidence before the Tariff Commission that he wanted four improvers to one journeyman, and as many apprentices as he liked. I do not th'ink that it is desirable to grant high protection to an industry in which any such conditions exist, and I shall certainly vote against the proposed duty unless the interests of the wage-earners are fully safeguarded. {: #subdebate-12-0-s13 .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE:
New England -- It is well known that I am opposed to the present proposal, and that I am not willing to give to manufacturers increased facilities to obtain higher prices for their machines. I certainly object to giving them any increased advantage by way of duty unless they share it with their work men. Whilst workmen cannot be protected to any extent by law, I think that we should do what we can to insure that in this case, at any rate, there shall be some truth in the constantly reiterated statement that higher duties will confer benefit upon the workmen. Neither of the amendments proposed would, in my opinion, bring about the desired result, but 1 would support the honorable member for Wide Bay if he altered his proposed amendment to provide that Excise duty corresponding with the import duty levied upon the machines shall be charged, and that it shall be returned to the manufacturer upon his producing satisfactory evidence that he has increased the wages of his workmen to the full extent of the duty. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- The honorable member is whistling for wind now. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- If increased protection is to be given, we should take care that the workmen derive the advantage of it. Do not let us play any games. I am altogether opposed to the duty ; but if the majority are determined that it shall be levied, let its imposition be subject to some condition such as I have suggested. The Wages Boards do not increase the pay of the workers to any great extent. For the most part, they content themselves with adopting a minimum wage. If the Labour Party are honest in their endeavours to benefit the workman, they will insure that any advantage derived from protective duties shall pass direct into his pocket, instead Of into those of the manufacturer. I have read the reports of the Commission. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- Did the honorable member read the evidence ? {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- No. Life is too short for that. I am bound to say that the summary of the evidence contained in the report of the four protectionist members of the Commission proves that there is no need for an increase of duty, and I cantnot understand how the Commissioners could come to any other conclusion. The evidence shows that the industry is not languishing in Victoria. The manufacturers admit that neither their profits nor their trade has decreased, and yet the Commissioners recommend that an industry which is not languishing, but which, on the other hand, is highly prosperous, shall have conferred upon it the advantage of a higher protective duty. Where is the intelligence of the Commissioners? They point out that the duty on harvesters in Victoria was reduced from 15 to 12J' per cent., and that the duty upon machinery n.e.i. was reduced from 25 to 121 per cent. I do not understand why they should have taken the trouble to drag in '''machinery n.e.i.," because that item did not include agricultural implements. They apparently desired to show that the duties had been reduced to an excessive degree. We are told that the imports of agricultural implements have increased. The returns from 1899 to 1903 no doubt show a large increase, but if the imports for 1899 and 1905 are compared it will be seen that there has been a considerable decrease. Why do the members of the Commission say that there has been an increase of imports? Apparently, to enable them to justify their recommendation. In 1899 the imports of agricultural implements were valued at -^280,195, and in 1905 at .£329,634. In the former year no stripper-harvesters were imported, whereas in 10,05 machines of that character to the value of £85,000 were imported. If this amount be deducted from the £329,634, it will be seen at once that the importations of other agricultural implements in that year were valued at only £240,000, or £[40,000 less than the value of the imports in 1899. During the first six months of 1906 the imports of agricultural implements were valued at only £103,000, so that there has been a further considerable falling-off as compared with last year. There has not been any decrease of duty ; but, on the other hand, taking the Commonwealth as a whole, there has been an increase. If the protectionists like, they can urge that, because of the increased duty, production within the Commonwealth has been stimulated. I present them with that argument. The duty upon the imports in 1899 averaged 6 per cent, whereas the duty paid upon the imports in 1905 averaged 9 per cent. It is shown most conclusively by the manufacturers themselves that the industry is not languishing. This evening we have heard some special pleading on behalf of the local manufacturers. Certain statements have been made regarding the cost of producing these machines. In this connexion, I would point out that **Mr. Moore,** in reply to a question which was put to him, stated that the machine of the International Harvester Company could not be invoiced at £26, because that amount represented, approximately, the cost of the material employed in its manufacture. **Mr. McKay** swore that the labour involved in the production of his machine represented about one-half of its cost. In other words, the total cost of these machines is about £39- **Mr. McKay** further stated that they ought to be invoiced at £60, but he declined to give any reason in support of his statement. "Under these circumstances, Parliament should say to the local manufacturers, " Unless you can show that your industry is being ruined, we decline to grant you any assistance." The Chairman bf the Tariff Commission has stated that he and the other protectionist members of that body have arranged with these manufacturers that they shall reduce the price of their machines within two years from the granting of the increased measure of protection which they recommend. What right have we to enter into arrangements of that character ? {: .speaker-JWG} ##### Mr Fowler: -- The Tariff Commission has entered into no such arrangement. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- I am speaking of the protectionist members of that body. I am aware that the honorable member himself, the honorable and learned member for Illawarra, **Senator Clemons,** and **Mr. Wamsley** signed a report in opposition to that presented by their protectionist colleagues. We have been told that we have no evidence of the cost of producing these stripperharvesters. I say that we have clear evidence that .£39 represents, approximately, the actual cost of their production. The four protectionist members of the Tariff Commission report that the machine's are worth about ,£4i. They affirm that the local manufacturers make a profit of about £18 upon the sale of each machine. If that is not sufficient, I do not know what is. One witness who appeared before the Commission stated that he believed they could be manufactured for £[30. Subsequently, a couple of witnesses from **Mr. McKay's** factory were sent along to reply to his statements. Of course, according to their own evidence, they attended voluntarily. There is no doubt that they were assisted largely by **Mr. McKay.** {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- Why does the honorable member say that? {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- I am certain of it. If the honorable member chooses to read the evidence of **Mr. Bult** and **Mr.** Porteous he will come to the conclusion that they must have obtained a good deal of their information from **Mr. McKay's** office. When they were questioned as to the cost of producing these stripper-harvesters, they could not give any information, but they did not hesitate to express the opinion that the other witness did not know their cost. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- How does the honorable member think that the witness to whom he has referred knew it?' {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- The honorable member can support the men who are seeking special privileges if he chooses, but I intend to put my own case, and he is at liberty to reply to it. I cannot fail to notice that honorable members in this House, who profess to be such ardent friends of the working man, are constantly fighting for special privileges to favoured individuals. Those who condemn monopolies are the very men who vote to assist wealthy individuals like **Mr. McKay.** {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- How did the witness, of whom the honorable member speaks, know the cost of these machines? {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- He admitted that the actual cost of producing the machine, including material and labour, was about £30. Two witnesses attempted to rebut his evidence, but when questioned as to the cost of producing the machines, they declared that they could give no information. **Mr. McKay** knew that this witness had appeared before the Commission, but he could not send anybody to contradict his statement. Consequently it is fair to assume that it was correct. It has been said that the wages paid in the Canadian and American factories are lower than those which are paid in Australia. I very much question that statement. The four protectionist members of the Commission affirm that time and a quarter is paid for overtime in Australia, whilst no such concession is made in Canada. They declare that in the Canadian factories the employes work sixty hours weekly, as against forty-eight hours in Australia. I venture to say that the statement in reference to time and a quarter being paid for overtime in Australia is not correct. The evidence given before the Commission shows that in **Mr. McKay's** factory the employes are paid the same rate for overtime that they receive for their ordinary hours of labour. It also shows that in the Canadian factories the employes work, not sixty hours weekly, but fiftyseven hours. **Mr. Patterson,** the manager of the Massey-Harris Company, in analyzing the evidence tendered by **Mr. McKay,** stated that the average earnings of the employes were 34s. weekly, but **Mr. McKay's** foreman said that the average wage was *£2* os. 2d. weekly. He did not submit any figures or time-sheet in support of his statement. He merely divided the annual amount disbursed in wages by forty-eight, deducting four weeks for holidays. His estimate as to the average wage paid includes the amount disbursed in the factories by way of overtime. If we set the overtime against the holidays, and assume that the overtime worked equalled four weeks in the year, we get back to the position put by **Mr. Patterson.** As evidencing the wages which are paid in **Mr. McKay's** factory, I may mention that some time ago an inspired paragraph appeared in the *Age* newspaper stating that 130 men had been dismissed from employment, and that the wages paid to them amounted to £200 a week. That amount divided amongst 130 workmen would mean an average of about 30s. weekly. We know very well that the factories experience a slack time at the end of the year, when there is no demand for harvesters. Reference has been made to the cost of the material employed in the manufacture of these machines. The members of the Commission who signed the report in favour of higher duties allege that the cost of the raw material here is higher than it is in Canada and America. On what ground do they make such a statement? They have simply accepted the unsupported testimony cf certain witnesses. They have no proof of their contention. On the other hand, the free-trade members of the Commission give the exact figures, which show that the cost of raw material in Canada and America - where high duties prevail - is higher than it is in Australia, where iron and steel can be obtained free of duty. Any mar. of ordinary intelligence on reading the summary of the evidence prepared by the members of the Commission who favour higher duties must come to the conclusion that their recommendation is a wrong one. On the other hand, the report of the free-trade members of the Commission is the honest outcome of the evidence. The members of the Commission were not appointed to report according to their preconceived ideas or fiscal prejudices ; but to act as a jury, and to base their reports upon the evidence. One cannot read the report of those in favour of higher duties without realizing that their conclusions are absolutely opposed to the weight of evidence. **Mr. McKay** practically refused to give any information to the Commission. If the summary of the evidence is correct, however, he admitted that he had made a better profit since Federation, and that his business in 1905 was three times greater than it was in 1901. Despite these facts, the protectionist members of the Commission came to the conclusion that he was being ruined. They ignored his own evidence, and that of other witnesses, as well as the returns as to imports of machinery. Victoria has beer; unfortunate in the selection of her legislators, since they have destroyed the self-reliance of her people. They have sought to make the people wealthy by taxing them up to the hilt. Instead of freeing the people they have burdened them in every direction, and are seeking at the present time to make their load of taxation still heavier. The export of Victorian-made implements to other States has increased since 1.899. In that year the exports of machinery from Victoria to the other States were valued at £92,000, whereas those sent out in 1905 were of the value of £134,000 - an increase of ,£42,000. In 1905, Victoria imported machinery of this class of the value of only £"118,000, or £16,000 less than the value of her exports. And yet we are told that she has suffered by the reduction of the duties prevailing under the old State Tariff. I come now to the number of hands employed in the industry. It is interesting to learn that in X899 there were 1,107 hands employed, whereas in 1905 there were 1,624, an increase of 517. The number of hands employed in this socalled languishing industry in the Commonwealth increased by over 1,200 between 1899 and 1905. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- The number only decreased during the two drought years. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- That is so. The large imports to which special reference has been made took place immediately after the drought, and were chiefly the result of a very successful season. The summary of the evidence prepared bv the protectionist members of the Commission shows that there is really no justification for these proposals. The industry is progressing, the profits derived from it are enormous, and it would be simply outrageous by destroying all competition to allow these engaged in it to secure larger returns. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- This proposal means reduced- prices. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- The price of the locally made machines may be reduced, but the result of the Government proposal may be that the farmers of Australia will have to pay for obsolete machines the price at which up-to-date ones could otherwise be obtained. As a matter of fact, no reduction will be secured under the Government proposal, since the International Company have already- reduced their machines to £70. If the local manufacturers had the interest of the farmers at heart, and desired at the same time to capture the whole of the trade in these machines they would reduce their prices. They could materially reduce them, and still derive a very substantial profit from the industry. If they took this step, they would soon shut out foreign competition, and1 no 4ne would complain ; but the free-trade party certainly protests against the imposition of high duties to assist manufacturers who are already making large profits, and have not been injured in any way. I fail to understand how any men of intelligence could submit such a report as that .furnished by the protectionist members of the Tariff Commission. The Minister is prepared to believe anything, and to take any course that will help his friends, the manufacturers. The Labour Party- should not vote for an increased duty subject to the Excise proposals indicated by the honorable member foi* Wide Bay. The a'doption of such a proposition would be of no assistance to the workers. If an increased duty is to be imposed, let us say distinctly that the whole of the benefit derived from it shall go to workers engaged in the industry. I am opposed to these proposals, but if the duties are to be increased, let us provide that the advantage shall be enjoyed by the men who work in the factories. *We* cannot secure that result by means of Wages Boards. Before resuming my seat, I should like to say that, in mv opinion, the statement made by the Minister that some people were afraid to go before the Tariff Commission because of the way in which witnesses were bullied is unjustifiable. I have seen nothing in the evidence to warrant such an assertion. I have no hesitation in saying that perjury was committed before the Commission - that men. went before it deliberately and wilfully to perjure themselves for the sake of gaining a few shillings. I would not accept the evidence of **Mr. McKay.** {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- The honorable member would have to accept service of a writ if he made such a statement outside. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- Perhaps so. If they would permit me to plead that the statement was true in fact, and allow me an opportunity to prove it, I should be quite prepared to make it outside. One of the witnesses examined before the Tariff Commission in Sydney swore that the pine in the Don Dorrigo scrub was equal to Oregon and kauri, although, as a matter of fact, it rots if exposed to the weather for twelve months. The Don Dorrigo scrub adjoins my electorate, and as I have used thousands of feet of timber taken from it, I am in a position to express an opinion upon it. According to a newspaper, report, the witness in question made the statement I have attributed to him, his desire being, apparently, to secure the imposition of heavy duties on Oregon and other timbers. If any of these men would allow me to plead justification, I should be prepared to repeat outside the statements I have just made, because I have no hesitation in saying that, to a large extent, absolutely untrue evidence was given by certain witnesses. I shall oppose any increase of duty, but if an increase is carried, I shall endeavour to insure that the benefit of it shall' be enjoyed by the workers, and not by the wealthy manufacturers whose profits to-day are exceedingly large. {: #subdebate-12-0-s14 .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie .- I take the view that it is not right to ask members, nine-tenths of whom are pledged to fiscal peace, to discuss a proposal like that now before the Committee during the last stageof the existence of this Parliament ; but, as the Government have imposed these duties, and they are being collected, we are forced to deal with them in one way or another. I would rather leave the matter over for consideration by the next Parliament, which will have received a mandate from the people in regard to the Tariff ; but, under the circumstances, I shall not hesitate to enunciate my fiscal opinions. It has seemed to me that many of the remarks which have come from members of the Opposition during the debate were intended for our country cousins in the galleries. A great deal of what they have said in regard to the probable effect of the duly in raising prices has been in the highest degree absurd. In my humble judgment, those engaged in the primary industrieswill be in a better position than they occupy now when they have a larger market in Australia. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- I suppose that more children are born into the world when heavy duties are imposed. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I do not know that the fiscal question has any direct bearing on the production of children; but the point is immaterial during the discussion of a duty on harvesters. Our primary producers would be better off if there were a larger consumption of their products by those engaged in our secondary industries, instead of practically everything having to be exported to other countries to feed those engaged there in manufacturing goods ultimately to be sent here to compete with local manufactures. I regard the proposed fixed duty as much more satisfactory than an *ad valorem* duty. In my opinion, a Minister should not be allowed by executive act of anykind to increase or decrease the rates of duty imposed by Parliament. The present Minister of Trade and Customs, however, by increasing the. valuation of imported harvesters from about £38 to *£65,* practically doubled the rate of duty. There has been a great deal of discussion as to whether he did right in taking that action, and as to whether the real value of the harvesters is that declared by the importers or that fixed by him. Mr.Poynton. - There is no doubt on the subject now. The Tariff Commission has declared that the Minister was wrong. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- The honorable member accepts the opinions of the Tariff Commission only when it suits him to do so. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- I intend to vote for the amendment of the honorable and learned member for Bendigo. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I am pleased to hear of that advance. I think that Parliament should say definitely what the rate of duty is to be. The subject is not a difficult one to deal with. We all know what harvesters are. We have information concerning their manufacture, both here and in other countries. The evidence placed before the Tariff Commission shows that this machine is an Australian invention. Australian inventive genius has the credit of being the first to place on the market a machine which will strip and winnow in one operation. For that reason alone we should show a preference to Australians in this matter. We know that the machine, having been perfected here was copied in America, and manufactured there in large numbers. I hold that the proposed duty of *£16* per machine, if adopted, will practically prohibit importations ; but I am prepared to vote on this item for such a duty, because I amof opinion that, as Australians have perfected this machine, it is better that it should be made here, giving employment to our own people than that the work should be done by foreigners or by our own countrymen in other lands working under different conditions.. I am prepared to give the Australian manufacturers the home market, subject to certain restrictions. A great deal has been said about the development of the "local industry; but, last year stripper harvesters to the value of £69,200, representing about 1,730 machines, were imported. Assuming that only £25,000 represents the cost of labour employed in making them, I say that it is better that that money should be spent in employing our own work people "than in providing occupation for workmen abroad while our own people are seeking employment. Freetraders say that the proposed duty will have the effect of increasing the price of harvesters to farmers. {: .speaker-L0R} ##### Mr Lee: -- I do not think that it will do so, because at the present time the manufacturers make a clear profit of £20 per machine. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I am glad that my honorable friend thinks that the prices will not be increased. It has been alleged that the farmers will be robbed by the manufacturers if the proposed duty is agreed to. I think that, instead of the price of the machines being increased, the effect of the duty will be a reduction in price. Although I represent a mining constituencj , I was brought up on a farm, and spent eighteen years of my life in agricultural employment. I have followed the plough, and I have driven a stripper-harvester. {: .speaker-L0R} ##### Mr Lee: -- I was connected with farming operations for twenty-five years. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- If the honorable member was farming twenty-five years ago, he cultivated with a single-furrow plough, reaped with a reaping-hook, and thrashed with a flail. I am speaking of modern farming. I remember the combinations of importers under free-trade for the purpose of fleecing the farmer. When the valuations of stripper-harvesters were at their lowest, the farmers were being charged from £80 to £90 for these machines. Relatives of mine in north-eastern Vic toria have paid morethan , £85 for machines. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr Lonsdale: -- McKay was in that combine. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- **Mr. McKay** has charged £120 for some of his machines. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I shall tell honorable members what I think of **Mr. McKay** presently. I am trying to expose the fallacy of the contention that the free introduction of stripper-harvesters will bring about a reduction in the cost to the farmer. I think that that idea is absolutely absurd. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr Lonsdale: -- If you take off the duty the price will be reduced. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- When there was no duty the farmers were fleeced just the same. The Government proposal makes a step in the right direction. The Minister told us that he proposed to provide that the cash price of a 5-ft. stripper-harvester should be reduced to , £70 by the end of 1906. If this condition is complied with, it will enable farmers to obtain machines at more than , £5 less than the present cost. I think that we should insist upon bringing this condition into force immediately - that the reduction in price should be made immediately the duties become operative. Up to the present time, exorbitant prices have been charged for both the imported and the locally manufactured machines, and there is plenty of room for a considerable reduction in price. Instead of, as is proposed, providing for a reduction in price to £65 within two years, it seems to me that the evidence given before the Tariff Commission shows that a reduction to , £55 might very well be made, and still leave a fair profit to the manufacturers. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Will the honorable member assist in bringing about an amendment in that direction? {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I am willing to help to amend the resolution in the direction of reducing the price of the machine; but I do not commit mystelf absolutely to , £55. I think, however, that we might provide for a reduction to £60 within two years. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- Why should not the price.be reduced to that extent now? {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I am not going to permit honorable members to force me into an impossible position. We are told that the cost of production of the Australian machine is £41, and we are further informed that the selling expenses amount to *£21* 17 s. That is surely an exorbitant charge to make. If the present proposal be carried, and the local manufacturers secure a practical monopoly of the home market, they should surely be capable of arriving at an understanding that will enable them to reduce their selling expenses by at least *£15* per machine. No doubt a considerable reduction could be effected if their agencies were organized upon a more satisfactory basis. Then we are told that the merchandising profit amounts to *£18* 2s. 7d. per machine. In other words, the selling expenses in connexion with the disposal of a stripper-harvester worth £41 are said to amount to *£40.* There is no reason why the manufacturers should not be able to dispose of their machines for about *£60,* and still make a handsome profit. I have no more faith in the Australian manufacturer than I have in the importer. The manufacturers will not deal more fairly with their workmen than with the consumers, and if it is fair to fix a maximum selling price, in order to protect the farmers, it is equally desirable that we should impose conditions that will insure to the workmen engaged in the industry fair and reasonable treatment in regard to wages and other conditions. The other day, an address was read by **Mr. Charles** Atkins, the President, or ex-President, of the Melbourne Chamber of Manufactures, in which he advocated protection for manufacturers and freedom of contract. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Is that the same gentleman who has been selected by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports to stand as a candidate for the Senate? {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I believe that he has been selected by the present Government to stand in their interest at the next election. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- **Mr. Atkins** denied that he advocated freedom of contract. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- He only partially denied it. He stated that he did not understand the political significance of the term "freedom of contract." If he does not understand it he is too big and sawney a child to represent in the Senate the State of Victoria, which has one-third of the total population of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KUF} ##### Mr Spence: -- He understands what he is doing in advocating freedom of contract. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I am afraid that he will not be able to convince many people that he does not understand the meaning of the term. {: .speaker-KVJ} ##### Mr Storrer: -- **Mr. Atkins** does not sell harvesters. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I know that. When he is addressing school children he advocates the wearing of Australian tweeds, but I understand that he is the sole agent of a number of American brands of paint, brushware, and varnish articles which might be very well manufactured in this country. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- Is it fair to attack a man in his absence? {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I am prepared to repeat every statement that I have made, or will make, from the steps of Parliament House, and to take the full responsibility of my action. I know what some manufacturers would do if they were able to secure freedom of contract, and my experience of men of their class is such as to induce me to refuse to give them the full control of the home market without at the same time making adequate provision for the protection of their employes. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- Hear, hear. That is a very different matter from attacking an absent man who is a candidate for Parliament. Mr.FRAZER. - I do not suppose that we have any idea of repeating the farce enacted in the Victorian Parliament by bringing a citizen to the bar of the House, and as **Mr. Atkins** is not a member of this Chamber, I must make statements regarding him in his absence, if I am to refer to him at all. I shall have something to say with regard to the attitude assumed by the Chairman of the Anti-Sweating League, who is now defending **Mr. Atkins.** {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- I am not defending him. I say that it is not fair for a member of Parliament to use his position to attack a man who is a candidate for Parliament. I do not care upon what side he may be. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- My honorable friend's interjection is too puerile to merit any serious attention. I have said nothing that cannot be established by documentary evidence. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports is very anxious on some occasions to defend those who are suffering from the effects of sweating and now he appears equally concerned to explain the attitude of a gentleman who has declared himself an advocate of freedom of contract. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- I like to be fair. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- My honorable friend is so fair in connexion with this proposal that he desires that **Mr. Atkins** shall be immune from criticism in regard to his public utterances. I do hot think that the proposal of the honorable member for Lang should receive any serious consideration. I am not in favour of granting to the employes all the profits that accrue from the carrying on of any industry. The manufacturer is entitled to some consideration and to legitimate remuneration for his enterprise and energy. Consequently the proposal of the honorable member for Lang that the employes should receive the whole of the profit resulting from any protective duty is distinctly unfair. My sole desire is that the workmen shall receive consideration similar to that given to their employers. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Could not the honorable member trust the employer in the matter of the treatment of his workmen, as well as in regard to fixing the selling price of the machines? {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I do not propose to trust him to deal fairly with either. If the Government proposal is agreed to, it will not be possible to increase the price of the machines. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- If the prices .are raised the duties will be reduced. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- Exactly; and the manufacturers are not likely to run any risk of that. I think that the proposal of the honorable member for Wide Bay is deserving of our most favorable consideration, because it would insure fair treatment for workmen. In .those States in which there is no industrial legislation, I favour allowing the employers to conform to a fair average of the conditions with which those engaged in the same industry have to comply in the neighbouring States. {: .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr Glynn: -- The amendment that I moved in the Australian Industries Preservation Bill would have covered all that. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I do not recollect what was the nature of the honorable and learned member's amendment. I think that the honorable .member for Wide Bay has made a most seasonable suggestion, and one which offers a solution of the difficulty with which we are confronted. In my opinion, the only difference between the Government proposal and that of the honorable and learned member for Bendigo is that the former seems to involve more than it does in reality. If we fix a maximum selling price for these machines, I believe that the imposition of a duty of either £10 or *j£i6* will amount to absolute prohibition. It was stated in evidence that the importing expenses of the Massey-Harris Company amounted to. £14 16s. 6d. on each machine, and the other two importing companies estimated the cost of landing their goods in the Australian market at a higher price. If we add to that amount a duty of *£10,* it will make the total cost of landing stripper-harvesters in Australia £24 16s. *66.,* which, in my opinion, is tantamount to prohibition. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- *£14 16s. 6d.* per machine is a ridiculously high estimate, I think. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- The International Harvester Company estimates that its importing expenses, added to the duty, amounts to *£17* 8s. id. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- The machines would not weigh or measure sufficient to justify that cost. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I am accepting the sworn statements of these firms as correct. I repeat that their importing expenses, added to a duty of *£10* per machine, would practically amount to prohibition. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: -- The Minister declares that it is only twopenny half-penny protection. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I do not agree with the Minister. Seeing that I am faced with two proposals which practically amount to prohibition, that the Committee have practically decided to impose satisfactory conditions to the users of these machines, and to safeguard the interests of the workmen engaged in their manufacture, I feel justified in voting for the Government proposals to give the Australian market to Australian makers. {: #subdebate-12-0-s15 .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- I am inclined to believe that the tone of debate, and the method of dealing with the public business in this Parliament, has mot improved during my absence in the old country. Both yesterday and to-day the worst of charges have been bandied by honorable members across the chamber. Honorable members upon this side of the House have been accused of regarding manufacturers in the light of individuals who should not be allowed to live, and honorable members upon the other side have practically accused importers of being thieves, who evade the payment of Customs duties. In mv judgment, there is nothing to be gained by approaching a question of this sort in that frame of mind. Then the honorable member for Kalgoorlie alluded to a gentleman who is now submitting himself to the electors of Victoria in a way that he was not justified in doing. Another speaker charged a gentleman who gave evidence before the Tariff Commission with having been guilty of gross and wilful perjury. These statements do not redound to the dignity of the House. I wish that we could get rid of them, and approach this question in , a deliberative spirit. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- The accusations came from the honorable member's side of the Committee. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- Bad taste was displayed on both sides. Personally, I think it desirable that we should come to a decision upon this question to-night. I do not think that anything that any honorable member can say upon it is likely to influence a single vote. It seems to me that the Government know exactly what they are going to get. They realize that they cannot carry the duty which they have proposed. It appears to me that, in submitting it, they were actuated by the same motive which prompts workmen, when appealing to the Arbitration Court, to ask for something more than they ever hope to gain. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I do not do that sort of thing. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -That is the only excuse which can be urged for proposing such a high duty as *£16,* in the face of the finding of the Tariff Commission. Up to the present time not a single argument has been adduced to justify the action of the Government. The Prime Minister devoted about three and a half minutes to the introduction of these proposals - probably because the Minister of Trade and Customs was not present to bullock through this big job for him. From the tenor of this debate, I gather that there are some fair-minded men upon the other side of the Chamber, who realize that protection is a hydra-headed monster which will take everything that it can get, and ask for more. Some time ago I was appealed to by a gentleman who is interested in the harvester industry to vote for a duty of£8 upon these machines. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- How long ago? {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- Only a few months. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- But he did not agree to a maximum selling price. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- That is another bad feature of these proposals. Why should we be asked to tax every farmer in the community for the purpose of making an absolute present of at least to the local manufacturers of these machines? I say that it is a gross job on the part of those who are advocating the tax. It is time that we approached this question from the stand-point of calm reasoning. I agree with the honorable member for Kalgoorlie that we are breaking faith with the electors by attempting to deal with the Tariff duringthe present session. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr Brown: -- Did not the honorable member himself come here as a militant free-trader ? {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- At the last general election my constituency was placarded by a labour candidate with the words " Fiscal peace." What is the position to-day? We find that for electioneering purposes the Government are bringing forward proposals for preferential trade, for an amendment of the Constitution to allow of a Federal old-age pension scheme, and for Tariff revision. They are anxious to be able to tell the protectionists of Victoria that they did their best to secure a duty of *£16* on stripper-harvesters, although, as a matter of fact, they know that they cannot secure such a duty, and that probably the question will not be finally dealt with this session. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie said that we ought not to deal with such matters. It is interesting to observe the way in which many honorablemembers are endeavouring to wriggle out of the position in which the Ministry have placed them. They know that they ought not to be dealing with the Tariff at the present time, and in order to rid themselves of this responsibility they are seeking to saddle the motion before the Chair with all sorts of extraneous matters relating to the payment of wages and the prices to be charged for these machines If we are to determine the wages to be paid in this industry, and the price to be charged for these machines, why have we failed to consider such questions in relation to the. starch industry and other trades that we have protected ? If the essence of " the new protection" is that protective duties shall not be imposed without steps being taken to insure that the workers shall derive from them the fullest possible advantage, I shall have, as an antiprotectionist, to review my position? We have never yet attempted to do anything of the kind. The Federal Parliament has made itself sufficiently ludicrous by its many experiments, but the various proposals which have been put forward to-night will be considered far more extravagant than has any proposition with which we have yet dealt. We do not seem to be in a right frame of mind to deal with Tariff questions. We are all burdened by the heavy incubus of the Cabinet system of government. We are not going to vote in accordance with our individual convictions ; we are going to record a party vote. The Government rely upon party considerations. They know that certain members of the Labour Party feel that whilst they ought rot honestly to vote for this proposal, they intend for party reasons to do so. ' {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr Thomas: -- A most unfair statement to make. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- In the closing hours of a moribund Parliament, we are asked to deal with these questions in order that the Ministry may go before their constituents and say " At any rate we made a start. We tried to secure a duty of £16 on harvesters, but were able to secure a duty of only *£8,"* or *£10,* as the case may be. No argument has been adduced in justification of the action of the Government. No one can gainsay that on the evidence given before the Commission any Equity Judge - if he had power to deal with this question - would grant the local manufacturers of stripper-harvesters one penny by way of compensation for losses sustained as the result of the Federal Tariff. There is not a tittle of evidence to show that these men have lost, or are going to lose, anything under the fiscal system adopted by this Parliament. I admit, as Others have done, that I have not read the voluminous evidence tendered to the Commission, but my opinion respecting Royal Commissions and Select Committees is very different from that of many honorable members. I have been a member of one or two Commissions, and have seen duties honourably and industriously discharged by such bodies. I am quite certain, from what I have seen of the work of the Tariff Commission, that the members of it have discharged a very onerous and responsible duty to the best of their ability, and at an immense sacrifice of their time and money. Consequently. I say that, since they were selected from, both sides of the House because of their special qualifications for the work, we ought to pay some respect to their findings, and be governed largely by their sifting of the evidence that has been placed before them. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- But there are two findings on this question. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- Even if we adopted the findings of the protectionist members of the Commission we should not impose anything like the duty proposed - seemingly without- any reference to the evidence - by the Government. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- The two findings seem to suggest the necessity for a third proposal. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- The finding of the free-trade members of the Commission seems to be the more applicable of the two. It is only natural that the protectionist members of the Commission should display some bias in the direction of assisting an industry, and it is equally reasonable to assume that the free-trade members of the Commission would be disposed to see that too much support was not given to it. There is not the slightest reason for the Government proposal, and I am fairly satisfied that they do not anticipate being able to carry it. At the proper time I shall propose, as an amendment, either that we impose a fixed duty of *£8,* or an *ad valorem* duty of 15 per cent. I think that either duty would be ample to satisfy the requirements of the local manufacturers. If I fail in this effort I shall be quite willing to support the proposal foreshadowed by the honorable and learned member for Bendigo that a fixed duty of *£10* be imposed. I am not, however, in favour of fixed duties. There was a good deal of force in the argument raised this afternoon by my honorable leader that a fixed duty is very apt to be a constantly increasing one. Owing to the tendency in all cases from time to time to lower the cost of manufacture, .such a duty generally takes an upward direction. Apart from that consideration, however, it seems to me that there are many difficulties in the way of the imposition of a fixed duty - difficulties which the Committee, perhaps, have not considered, and which may best be illustrated by pointing out what would be the effect of such an impost on watches. A watch is a machine for keeping time, whilst a harvester is a machine for reaping. It is possible, not only because of the material used, but owing to the degree of finish given to them for Loth these machines to have varying values. As time goes on, they may be so materially improved as to be worth' three times as much as those now in use. And yet with a fixed duty the revenue collected in respect of a watch worth £30 would be just the same as that collected in respect of one worth £120. I acknowledge that the imposition of *ad valorem* duties can be objected to on the ground that when they are very high there is an extreme probability of fictitious invoices being presented to the Customs Department. But if we took precautions against the imposition of excessively high rates the danger of fraud would not be so serious as would be the difficulty resulting from the adoption of a fixed duty. I do not wish to go into the details of this proposal. I hope that the day will come when we shall get rid of Tariff debates. If we could rid the political arena of the Tariff question once and for all we should soon see a fresh cleavage of political parties, and the political atmosphere would be improved. If, by working night and day for six months we could frame a perfect Tariff, that could remain in operation for twenty years, I, for one, should be willing to undertake the task. I hope, at all events, that Ministers will be content with having aired this proposal ; that, having placed themselves in the position of being able to say to their constituents, "We have done our best to impose high duties," they will withdraw the motion, and look forward to the revision of the Tariff next session. If the wages to be paid, and the prices to be charged, in respect of the product of one industry are to be fixed, why should we not take similar action in regard to every item in the Tariff? If the principle of regulating prices and wages in respect to the production of one article is a good one, it should be applied all round. It is absurd to attempt to apply such conditions to the production of one article. If the people interested in this industry are seeking this very high duty, thev are very foolish. If I, as a manufacturer, were offered such a duty, I should feel that I was in a position of danger. When we were battling with the Tariff four or five years ago, a proposal was made that the dutv on pianos should be verv much higher than the Committee was likely to agree to. A local manufacturer of pianos, who was then in the gallery, hastened to a member of the Government, and said, " For heaven's sake, do not make the dutv so high. If you do you will cause the German manufacturers to establish their factories here." It seems to me that the imposition of a duty of *£16* on these machines would, in the same way, cause the Canadian and American manufacturers to establish their factories here," with the result that the manufacturers of the "Sunshine" harvesters would find themselves in a far worse position than they have ever dreamt of. We should give them a fair duty, which would compensate them for the difference between their market and that of the American manufacturer. The local manufacturer has, a population of only 4,000,000 people to cater for, as against a population of 80,000,000 in America, where the "manufacturers are in a better position to turn out these machines at a reduced price. I should be willing to give those engaged in the industry a duty of 12 per cent, or 15 per cent., but I would not tax the whole farming industry of the Commonwealth simply to put into the pockets of the local makers of these machines something which would far more than compensate them for the disadvantages under which they labour, and, in the end, would not have a beneficial effect either on themselves or any one else. {: #subdebate-12-0-s16 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Yarra .- I congratulate that section of the Tariff Commission to which the honorable and learned member for Bendigo belongs upon haying recommended, I believe for the first time, a triple system of protection, having for its object the securing to the manufacturer conditions under which he may make a profit by his operations, to the consumer the advantage of being supplied at a reasonable cost in his own country, and to the worker good wages and proper conditions. I believe that this is the first time that such a recommendation has been made by a Tariff Commission. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- This is the new protection. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -Yes. Undoubtedly, many honorable members will have to reconsider their position if an attempt is made in dealing with duties to apply conditions which will secure to the workers a fair share in the advantages to be derived from them. I agree with the honorable member for Melbourne Ports that as it is the Commonwealth Parliament which has to do with the fixing of duties, we should also have power to pass industrial legislation, so that no manufacturer benefited by protection could place himself outside the operation of such laws. At the present time, a Vic- torian manufacturer can, by removing to a shire, avoid compliance with the conditions of Wages Boards, or by removing to Tasmania or South Australia, escape all restriction in the way of labour legislation. The honorable member for South Sydney was a member of the first Parliament, which framed the Tariff. I said on several occasions, when that Tariff was going through, that I was of the opinion that we should manufacture our own requirements because, by doing so, we could see that reasonable wages were paid and fair conditions of employment given to those engaged in our industries. The intention of the amendment before the Chair is to insure to the workers their fair share of the benefits of protection. I am prepared now, as I have always been, to vote for the highest rates of duties proposed, if the workmen are to share in the advantages to be derived from them. I am not satisfied with the treatment which has been given to the employes of a firm which will benefit by the proposed duties on harvesters, andlast year, at a meeting at Richmond, I stated, in the presence of **Mr. H.** V. McKay, that the allegations made in a letter written to the *Argus* by a **Mr. Weickhardt** should be disproved, and the writer prosecuted for libel, or the factory set in order. I have not read the whole of the evidence taken by the Tariff Commission but I have read that given by **Mr. McKay** and **Mr. Weickhardt.** It has been said that notice should not be taken of statements made by a dismissed employe, but it is often the case that only when a man has left a firm he can afford to tell the truth in regard to its doings. I do not say that employes are compelled to make misstatements, but they often hold their tongues for fear of inflicting injury upon those dependent upon them. I do not Enow **Mr. Weickhardt,** but I do not think that he would deliberately perjure himself, and the statements which he made on oath before the Tariff Commission regarding the wages paid by **Mr. McKay** seem to convey a certain amount of truth. **Mr. McKay** had, I presume, an opportunity to furnish rebutting evidence. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- **Mr. Bult** did not deny **Mr. Weickhardt's** statements. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- I have not read **Mr.** Bult's evidence, but I know that **Mr. McKay** did not rebut those statements. I believe that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, and other honorable mem bers, are anxious that protection shall be given to the workmen as well as to the manufacturers. The day of a high Tariff and freedom of contractis past, and, once the duties are fixed. I think that many Ministerialists and members of the Opposition will join us in endeavouring to provide that the workers as well as the manufacturers shall reap the advantage of them. It has been said that honorable members have no right to criticise the attitude of a certain gentleman who is a candidate for the Senate, whose views are supposed to have changed. I can understand a man changing his opinions when he is a candidate, but I believe in men fighting straight along the line. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- The honorable member is fighting with Lyne. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- I believe that I am following the right line, and that means can be found forguaranteeing to the workers their fair share of the benefits of protection. Possibly that may be done by getting the States to pass industrial legislation. Sixty letters were recently sent out to the manufacturers of agricultural implements by the secretary of the organizing committee of the Trades Hall- {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- Have the Government brought down these proposals at this juncture so that the farmers who are in town may know how they are being robbed? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- They would not have been likely to bring them down if they had not thought that they would be popular with the farmers. The Government would not do anything to jeopardize their chances of success at the coming elections, and therefore it is to be assumed that they look upon the farmers as being in favour of high duties. I have not heard a single objection from any country representative with regard to the Government proposal. The principal reason that I believe in protectionist principles is that I think it desirable that, as far as possible, the articles that we require should be made amongst ourselves under conditions which we can regulate by legislation and otherwise. If we draw our supplies from other parts of the world we can exercise no control over the methods of production. Of the sixty letters that were addressed to employers in the agricultural implement making trade, by **Mr. Lemmon,** M.L.A., the Secretary of the Organizing Committee, only thirteen elicited replies. Only two of the employers replied that they" were favorable to the extension of the Wages Board system to the industry. Honorable members may be under the impression that the Wages Board determination applied to the whole of the workmen in **Mr. McKay's** employ when he was at Ballarat; but, as a matter of fact, it applied to only the ironmoulders. **Mr. Weickhardt** says that the value of the work performed by ironmoulders in connexion with a . stripper-harvester does not amount to more than *j£i ; but* I am informed that the value might fairly be estimated at not more than *£2.* At any rate, that estimate is well within the mark. Assuming that the value of ironmoulders' work in a stripperharvester is only £2, and that the wages of ironmoulders were increased by the determination of the Wages Board to the extent of 15 per cent., it would appear that **Mr. McKay** shifted his works from Ballarat to Braybrook in order to effect a saving of 6s. upon the cost of each machine. When he was before the Tariff Commission **Mr. McKay** was asked how the wages were fixed, and he stated that only the ironmoulders' wages were fixed by the Wages Board, whilst the rates paid to other workers and boys were arranged by " mutual agreement,1' and as **Mr. McKay** removed the moulding works outside the operation of the Wages Boards, all the wages he pays are fixed by mutual agreement. Those who know much about the working of factories will readily understand what "mutual agreement" means where there is no organization among the workmen:. The employer obtains the services of both boys and nien for the very lowest possible wages. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- It is another case of the lion and the lamb lying down together. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- Yes, with the lamb inside of the lion. **Mr. McKay** was asked further, "How did the trouble arise?" He stated that the trouble arose because, after the rates of duty had been fixed, he endeavoured to introduce machines to perform certain work so as to do it cheaper. He added - >We had four improvers to one journeyman. I take it that, if **Mr. McKay** had employed one improver to four journeymen, the position of affairs would have been much more satisfactory. The Board decided that the same number of improvers as of journeymen might be employed, and, to my mind, the proportion of journeymen to improvers in that case would have been small enough. **Mr. McKay** was asked - >You surely know what all the trouble was about ? He replied - >I know pretty well, and I am telling you. The secret of the whole trouble was that we were expected to sack seven out of eight of our employes, and we would not do it; We wished to stand by the men. To comply with the condition of the Wages Board, and keep the men on, we should have had to pay the improvers Ss. per day. That would have been the only way out of it, and we could not do that. . . . > >If we were to pay young men, whose work was worth from *£1* to 35s. per week, the average journeyman's wage of 8s. per day, we should have demoralized the rest of the shop. The shop would not have been demoralized, but the standard of wages would have been raised. I trust that we shall take good care that the workmen in any industry protected by means of the Tariff shall be employed under fair conditions. The honorable member for South Sydney has mentioned the starch manufacturing industry, the employes in which receive 30s. per week of fifty-four hours. We should certainly aim at improving the condition of the workers in all our industries. {: #subdebate-12-0-s17 .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY:
Wentworth -- I am sure that all honorable members are glad to see the honorable member for South Sydney back in his place, and full of vigour. The honorable member has rather roughly criticised our method of debate, and I have no doubt that his remarks were more or less influenced by the experience he has gained during his recent visit to the Courts of Europe, where the proceedings are conducted with infinitely more decorum than is observed here. I was glad, however, that as the honorable member proceeded with his speech, he began to exhibit some of that old fire which was formerly so characteristic of him. In fact, he went so far that I almost felt that I must blush for him. He characterized the Government proposal as one of the greatest jobs ever perpetrated in Australia. I do not propose to allow myself to be led into any of the by-paths of vituperation, but I cannot avoid expressing my indignation at the treatment that honorable members have received at the hands of the Minister of Trade and Customs. Yesterday we had to complain of his absence, and to-day he has signalized his return in this Chamber bv making the grossest attack upon a judicial body that any Minister of the Crown has ever made in any Parliament. I have a copy of the *Hansard* report of the proceedings this afternoon, and I find that the Minister stated, by way of interjection, that certain evidence which he had in his possession had not been given before the Tariff Commission, because witnesses had been intimidated, and were afraid to approach that body. The Chairman of that Commission very properly arose the very first moment he had an opportunity, and spoke as follows: - >By way of personal explanation, I should like to say that the Minister of Trade and Customs has seen fit to make a remark which seriously reflects not only upon the Tariff Commission, but upon myself as Chairman of that body. He has stated that he understood that witnesses were afraid to appear before the Commission- {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I not only understood it, but I know it. I could give the names, if necessary. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- The Minister stated that he understood that witnesses were afraid to come before the Commission lest they should be bullied and insulted, and be denied fair play. He then went on to show how well the deliberations of the Commission had been conducted, and what absolute fair play was extended to every witness who appeared before it. Subsequently, the Minister of Trade and Customs returned to the charge. He said - >I ask the indulgence of the Committee to make a personal explanation. I made a certain interjection which has produced a statement from the Chairman of the Tariff Commission. In reply to his remarks, I say that I can give instances - one in particular, in which a person who was endeavouring to induce a man holding a very high position to give evidence before the Commission could not persuade him to do so in consequence - as he said to a number of people as well as to myself - of the bullying of witnesses by **Senator Clemons.** That statement strikes at the very root of the deliberations of this Committee, because the only evidence before us is that which has been so ably compiled by the Tariff Commission. In introducing these proposals, the Minister of Trade and Customs stated that at the proper time he would be glad to give honorable members all the information that was required in regard to this matter, but that he did not think it necessary to do so at that moment. His statement to that effect will be found on page 3446 of *Hansard.* Since then he has been performing other duties in various parts of Australia. At any rate, he has given honorable members no further information upon the subject. Consequently all the evidence that we have before us is that which was collected by the Tariff Commission. If the charge of the Minister of Trade and Customs regarding the conduct of the Commission has any foundation whatever, the consideration of these proposals should be deferred. The Minister ought not to have made it in the way that he did, but, having made it, he should either prove it or withdraw it. We all know the way in which the Commission conducted its proceedings. We are aware that witnesses were obliged to give sworn evidence in the light of day - in the presence of the representatives of the press. They were examined in the ordinary way. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: -- And every witness before retiring was specifically asked, " Have you any further information that you would like to give the Commission ? " {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- Exactly. The utmost fair play was extended to witnesses. The Commission, after deliberating for months, have arrived at the conclusion that the proper invoice value for stripper-harvesters is£38. The Minister declares that their proper invoice value should be£65. But he refuses to confide in anybody the reasons why he has arrived at that conclusion. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- It is sound enough. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I prefer to accept the opinion of the judicial body which was sworn to do its duty. {: .speaker-KQ4} ##### Mr McColl: -- The Minister of Trade and Customs is treating the Committee with contempt. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I quite agree with the honorable member. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- He has been sitting in the chamber for the past eight hours. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- Have not the Committee every right to expect him to be present ? {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- Surely the honorable member will allow him to retire for a few minutes. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I am complaining of his refusal to give any information to the Committee. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- Was not the Tariff Commission appointed to secure that information ? {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- But the Minister asserts that the information collected by the Commission is wrong, although he will not say why it is wrong. Upon two occasions when important Tariff proposals have been submitted to this House, the honorable gentleman has been absent. We all recollect the phrase which the Prime Minister employed to characterize the complaints of certain members of the Labour Administration when they were ejected from office. He compared the complaints of one of them to the angry outcry of 'a greedy boy, hauled screaming from a tart shop. We are having that process repeated. The tart shop of the Minister of Trade and Customs seems to lie in his own constituency, where his presence is apparently required to defend himself from the attacks which_his outraged constituents are making upon him. Honorable members will doubtless recollect that about the year 1902 a combine was proposed in connexion with the harvester business. The first attempt to establish it failed, but subsequently it was formed. It included not only the local manufacturers of harvesters, but also the importing firm. For a time this great combine merrily fixed the price of harvesters at a higher figure than that at which they had been sold prior to its establishment. Soon the South Australian firms dropped out. Then the other firms, partners in the combine, began to intrigue politically against their importing partners - in itself a none too honorable action. The Minister of Trade and Customs was approached by a number of the local manufacturers. Representations were made to him by them against their own partners. The Minister then decided, as he told us in Parliament afterwards, on the authority of a copy of a copy of a confidential letter, that the true invoice value of these articles was £65. On the strength of that copy of a copy of a confidential letter, the Minister - without consulting Parliament - took a step which practically increased the duty on harvesters by 80 or 90 per cent. He explained to this House, however, that he was prepared to extend every opportunity to the importing firms to prove their contention that the invoice value of the machines was really no more than ^38. But what have we found since? The Minister has used every opportunity to cover up his tracks, to deny information to Parliament, and to prevent these importers from proving their case in a Court of law. If the Minister can break his word on a matter of this character, surely we can take it that he is not so well fitted to form a reliable opinion as to the value of harvesters as is the Tariff Commission. The investigations of the Commission have been open to the light of day ever since they commenced. Have the Minister's? The Minister to-day made a charge against that body which, if proved, discounts the value of the evidence upon which it relies. The honorable gentleman should either prove that charge or withdraw it. It is not fair to honorable members to ask us to deliberate on evidence upon the value of which the Minister himself has reflected so seriously. This afternoon the honorable member for Grey expressed his views upon the duty of the Minister at the present juncture. He said that it is the honorable gentleman's duty, now that he has the reports of the Tariff Commission before him, to realize that his action, in arbitrarily fixing the value of harvesters at £65, was a mistake, and to withdraw it like a man and grant a refund to the importers to the amount of the extra duty that they have been charged. We do not expect the Minister to behave altogether like a man, but I do say that, unless he wishes to lose his character in the eyes of the Australian people, he will either have to prove his charge against the Tariff Commission, and show the country clearly on what grounds he objects to its evidence, or withdraw the charge, admitting that he made it in the heat of the moment, and stating that he regrets it. One course or the other must be taken by him, or the people of Australia will know what conclusion to draw. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Let the honorable member look' at the *Age* of the 20th April last year, and see if I am not borne out absolutely. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- If the honorable gentleman is borne out by the *Age,* I am afraid that my worst fears are realized. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I refer to a report of the proceedings of the Tariff Commission published on the 20th April. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I have even known the *Age* to distort the report of a speech by the Minister. I did, on one occasion, indeed, see an article in the *Age* concerning the honorable gentleman, which was, I think, the cleverest thing I have ever seen in that newspaper. The Minister had been explaining exactly how he had saved the Commonwealth. The *Age* took his speech down practically verbatim, and the only comment it made was in the heading. The article was headed "Another Bill Adams." I wish now to say a few words in connexion with the controversy that has been raging on this subject. We have been told, mainly through the propaganda instigated by one of the interested manufacturers, that a great Australian industry has for some time past been languishing, and that great efforts have been made by importing firms to strangle it. Certain facts have been given in sworn evidence before the Tariff Commission. But we find that the principal proprietor - the largest manufacturer of local machines - absolutely refused to produce his books. Honorable members will find on page 20 of the Tariff Commission's report the statement that **Mr. McKay** - >Declined to give the exact price at which he invoiced machines, and sold them wholesale in the Argentine. On the same page appears the statement that- >Australian manufacturers, whilst challenging the invoice valuations of imported stripperharvesters, were not prepared to give full particulars of the cost of constructing their own machines. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Does the honorable member think that the importers would show their books as to the profits they made? {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- They were quite prepared to do so. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- The real books, or " faked-up " books? {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- If the honorable member reads the evidence he will see that the importing firms did offer to produce their books to the Commission, provided the local manufacturers would do likewise. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- Which sets of books? {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- Does the honorable member infer that they would not submit their true books ? {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- I believe they would not if they were like the honorable member. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- The honorable member is fond of making charges, but if he will repeat the insinuation which he has just made outside the House he will have to prove it in a short space of time. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- I will go out at once if the honorable member has the pluck to come. That is my answer if he puts the matter in that way to me. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- The honorable member has made an insinuation that distinctly libels me. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- I do not think it is possible. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I am not prepared at the moment to trouble further about the honorable member's gasconading. An honorable member who can make the kind of interjection which he has just made is not worthy of the attention of any one who is addressing the Committee. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- The honorable member is not in his motor car now. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- If there is one thing which characterizes the taste of the honorable member it is the way in which he is prepared at any moment to introduce personal matters. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- The honorable member threw out a challenge, and I took it up. Does he withdraw it? {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- What challenge? {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- The honorable member challenged me to go outside, and immediately I said I would *so.* {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- WhatI said was that if the honorable member would repeat outside the insinuation that mine is the sort of character that would cook accounts or books, I would see that he would have a chance to prove his statement or withdraw it. {: #subdebate-12-0-s18 .speaker-JOC} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Batchelor:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA -- I did not understand the honorable member to make that charge, otherwise I should have asked him to withdraw it. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- If the honorable member did not make the charge- {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- The honorable member is romancing as he talks. {: .speaker-KZV} ##### Mr Ronald: -- The honorable member for Melbourne said that the importing classes were quite capable of doing so, and had been known to do so. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- No; the honorable member said that if the importers were like myself they would do so. However, I do not think he is- worth my further notice. The importing firms have offered to produce their books, provided that the local manufacturers will do likewise. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- Including the American and Canadian books? {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I understand that they have offered to produce all their books on that condition. I am informed that one firm recently sued in the Supreme Court of Victoria to have a Commission appointed to go to Canada and examine their Canadian books, but the Minister of Trade and Customs took every opportunity to block the application; so much so that the question of whether or not the firm are prepared to have the fullest investigation made into its affairs- {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- What was the firm's reply to the Minister of Trade and Customs in the Reid Government when he asked them to arbitrate on the question? {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I do not remember what it was. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- They said that an engineer could not determine the cost under Canadian conditions. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- And in this case the expert would be an interested party, namely, a local manufacturer. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I wish to draw the attention of the honorable member for Moira to something which, I can remember, was pointed out to the Minister of Trade and Customs. If he will refer to page 16 of the Tariff Commission's report, he will find that the Chief Inspector of Customs in Canada, who is in no way interested in the Massey-Harris Company, made a personal inspection of the books and operations of that company, and reported to the Commissioner of Customs or. the 20th October, 1904, as follows : - >Upon careful investigation and examination of the books of the Massey-Harris Company, I am satisfied that the invoice price for stripperharvesters, namely, $183, with $2 extra for poles and adjustments, represents a fair wholesale market value of these machines. $185 is a little over£38, so that, according to this officer, who is in a position to know the facts, the invoice value of the Massey-Harris Company is a correct one. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- Will the honorable member now read the report obtained afterwards from the Commissioner of Customs on the very same subject? {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I do not know where to find that report at the moment. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- It is on the same file of papers as the document from which the honorable member has just quoted. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- But I have not got the file of papers; I am quoting from the Commission's report. The honorable member is, I presume, talking of the late Minister of Trade and Customs for the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- No; I am talking of the reply received from the Commissioner of Customs as to the policy of the Dominion Government in refusing to give information. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- That has to do with orange meat, and not with harvesters at all. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- It applies to any product. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- It has reference to anything. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- The Minister said in the House that it relates to orange meat, and not to harvesters. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- No doubt the honorable member for Moira will remember the statement of the late Minister of Trade and Customs, only this afternoon, that he went into this matter believing that he would find that the Massey-Harris Company had seriously understated the true invoice value, but that he came out of the investigation fully satisfied that the true invoice value for their machines was£38. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- And if McKay can manufacture machines here for £38, why cannot the Massey-Harris Company manufacture them in Canada for that sum? {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- Exactly. The paragraph from which I quoted goes on to say - >In corroboration of the report of the Canadian Customs Department, evidence was given before the Commission that Clutterbuck Brothers, of Adelaide, South Australia, bought stripperharvester machines wholesale and unpacked, at the Toronto factory, the price being£40 5s. for machines of the standard size, and9s. 6d. extra for pole, making a total price at the factory of £40 14s. 6d. This is the same machine which is invoiced to the Massey-Harris Melbourne house at£38 os. 3d. After deducting the customary cash discount, the cash equivalent of the invoice value of£40 14s. 6d. is, it is alleged,£39 14s. 2d. The difference between Clutterbuck Brothers' price and £38 os. 3d., is, it is contended, the gross profit for the Massey-Harris Company's Melbourne house, &c. Not only has evidence been given by the Chief Inspector of Customs in Canada, but corroborative evidence to a very large extent has been placed before the Tariff Commission, and it is all. to the effect that £38 is the true invoice value. The Minister decided that it is . £65, and now asks us to agree to a duty which is equivalent to 25 per cent. on that amount. Whatever evidence he has, the Committee is entitled to know of it. It was sought to be elicited from the Prime Minister yesterday, but he refused to give it. The Minister of Trade and Customs has returned, and I ask him whether he, at this late hour, will give us the information which he is keeping locked up somewhere in his chest. Or does he wish us to believe that, for a reason he does not care to explain, he has done an arbitrary act which cannot but very greatly benefit the harvester manufacturers in Australia? I was saying that it is singular that if. as they state, their industry is languishing, and they are making losses, the local manufacturers should refuse to produce their books to the Tariff Commission. Another singular feature about the report of that body is the evidence given by the chief local maker of harvesters as to the expansion of the industry under present conditions. It is shown in the report of the Commission, and also in a return - issued to us yesterday, that, - under the present duty, the harvester industry in Australia is' largely on the increase. On page 28 of the report the following paragraph appears - > **Mr. H.** V. McKay admitted he was not losing money. He was making fair progress in his business. He would not say what his profits during the last three years had been. His output has increased in consequence of the extension of trade in the Commonwealth, and because of the development of his export business. His machines had made a good name, and the trade had followed. That does not suggest either decline or strangulation: On the evidence of the chief manufacturer, the industry requires no further fostering. From the return issued yesterday, we find that not only the production, but the exportation of the article, is largely increasing. During the first seven months of this vear 66 machines in excess of the total number exported last year have been sent out. In the first seven months of this year 484 machines were exported to countries where they had to compete on even terms with those of foreign manufacturers, whilst last year on lv' 418 were exported. Thus the exports and production of the local manufacturers are increasing. Again, if there were any design on the part of importers to destroy Australian industries, why did these local producers combine with them only a few years ago to fix a high price to the Australian consumer? If they were then afraid of the importer, why did they not appeal to the Minister for relief ? **Mr. Kennedy.** - What relief did the honorable member's party give them when the Tariff was under consideration? {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- It gave them a duty of 12 J per cent., which the Minister, on information which he denied to the House afterwards, raised by a devious method to about 25 per cent. I do not wish to further occupy the time of the Committee, for this question has been thoroughly discussed. The fact that the Committee continues to remain quiescent under the treatment which it has received from time to time from the Minister of Trade and Customs is a most serious reflection upon it. If honorable members are prepared to take this course at the instigation of the Minister, who declines to take them into his confidence, let them do so. I take it, however, that every elector who considers this subject will soon be asking why they have been guilty of such a serious dereliction of duty. The farmers are most deserving of consideration. The principle has been laid down in all our Tariff discussions and throughout the Tariff itself that tools of trade should be admitted free. As a matter of fact, however, the farmers' tools of trade are not exempt. To quote the views on this subject of the present Attorney-General - and I think he is a sound protectionist - as reported in volume 70 of the Victorian *Hansard,* session 1892-3, page 2073-- {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- Will the honorable and learned member also quote the Attorney General's reply to a reference made on a previous occasion to that speech ? {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I have not seen his reply, but as I. am quoting from *Hansard,* I presume he is being fairly treated. On the 6th October, 1892, the present AttorneyGeneral, speaking in the Victorian Legislative Assembly, said - >We are told that the farmer has his reaper and his binder free. So he has. Is his plough free ? - It is not proposed that he shall get his reaper and binder free under these duties. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- lt is. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- What about ploughs ? {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- The honorable member referred to reapers and binders. He should keep as nearly as possible to the truth. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I hope that the honorable member will try to maintain the dignity of the Chamber, and not give way to his native insults. The Attorney-General continued - >Is his harrow free? Is his chaff-cutter free? Is the very twine with which he ties up his produce free? Certainly not. This shows that the farmer has much to gain, and that there is much that he ought to gain before he is placed on a level with his more fortunate brother in the town. And the miner, how is he on a level with the worker in the town? He has a weight around his neck. We are told that the miners patriotically stood by protection in the past. Are we to whip the willing horse to death? ls protection to go on for ever to an unlimited extent, right on, as we are told, to prohibition. The circumstances of the Attorney-General may have altered since this speech was delivered thirteen years ago, but those of the farmer have not materially changed. They need their tools of trade free of duty just as much as they did then. Their industry to-day is just as important to the Commonwealth as it was thirteen years ago, and in view of this expression of opinion on the part of the present Attorney-General, and the refusal of the Minister of Trade and Customs to give honorable members the information which it is his duty to his own public character, as well as to the House, to furnish, I shall resist to the utmost any increase of the present duties on harvesters and other agricultural implements. {: #subdebate-12-0-s19 .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr MALONEY:
Melbourne .- As one who has never sunk the fiscal issue, and will never consent to do so, I desire to say that I am proud of the Government and the proposal they have brought forward. I intend to vote for it, and if I felt that the duty would be prohibitive I should be still more strongly disposed to do so. We cannot control the trusts that rule America and the European world, but we can by legislation ultimately rule any trust that may be formed here. I maintain that if the motion be agreed to we shall do more than has been achieved as the result of the valuation of *£65* which the Minister for Customs purposes, placed on imported harvesters. We find that from the 1st January until the 31st May last no imports of these machines have taken place. I desire now to refer briefly to the honorable member for Wentworth, who I regret is not present. He said that never had such an attack as that of the Minister been made on a. Commission before. If he were as old as Methuselah, and had spent his 900 years in reading *Hansards.* that statement would still have been of little value. More experience of the world would have taught him that men are often afraid to give evidence before Commissions. When I had the honour to be on the Commission appointed to inquire into the statements about sweating made by the Reverend **Mr. Edgar** - **Mrs. Muir.** who often attends here to listen to the debates, being also a member - we had frequently to take evidence in private. so that employes appearing before us might not run the risk of having their names made known to their employers. Had their names been made known, they would have been dismissed. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- That happened quite recently in connexion with the Tobacco Commission. {: #subdebate-12-0-s20 .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 -- Yes; and it is the opinion of the Attorney-General that the man who was dismissed cannot be reinstated. The Chairman of the Tariff Commission knows that employes giving evidence cannot be protected against their masters. I trust that the Minister will nor divulge the names of those from whom he has obtained his information, so that they may not be punished by their employers. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie made a remark in regard to **Mr. Charles** Atkins, a personaland dear friend of mine, who, two years ago, used words which have been misunderstood. He made a certain statement in regard to freedom of contract. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- That was fifteen months ago. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr MALONEY: -- He is older and wiser now, and has changed his opinion. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- He is a candidate for the Senate. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr MALONEY: -- I want honorable members to believe that he did not intend his words to bear the construction which has been placed upon them. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- The whole speech bears out that construction. Mr.Frazer. - If he did not understand the meaning of what he said, he is not a fit and proper person to represent Victoria in the Senate. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- Is the honorable member for Melbourne standing sponsor for him, and defending what he said? {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr MALONEY: -- As a personal friend, I say that, as he has explained that he did not mean what his words have been taken to mean, I accept his explanation, and do so openly. No man could in these days, knowing, as he must, how the workers have suffered from sweating. use such words intentionally, unless his heart was veryhard. I cannot support the amendment. In the words of the Latin poet, " When the Greeks bear gifts, beware." I believe that the amendment has been moved to dish the Bill, and to place certain honorable members in an awkward position. I agree with the honorable member for Kalgoorlie that we cannot vote to give, all the profits of protection to the employers. He and I belong to a party which demands fair conditions for the employes. We do not make unjust demands, and the proposal of the honorable member for Lang is unjust. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie says that the cost of the Australian harvester is £41 . If those who have spoken as the friends' of the farmers really wish to help them by enabling them to purchase harvesters at a fair price, let them take example by what has been done at Newport, where locomotive engines have been produced according to pattern for from £1,000 to £1,500 less than similar engines could be made for by the Baldwin Manufacturing Company of America, or any engineering works in Great Britain. On the authority of a man who has been connected with the manufacture of harvesters, I say that these machines could be made in a Government workshop for £30 each, and sold to the farmers for £33, because if the farmers knew that they could be obtained from the Government at a certain cost, there would be verv little expense in advertising and distributing. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- The honorable member advocates the nationalization of the harvester industry? {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr MALONEY: -- Yes. The honorable member should be aware of that from my past career. I believe that he wishes to befriend the farmers. He can prove his goodwill towards them by letting them get their harvesters for £33 each. It would only be necessary to import a little more machinery in order to manufacture all the implements required. I compliment the. Government on the proposals they have laid before us, and I hope that to-night . we shall settle this question once and for all. {: #subdebate-12-0-s21 .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh -- I was sorry to hear the honorable member for South Sydney assert earlier in the evening that honorable members were not going to vote on this question according to their convictions. I may say that 1 propose to vote according to my conviction, and to support the proposals of the Government. I regret that in giving this vote I shall be at variance with members of the party to which I belong; but, at any rate, the fact shows that the members of that party are going to vote according to their convictions. I have been wearily anc vainly waiting to see what those who are opposed to the resolution are prepared to do for our manufacturers, workmen, and farmers. So far as I can judge, all that those honorable members are prepared to do is to leave matters as they are at present - to allow our farmers to be fleeced bv combinations land foreign companies., our workmen to be sweated, and our manufacturers to be ruined. That, however, is not the state of affairs that I desire to see. I intend to support the duty of £16, because, to me, it is nol a matter of importance what the percentage is in relation to the cost of producing the stripperharvester. It would have been splendid for Australia if there had been manufactured in this country the 1,730 machines imported in 1905. It is said that we want population, but how are we going to get population if we do not provide work?' {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- By employing the people in industries that will pay. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- According to the Opposition, this industry is paying handsomely, as I hope it will continue to pay. All I desire is that the workmen shall receive the benefits which they cannot enjoy if this manufacture continues to be carried on outside the country. I would not care if **Mr. McKay** were making ten times his present income, so long as we had ten times the number of men employed under fair treatment. We have heard a great deal about the firm of Martin and Company, and about **Mr. Bagshaw.** The latter gentleman .has truly said that the industry is not languishing; but the evidence given before the Tariff Commission shows that the industry could be put in a much better position than it occupies to-day. **Mr. Bagshaw** has further said that, while he has a factory capable of employing 300 hands, he is at present able to employ only 1.00 ; and the same story is told by Messrs. Hawke and Company. It is true that the firm of Martin and Company were making machines at a much cheaper rate than that charged bv the other members of the combine. That firm was dragged into the combine by one of the partners, much against **Mr. Martin's** will ; so much so, that, although **Mr. Martin** stood by the agreement, he insisted on being allowed to fulfil all his existing orders at the lower figure of £70. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- He would be compelled to do so under his contracts. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- I believe there would have been no difficulty in his getting out of the contracts. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- But his honour would be at st 3. lee {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- At any rate, **Mr. Martin** felt his honour to be at stake, and he carried out his previous undertakings, and left the combine at the earliest moment. If the duty of £16 will keep out every machine, that will exactly carry out my view. As a protectionist, I desire to see the work done here; but I also desire to do something for the farmers. If we make the duty low - if we cut it down by one-half - it will only become necessary for American and Canadian manufacturers to lower the quality of the machines in order to compete successfully with the Australian articles. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- Surely the honorable member does not think that the farmers are such fools? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- If we allow the combine to send in their machines, the f armers are such fools that, as in the United States, they will be compelled to take any kind of machine or implement the combine chooses to give them. The farmers cannot help themselves, because, whenever competition is keen, shoddy goods are produced. The members of the American combine claim in their circular that they have 90 per cent. of the world's trade, and that they will not be satisfied until they have the whole. Indeed, the members of the combine do not hesitate to say that if necessary they are prepared to open neighbouring shops, even at a loss, in order to drive out of business those who sell the machines of other firms. Honorable members who are opposed to the motion evidently do not desire to protect the farmer, whereas those who support the motion will really be the means of giving the farmer a cheaper machine. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- The honorable member knows that machines are coming down in price. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- And I hope that will continue. If the honorable member were in business under the arrangement provided by the motion, he would, if he could, sell machines at a cheaper rate. It is laid down that the price cannot be raised without the manufacturers losing the protection. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- That is all a sham. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- It may be a sham in the opinion of the honorable member, but it will not prove a sham in practice. In South Australia farmers had formerly to pay 12s. 6d. each for their ploughshares ; but as soon as a little protection was granted, the firm of Shearer Brothers started manufacturing, with the result that the farmers can obtain splendid stamped ploughshares at 3s. each. That does not look as though protection raises prices. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- Is that reduction a consequence of the duty? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- Without the duty the firm would not have been able to start manufacturing. Some time ago I also visited the factory of **Mr. Forgan,** at Crystal Brook. I found that he was manufacturing malleable cast-iron shares, such as used to cost 28s. per dozen, and selling them for 15s. per dozen. It would not appear from this that protection has the effect of increasing prices to the farmer. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- What do the farmers say about it? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- They are delighted with the shares. The firm find that their premises are not big enough for them, and are extending them with the object of not only meeting the local demand, but of entering largely the export trade. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- Does the honorable member mean that the more duty that is imposed the cheaper the protected article will become? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- There is a limit to all things. My contention is that the more we encourage our local manufacturers the greater our competition will be, and the cheaper the articles produced will become. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- Do the wages depend upon the price of the article? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- Not necessarily. The experience of Messrs. Shearer Brothers has been the same as that of others engaged in the iron trade. There has been a great falling off in business in some lines, but Messrs. Shearer Brothers have been clever enough to invent a new kind of plough, and have taken up other business, thus enlarging their operations. We have been told that there has been a large increase in the number of men employed in making harvesting machinery and agricultural implements, and that, consequently, there is no need for further protection. If, however, honorable members will look at the returns of the number of men engaged in the iron trade they will find that in Victoria in the year 1901 the employes numbered 18,555, as against 15,022 in 1904. It would appear from these figures that there is room for considerable expansion of the industry. The honorable member for Grey, and others have had a good deal to say about the natural protection afforded to our manufacturers by the cost incurred in bringing to the Commonwealth the goods with which they have to compete. But I would direct attention to the fact that our manufacturers have to bring their raw material from the old country, and have to pay freight not only upon that which is embodied in their manufactures, but also upon that which is cut to waste. I have discussed this question with some of those engaged in the iron industry, and they tell me that whilst it costs the smaller manufacturers perhaps 20 per cent, more for their raw material than has to be paid by those in a larger way of business, they all have to pay freight on their raw material, and that the cost to them is nearly as great as that incurred by importers in forwarding their finished goods to this market. Therefore, there is very little, if any, natural protection afforded to our manufacturers in the way indicated by the honorable member for Grey. Although. I am a high protectionist, and am very anxious to see manufacturing industries developed here, I thoroughly agree with the honorable member for Boothby that we ought to be very chary about giving further protection to our manufacturers unless they are prepared to carry out the pledges that they gave to us years ago. I remember very well being asked to join the Protectionist Association in South Australia. I refused to do so, because I had no faith in the employers. They sent out a manifesto, and invited the members of the Labour Party to join the association, stating that one of the planks of their platform was to protect the workman as well as his work. No sooner, however, had we returned a majority of protectionist candidates to the Federal Parliament, and thereby assisted in imposing protective duties, than the employers almost without exception used every means in their power to prevent anything from being done to improve the condition of the workers. I believe in protecting the farmer and the manufacturer, and also the artisans engaged in manufacturing occupations. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- But to protect the worker and tax the farmer are two different things. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- I do not believe in taxing the farmer to the extent of making him pay more than his share of the cost of carrying on the Government of the country. I admit that the poor farmer is paying in some cases twenty times more than his share of taxation, as compared with those who hold large estates. We know the object that the honorable member for Lang had in view in proposing his amendment. He thought that he would involve the members of the Labour Party in some little difficulty. But his amendment has not the merit of being even cunningly worded. I have tried to improve on his proposal, and as he is evidently anxious that the workmen shall be afforded some protection, I shall claim his assistance in carrying my amendment. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- Is the honorable member's amendment cunningly worded ? {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- No. I believe that it is clearly worded and free from the ambiguity which characterizes the amendment of the honorable member for Lang, which would accomplish nothing. I am not wedded to the wording of the amendment which I propose to move at the proper time, and I shall be delighted if honorable members will assist me in improving it. I propose that the following words be inserted : - >Any manufacturer who fails to pay his workmen a fair and reasonable rate of wages shall pay excise equal to the duty on all dutiable agricultural machines and implements manufactured by him contained in the Schedule to the Customs Act. That means that if a manufacturer will not pay fair wages he will not derive any benefit from the duty, and I think that my proposal will commend itself to most honorable members. It may be necessary to introduce two Bills to give effect to my proposal, because one portion deals with Customs duties, and the other with Excise duties. I am entirely in sympathy with, the proposal of the honorable member for Wide Bay, except so far as he seeks to impose an Excise duty equivalent to only half the amount of the import duty. All that we shall be called upon to do for the present will be to affirm the principle that the workmen should receive a share of the benefits of the protection granted to the industry. I believe that it is possible to protect the worker, and I agree with the honorable member, for South Sydney that provisions for the protection of the employes should be universally applied. We now have an opportunity presented to us to make a beginning, and we can afterwards extend the principle. As has been pointed out. there is an Arbitration Court' in New South Wales and in Western Australia, whilst in Victoria there are a number of Wages Boards. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- The more duties we impose, the. more necessary will Wages Boards become, because the more degraded does the position of the worker become. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- If the honorable and learned member chooses to make inquiries in Victoria, he will find that his theory does not work out in practice. It appears to me that, if honorable members are in favour of protecting the workmen, it will be sufficient for them to agree to an amendment such as I have suggested. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- But a fixed duty which is equivalent to an *ad valorem* rate of 40 per cent, would mean prohibition. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- I do not think so. In America a much higher duty than that was levied upon screws, but it did not prevent **Mr. Chamberlain** from beating the Americans. I am not sure that the same thing could not be done in regard to stripper-harvesters. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- But a duty of 25 per cent, is a very fair measure of protection to give to the local manufacturers. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON: -- No. Last year 2,700 of these machines were manufactured in the Commonwealth, and about 1,700 were imported. I ask honorable members to consider the employment which the manufacture of those .1,700 machines would have afforded. I am sorry that we- cannot ascertain the exact cost of producing the stripper-harvester, so that we might know whether or not the farmer is being robbed. I do not agree with thi honorable member for Wide Bay that, if we are going to protect the workers, we should impose an Excise of only half the amount of the Customs duty. {: #subdebate-12-0-s22 .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY:
Werriwa .- Before I proceed to address the Committee, I think that we should have a quorum. *[Quo/urn formed.]* In September last I directed attention to the fact that it had been noised abroad that **Mr. McKay** and the Minister of Trade and Customs had entered into a combination, and that, as a result, efforts would be made to impose largely increased duties upon harvesters. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- I do not think that the honorable land learned member put the matter so nicely as that. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- I did not put it quite so strongly as it was represented to me, but I put it quite strongly enough to direct attention to it. However, the House refused to believe that any such arrangement had been entered into, and cries of " Shame !" were directed against me for entertaining the opinion that such a remarkable Minister of Trade and Customs would - unknown to Parliament - enter into' a combination with anybody. I think that all doubts as to the accuracy of my information have now been dispelled, because it is perfectly clear that such a combina tion was entered into. We had proof of that fact a short time after I made the statement in question, when the Minister, without rhyme or reason, and in defiance of all evidence, fixed the valuation of stripper-harvesters for Customs purposes at £65. As a matter of fact, I have been informed that a certain manufacturer was able to attract into his business the capital that he required simply because he represented that these machines could be produced for £28 or £29. In the ordinary course of events, we ought to look for a steady reduction in the price, occasioned by improved methods of manufacture, and an increase in the number of machines produced. Indeed, I expect that within a few years the stripper-harvester of to-day will be almost entirely superseded. If competition were allowed to have full play that would undoubtedly be the case. At the present time, all the winnowing and cleaning in connexion with the harvester is done by driving direct from the wheels. That system must soon be given up, because.it will be possible to obtain little motor engines of three or four horse power, not costing more than £to. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr Salmon: -- Where from? {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- I can assure the honorable member that I have seen small engines the manufacturing cost of which was not much in excess of that sum. But, by shutting out competition, we are preventing the free play of invention in respect to these machines. The consequence is that we shall soon find ourselves quite a dozen years behind other parts qf the world in reference to agricultural machinery. We are absolutely placing a handicap upon what might otherwise be developed into a large and important industry. Personally, I may state as a man who does a good deal of farming that I think the stripper-harvester system rather a wasteful one. While so many farmers prefer it, it is no business of mine to say that they are wrong, but I consider nevertheless that thev are working out their ground, and wasting their straw. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr Salmon: -- Fertilizers make up for that. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- I quite admit that there is some force in that observation, and that the ground is not likely to be worked out so quickly in consequence of the use of fertilizers. Still, I consider that the system is a wasteful one. But as harvesters are used by so many farmers, we shall be doing a serious injury to the Commonwealth by restricting the free play of competition in connexion with their manufacture. One great objection to the proposal of the Government is that the Minister in charge of it has never offered a tittle of evidence in support of it. Personally, I never anticipated that he would make his reasons public. I knew that we should be left to the wild vapourings of those who, according to whether a policy is called protective or otherwise, alter their minds concerning it. If. for instance, the Treasurer had said that he desired to impose an additional duty on stripper-ha rvesters for the purpose of raising more revenue, many of those who now support the Government would have proclaimed that they were not in favour of taxing the farmer; but, because the proposal is made by the Minister of Trade and Customs, and is called protection, they are in favour of it. I do not propose to continue to address a Committee in which there is not a quorum. *[Quorum formed.]* I was much surprised in reading the report of the Tariff Commission to find that it recommended that extra taxation should be imposed in favour of a particular class of citizens. The Commission tells us that the competition to which the local manufacturers are subjected is too strong. But the proposal is simply to transfer that competition from the shoulders of the manufacturer to those of the producer. That is to say, the burden will be transferred to the shoulders of those who are less capable of bearing it than are the manufacturers. How can anything be called an industry unless it is self-supporting? A business which has to call upon citizens to help it cannot be called an industry ; otherwise every charitable institution whose inmates earned a small percentage of the cost of their maintenance would be of great benefit to the community. I suppose that if a person were told that the inmates of a great charitable institution earned 50 per cent. of the cost of their maintenance, he would not say that it was a great industry. But talk of that institution as a manufactory, and tell the person that 50 per cent. of the cost is needed to keep it going, and he will say at once, "What a fine thing! If it needs more, let it be given." Just as one varies the name, so does he vary the ideas of the person whom he is addressing. No community can flourish unless its industries are self-supporting. If any branch of work has to call upon the citizens engaged in another branch to help it, then the sooner it is persuaded to give up the better it will be for the community. A person should engage only in those industries which are natural to the country. So far from men like myself being termed foreign traders, we ought to be termed home traders, because we seek to establish in our midst only those industries which are naturaland self-supporting. To judge by their votes, a great many honorable members seem to think that an industry which by its very nature seems to show itself foreign to the country, seeing that it cannot support itself, is the very one which ought to be encouraged. I cannot conceive of anything being more ridiculous than a proposition of that sort. When the honorable member for Melbourne Ports was speaking, I noted the extraordinary contradictions in which he involved himself. In one part of his speech he said that the time of high prices was when the duty was off, and that the importers . then fixed enormously high prices on all articles. In a later part of his speech he said that the wages depended on the price of an article. If so, then it was a great shame, so far as the workers were concerned, to interfere with the times when there were no duties on the articles, because that clearly meant that wages were then very much higher. Within three or four minutes of making that remarkable statement, the honorable member said, in response to another interjection by me, that after a duty was put on, the price of the ar ticle really decreased. When I asked him if that was in consequence of the Tariff, he said, " Yes." Therefore, on his own showing, the only reason why he supports the imposition of a duty is to lower the wages of the workmen concerned in the production of the article. It is deplorable that honorable members are unable to see the absurdities in. which they involve themselves by putting forward such entirely different propositions. I hold that the proposed duty is absolutely unreasonable, and that, if passed, it will for ever remain as a scandal and a disgrace to the Prime Minister who consented to lendhimself to it. In the fag end of a session, and in a moribund House, no man with a sound knowledge of what parliamentary government ought to be, would engage in such an undertaking. Weak we have always found the Prime Minister to be. His name stands for irresolution; but that he would do a thing which savours of political dishonesty as strongly as this proposal does, I did not anticipate. I thought that at least he would have sufficient resolution to resist the Minister of Trade and Customs, and not to be led by the nose by him to this extraordinary extent. His early education and training ought to have taught him that there are certain things which go to make up Constitutional government, and that the introduction of a motion of this kind at the fag end of a session, when we are about to appeal to the country, is unprecedented. The mandate c he got from the country at the last elections was, if anything, a mandate for fiscal peace. He went to the country and asked to be returned on a declaration for fiscal peace; yet before the end of the three years he is asking the House to agree to a proposal so tinged with suspicion that no one who has any acquaintance with the Minister of Trade and Customs believes that it is honestly and sincerely made in the interests of any but a particular manufacturer. We have heard a lot of talk about the new protection. There never was a greater amount of humbug talked than in that connexion. On what does the rate of wages depend ? On the amount returned by the industries. Clearly, there can be no increase of wages in an industry where the value of the product is not equal to the cost of production. Suppose that 30 per cent, of the value of a stripper-harvester is paid in wages. In America, Canada, and in Australia, too, I believe, despite what **Mr. McKay** says, it is only about 21 per cent. ; but if it so pleases honorable members, I am willing to take the amount at ,£10. Are they aware that the cost of carrying, landing, and setting up a harvester here is £14. plus, of course, the duty of £8. It will be seen at once that .£22 is more than twice the amount which will have been paid out in wages for the manufacture of the machine. Even if the rates of wages now paid by the local manufacturers were doubled, and were equal to £22 per machine, they ought still to be-in a position to fairly compete with their American rivals. And yet it is proposed to add another £8 to the cost of placing an American machine on the Australian market, and so to bring it up to *f ?p* - almost the first cost of the Australian production. Various amendments have been foreshadowed, with a view of making it appear that the intention is to benefit the workers by imposing these duties. After all they are mere fads'. Unless the manufacturers are conducting semi-charitable institutions, their workmen are earning their wages at the present day. A business man cannot carry on unless his employes produce something more than he has to pay for their labour. In these circumstances, I consider that the employes are not called upon to bow down and worship the employers any more than the manufacturers are called upon to worship their workmen. How can I and other freetraders be expected to call upon the rest of the community to furnish some part of the wages which the manufacturer of these machines has to pay? It is absurd that, at this stage of our civilization, we should actually have a body of men coming forward and saying that they are entitled to consideration, and that the rest of the community ought to be held by force of law, so that they may take out of their pockets something that they would not otherwise be able to obtain. No manufacturer ought to be decried. Much as **Mr. McKay** has been abused -I would not seek to hold him while a section of the community robbed him of that to which he was entitled. But one feels inclined to retaliate when one finds him perpetually lobbying with a view to having other people held for his benefit. We are continually calling upon one section of the workers to bear taxation, and to be held for the benefit of the manufacturer, and any manufacturer who has asked this Parliament to hold other people for his gain can offer no objection if these men appeal to us to say that he shall be held for their benefit. If a socialistic scheme were brought forward to deprive the manufacturers of their businesses on the ground that the work now carried on bv them would still be performed, and the money would remain in the country it would not lie in their mouths to object. But honorable members, who, like myself, hold that no country can truly progress except by the strict observance of the principles of justice, would have to fight their case just as I am seeking to fight the case of those whom they are now endeavouring to plunder. The word "plunder" is an objectionable one to use ; but I do not know of one that would more correctly describe their action. Some people assert that as the farmer is so stupid that he is always willing to bear taxation, we ought to let him bear it, but I disagree with that view. We shall not build up a nation by perpetually teaching the people to try to lean on some one else. A great deal of legislation introduced by the present Government has been based on the assumption that the great mass of the people are mere dumb driven brutes to be held for the benefit of any of their manufacturing friends who choose to make representations to them. I knew that the Minister of Trade and Customs would come forward with these proposals, because I was aware that he was seeking funds for his election campaign, and would stop at nothing to secure help, and to make friends amongst the mammon of unrighteousness. Every one who knows his character is aware that I am putting the case very mildly indeed when I make this assertion. The Minister will seek what help he can, and, in return, will promise to assist in invading the rights of other people. It is a matter of notoriety that one of his colleagues fled to escape trial, and how it is that the other has been spared that and other .scandals no one understands. Proposals like this must excite anger and indignation. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- Anger and indigation are not enough to convince. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- I have stated the reasons which actuate me. No case has been made out by the Minister for the raising of the duty. The stripper-harvester industry, instead of being in a bad way, is flourishing, not one machine having been imported up to the present time, though, of course, it may be true that there are some on the high seas. This monstrous proposal is made in the interests of a very small section. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- Why does not the honorable and learned member advocate the nationalization of industries? {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- I should be willing to take their business from these two or three log-rollers, who are trying to rob others, and start a national workshop with it. They could not complain if Parliament meted out the same treatment to them as they wish to mete out to others. If large sections of the community are to be exploited for the benefit of small sections, there will be reason for the State controlling and managing industries. I do not object to State control, but hitherto State management has increased expense and reduced efficiency. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- At Newport engines can be turned out in Government workshops more cheaply than anywhere else in the world, and yet an order is not given for them. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- I know that in New South Wales the supervision of the Government Architect's Department costs 25 per cent., and is not so good as that of private architects, who charge 5 per cent., and honorable members are acquainted with the scandals which have occurred in connexion with the land administration there. If the honorable member for Melbourne was right, it would be infinitely better in many instances to allow the State to step in than for the mass of people to continue to be exploited for the benefit of the few. If that happened, the Minister would not- introduce a proposal of this kind, and we should not be beset by a body of logrollers. The danger is that men may cease to try to be captains of industry, and will try to become captains of lobbyism, looking for success to increased taxation instead of to improved methods. Those who spend their time in lobbying must mismanage their businesses, because they have not opportunities for proper control. I hope that it will come about that those who try to get assistance from the State will in return be preyed upon bv others. One of those whom it is proposed to benefit is making an income of about £30,000 a year, and honorable members are therefore falling down in their haste to bend before this great manufacturing lord. The old spirit of servility must be strong in many people as the result of centuries of training. The grovelling spirit which made the serf, attached to the soil, and receiving the smallest pittance, kneel and cringe before his landlord, still exists*, and honorable members are showing a subserviency which might be expected from such a man. The serf, however, had the excuse of ignorance, while honorable members have not. Directly a big manufacturer's name is mentioned, they rush to make laws compelling the public and the workers to contribute out of their earnings to his prosperity. Would the Ministry dare to propose that the money required to keep the manufacturers going should be obtained by means of direct taxation? If that were proposed, the Minister would bend to whichever party was the wealthier, and used its influence in the most suitable manner. These proposals are scandalous. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- The honorable and learned member's speech is scandalous. When is he going to finish? {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- When the honorable member learns to be honest, and ceases to cringe to the big manufacturers. On what principle can such a proposal as that now before us be defended? Who is to pay the duty? The farmers. I suppose we shall be told that in Canada and America wages are so low as to make competition by Australian manufacturers impossible; and it is a remarkable fact that both America and Canada are protectionist countries. Is it sought to impose the proposed duties in order to drag our workmen down to the level of the American and Canadian workmen? What is the use of addressing Honorable members! when there is no evidence of any consideration for the interests of the great mass of the people? It would seem that the lobbying and log-rolling, so successful with the Minister, has been extended to some other honorable members. The people who would support such a proposal as that before us deserve all that they get, especially the people of the Hume, who elect such a representative. If those people think that the proposed taxation will increase the amount of wheat they get off their farms, we can only pity their standard of intelligence. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The honorable member has been most insulting for some time past. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- If any statement has been made to which the Minister of Trade and Customs takes exception, I am sure the honorable member for Werriwa will withdraw it. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The honorable member for Werriwa has been insulting me for the last hour, and I am not going to tolerate his impudence-- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- If anything of an insulting nature has been said, I have not heard it ; but if the Minister of Trade and Customs takes exception to any remark, and he calls my attention to it, I shall see that it is withdrawn. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- Probably a more scandalous and disreputable introduction of a Tariff proposal was never made in any Legislature in the world. There have beer many charges made against politicians in America, but never was any Tariff proposal introduced that-- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Will the honorable member discuss the item before the Chair? {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- I was discussing the item, and saying that never, in my opinion, even in America, except just after 1883, under very gross circumstances, was a proposal introduced so clouded with suspicion as this for an extra duty on harvesters. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- I rise to a point of order. Is the honorable member for Werriwa in order in reflecting by inference, innuendo, or direct charge, on the conduct of honorable members? The honorable member has said that honorable members have been guilty of log-rolling and lobbying, and of conduct more like that of felons than of honest citizens and straightforward men. My point of order is that the honorable member's language is unbecoming and ungentlemanly, and ought not to be tolerated. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member for Werriwa would not be in order in imputing unworthy motives to the Minister or any other honorable member in connexion with theproposal before the Chair. I hope that the honorable member will confine his remarks to the item. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- I was pointing out that the introduction of this proposal Has been clouded with many circumstances on which I do notdesire to dwell any longer. As an instance of the sort of argument used in support of the proposal, we had the honorable member for Melbourne, before he chose to run out of the Chamber. saying that the rate of wages depends upon the price of the article. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- I never made such an assertion. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- The honorable member said that the article would have to be produced at so low a price that the work could not be carried on here; and surely that means that the rate of wages depends on the price. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- I never said such a thing. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- Am I to take it that the honorable member said that the rate of wages does not depend on the price? The honorable member did state that, and yet, within five minutes, he asserted that the imposition of the duty would decrease the price of the article. Is the honorable member voting for the increased duty in order to enable the manufacturer to get cheaper labour? The argument presented by the theorists upon protection is practically that under that system men do not get so much in exchange for their labour, and consequently have to work at lower rates of wages. Therefore, within a very short time, we shall have men clamouring for a further increase of the duty, in order that employment may be provided for them. Of course, the wages in any industry will not fall below a certain point, because, after all, they will be determined by the rates prevailing in the great natural industries of the country. The industry immediately under discussion should be a natural industry, and should be able to stand upon its own merits. But we are told that it is not able to do so, and, therefore, the general community is being called upon to bear an additional burden in order that it may be assisted. Why should the farmer be taxed to any greater extent than at present? When we consider the small number of men engaged in the agricultural implement industry, it would be preferable for us to pay them their wages without any more ado, and leave the farmers free to make their purchases under conditions of free competition rather than to impose prohibitive duties. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- The local manufacturers have reduced the price of their machines. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- Because the price has been falling everywhere, owing to the improved methods of production. If, in the open market, a manufacturer can obtain £100 for a machine which cost him only £30, why should he be subject to any restrictions as to the profit he should receive ? Any manufacturer is entitled to big profits if he fairly earns them, and I have no sympathy with the cry that has been raised against the big profits made by manufacturers. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- Does the honorable and learned member believe in 150 per cent, profit ? {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- I believe rn the amount of profit that you can induce others to give you. If I could grow a bushel of wheat for is., and I could induce any one to give me 10s. for it, I should have no hesitation in taking the money. Nor would any other man decline to take advantage of all the profit that he could derive. When, however, the manufacturers come along and say, " Not only are we making a big profit out of you, but we intend to compel you to purchase only from us," a different principle is brought into play. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- They do not compel purchasers to buy from them. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- If all competition is shut out, the local manufacturers will, in effect, be compelling the farmers of the Commonwealth to buv their goods. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- There are already ten or twelve local manufacturers of harvesting machinery, and there is nothing to prevent twenty more from engaging, in the industry. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- There is not a sufficient demand to justify such a large addition to the ranks of the manufacturers, and I think that before very long the whole industry will pass into the hands of two or three big firms. Naturally a weeding out process will be engaged in by the manufacturers themselves, and those who employ the best machinery and the best methods of production must go to the front. It is a pity that they waste time in looking to Parliament for aid, instead of relying upon their own enterprise and energy. They now enjoy natural protection to the extent of £14 in the way of import charges, and of £8 in the form of duties. This represents a total of £22 per machine, or more than double the amount of their outlay for wages. Yet we are being asked to grant them further protection. I have to send my wheat to the other side of the world, where I cannot be protected against outside competition, and yet I am being called upon to bear, not only mv own burden, but those of the implement manufacturers. It seems to me to be a monstrous thing that an important proposal such as this should be submitted at this stage of the session. However, it is apparently of no use to address a moribund Parliament. I have already expressed my opinion on the conduct of the Minister. If there be any honorable member who is so weak as to retain any remnant of respect for him- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! The honorable member must not speak in disrespectful terms of other honorable members. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- It is utterly opposed to the principle of sound government to attempt to force an important proposal of this kind through at this stage of the session. The tendency of such "action is to bring the Administration into ridicule and disgrace. I believe that even if I had been a protectionist I should have had sufficient respect for the forms of government to have resented the introduction of such a proposal in the last days of the Parliament, when full and free discussion is impossible. Honorable members are so tired that they do not even attend in the House, and it is with difficulty that a quorum is maintained. All arguments are useless, because many honorable members prefer to know nothing about the discussion that is proceeding, and are content to vote blindly, and at the dictation of their leaders. Honorable members are by their actions imbuing the people with a spirit of selfishness, and are setting them an example which is calculated to induce them to think that the best thing . for them to do is to make as much as thev can out of their fellow men. We may depend upon it that that is not the soundest principle to follow. If we inculcate a spirit of selfishness in the people, the result must always be disastrous. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr Salmon: -- I thought that the honorable and learned member was an individualist ? {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- Is not that asserting individualism ? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! Will the honorable and learned member confine his remarks to the proposal before the Chair? {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- I was merely pointing out that the effect of levying an increased duty upon harvesters would be to cultivate a selfish spirit amongst the people - a spirit which would be injurious to the national character, and which would probably take generations to wipe out, if, indeed, it did not wipe out the people. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- They have not been wiped out in America. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- They hare paid bitterly for their error. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- By obtaining a constantly increasing trade. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY: -- They have not onefourth of the trade that they ought to possess. The vice of selfishness is so strongly ingrained in the people of America that, struggle as they will, they cannot get away from it. America is paying most bitterly for her mistake in the corruption and degradation of all her self-governing institutions, municipal and parliamentary. We shall bring about a similar state of things in Australia unless we are extremely careful. If there is one thing at which states men should aim it is the formation of national character, and we cannot hope to develop that by destroying individual independence. The best and safest way to govern a people is to insure that the spirit of justice shall prevail amongst them. {: #subdebate-12-0-s23 .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN:
Canobolas -- When Tariff matters were under consideration in the first Commonwealth Parliament honorable members were interviewed by quite a number of persons, with various interests at stake, and statements were made to them which, as they multiplied, became of a most contradictory character. Upon investigation, it was found that many of those statements represented only half the truth. To-night, however, we are considering the Government proposals, after an exhaustive investigation into Tariff matters has been conducted by a Commission which was specially appointed for the purpose. My complaint is that we are asked to deal with these questions at the fag end of the session. The proposals of the Government were only brought forward the day before yesterday, and we were asked to vote upon them last night, although the Government, after consideration, decided not to press for a division then. I have before me a bulky volume containing a report of the evidence elicited by the Tariff Commission upon the question of the manufacture of stripper-harvesters. I will undertake to say that even a smart reader would not be able to wade through that volume, and to do the subject anything like justice, within the period in which we have been asked to dispose of this question. However, we have no choice in this respect, and we have to avail ourselves of the opportunities presented to us. The Government proposes that a specific duty of *jQt.6* each shall be placed on stripper harvesters, and one of £8 on strippers, whilst metal parts shall pay duty at the rate of 2½d. per lb. In addition, the protectionist portion of the Commission, headed by their able Chairman, the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, submit proposals which they contend are based upon the evidence. Thirdly, we have the recommendations of t?he free-trade members of the Commission. Such are the different standards from which we are invited to consider this question. I also invite the Committee to recollect that there are three interests represented. There is the manufacturing interest - that of the men who have invested their capital in the industry. Next we have the workmen, who sell their labour to those engaged in manufacturing harvesters. Thirdly we have the large body of farmers, who use the machines. We must endeavour to do even-handed justice in the decision at which we arrive. Looking at the matter from the manufacturing stand-point, I find that there are twenty-four firms in the Commonwealth engaged in the manufacture of harvesters, strippers, and similar machinery. There are sixteen firms in Victoria, five in New South Wales, and three in South Australia. , They are enumerated in the Commission's report. There is no need to enter into details. With respect to the workers engaged in the industry, the evidence given before the Commission shows that **Mr. McKay** estimated 2,000 to be the number of workers employed. But when confronted with **Mr. Coghlan's** statistics, he seemed to doubt the information upon which he came to his conclusion. According to *Coghlan,* about 1,800 persons are engaged in making agricultural machinery throughout the Commonwealth. Thirdly, according to one of the witnesses, it is estimated that there are 250,000 or 260,000 farmers in Australia. Those are the interests affected. I should like to refer on this question to a point made by the honorable member for Melbourne Forts. He quoted figures concerning the State of New South Wales, comparing it with Victoria, and showing that a larger number of workmen are engaged in the industry in this State than in that from which I come. He attributed that to the fact that Victoria has enjoyed the blessings of protection for a longer period than New South Wales has done. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- I took the Tariff Commission's report. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- I presume that the Commission founded its statement upon **Mr. Coghlan's** statistics. The latest returns for Victoria show that 1,114 working men were engaged in the industry in this State, whilst in New South Wales there were 56. That was the proportion quoted by the honorable member as bearing out his contention. But if he will consult the table relating to metal workers, he will find that it throws quite a different light upon the question. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- **Mr. Coghlan** wrote to me a private letter, which I can show to the honorable member, stating that the figures in that table include the smelters in Broken Hill, numbering 2,000. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- He gives the number of metal workers and machine workers in New South Wales as 12,800, and the number in Victoria, calculated upon the same basis, as 10,250. He also points out that, in respect of agricultural implement makers, he takes only those directly engaged in that industry, whereas in New South Wales the largest output of agricultural implements comes from establishments that are also engaged in other forms of manufacture. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- **Mr. Coghlan,** in a letter to me, analyzes his own figures. He sent me a list, which I shall be pleased to show to the honorable member, proving conclusively that he is wrong. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- *Coghlan* says, in his latest statistics, that the number of hands set out as employed in the manufacture of agricultural implements in New South Wales is only . 56. A few establishments devote themselves entirelyto this business, the manufacture of implements being usually associated with iron workers generally. He plainly indicates that he limits his table in this connexion to those who are specifically engaged in the manufacture of implements. If honorable members wish to ascertain the number of men engaged in the manufacture of agricultural implements they must find them among the 12,800 workers engaged in the manufacture of metals and machinery as against the 10,250 similar workers in Victoria. I. do not think that, on the figures he quoted, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports did justice to his case; it looks better than it really is. The manufacturers claim that they shouldreceive special consideration at the hands of the State because they have been subject to piracy by competing firms outside the Commonwealth. They allege that they have to submit to unfair competition in the form of dumping and so forth, and for this reason they plead that they are entitled to an increased duty. They charge the American manufacturers with having completely pirated their article. I do not know that there is anything very strange or striking in that. It is not an unusual thing for a manufacturing company in one country to use the products of the inventive genius of other countries. A charge of piracy might with equal force be made against the Australian manufacturer of agricultural implements, unless they are going to very materially limit the number of implements which they are engaged in making. As a matter of fact, the report of the Tariff Commission shows that the stripperharvester is only the perfection of an idea which originated in the days of the Gauls, while the idea of the winnower was, it is said, brought from China. In regard to clumping we have heard a great deal about the difficulties which were besetting our manufacturers from the fact that they were subject to that unfair form of competition. The House was induced to pass a special measure empowering the Minister of Trade and Customs to prevent any line of manufacture being placed upon our market on unfair terms and conditions. If it is as effective as the Government claim that it will be, there does not seem to be such strong ground for asking for this increased consideration as there might otherwise have been. Apparently, our manufacturers want not only the protection of the anti-dumping legislation but also an increased duty to the extent of *£25* per machine. Of course, it is only natural that they should endeavour to get all the concessions they can secure. They grind out their profits between the upper and the nether millstones - between their own workers on the one side, and the farmers on the other. The more they can squeeze out of the farmers, and the more completely they can reduce the wages of the lower workers, the larger will be their profits. If they can induce the Parliament on the one hand to disregard the amount of wages which they are to pay, and not to enforce the decisions of Arbitration Courts or Wages Boards with respect to their industry, and on the other hand to shut out all outside competition, first by anti-dumping legislation, and secondly by a prohibitive duty of£25 per machine, they will be in a position to secure a larger return from those who are compelled to use their machines, or go without them. The Parliament will be wise to look at the matter not purely from the manufacturer's stand-point, but from the stand-point of the workmen in the manufactories, and of the farmers. What is the position as indicated by the farmers? Evidence was given on their behalf before the Commission, and it did not come from free-trade New South Wales, but from protected Victoria. A number of men interested themselves to the extent of collecting a considerable amount of information, selecting their representatives. and enabling them to appear before the Commission. In this very bulky report in my hand, it is stated that first of all, the St. Arnaud Agricultural Society decided to make a move in the direction of placing the views of their farmers before the Commission. A circular letter was sent out to seventy farmers' societies. Out of that number, fifty societies replied. Four societies declined to have anything to do with the movement, as it was outside their rules, and one society called a public meeting to deal with it. The societies, whose names are given in the report, were practically unanimous in endeavouring to oppose the proposed increase in the duties on implements and manures. As the result of this, a meeting was held in Melbourne during Show week, to deal with the whole question. The secretary, when giving evidence before the Tariff Commission, said that something like 250 delegates from farmers' societies attended this meeting, at which the following motion, moved by **Mr. J.** C. Smith, of St. Arnaud, was carried unanimously: - >That representatives be appointed to give evidence before the Tariff Commission, protesting against any further duty on agricultural implements or machinery, or on fertilizers. The witnesses selected for this purpose were **Mr. J.** C. Smith, **Mr. James** McGregor, **Mr. D.** McLennan, and **Mr. C.** Nowotna, representing the Wimmera, the Mallee, the Goulburn Valley, and other agricultural districts in Victoria. One of these gentlemen, **Mr. D.** McLennan, summed up the attitude of the farmers in the following concise terms: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. That the present duty of I21/2 per cent. on agricultural machinery, in addition to natural protection, is amply sufficient for the success and development of the agricultural implement industry. 1. Our manufacturers of harvesters, being able to compete in the world's markets, ought and can do so in their own. 2. Prohibitive duties on harvesters will result in the establishment of a colonial trust, the seeds of which have already been sown. 3. May result in the International Harvester Company commencing operations within the Commonwealth. 4. Having to sell our products in the open markets of the world against all forms and conditions of labour and life, and at the world's lowest prices, we claim the reasonable right to be allowed to buy in the markets in which we sell. 5. Accordingly, to enact legislation which will compel us to buy in any particular market is treating us unfairly. 6. If harvester manufacturers receive a monopoly of colonial markets by the imposition of prohibitive duties, then other manufacturers have the right to claim similar consideration, and the farmers also have then a perfect right to claim that they be assisted by legislation, so that they may be able to put an artificial price on their products. 7. The declarations of the local manufacturers, that the harvester importers will entirely secure the colonial trade, can only be regarded as the interested prophecy of interested parties. They ask the farmers, in the event of a£25 duty being imposed, to trust them that they will not increase prices. We return the courtesy, and ask them that should the duty not be increased, to trust us to stand by them so long as they treat us fairly. 8. The farmers view with apprehension and recognise the danger of monopolies, whether from at home or from abroad, and urge the necessity of drastic anti-trust legislation by the Federal Parliament against all trusts and combines, no matter who they are, or where they come from. 9. We further recognise that the continued prosperity and development of the harvester trade, and the agricultural implement trade generally, will be more speedily and successfully accomplished by the judicious encouragement of the settlement of the people on the land in increased numbers, rather than in increasing the numbers of the already overcrowded cities. I reiterate the statement that this evidence was given, not as the result of a holeandcorner meeting, but as the outcome of a conference of some 250 delegates of farmers' societies. In answer to the contention that the farmers receive no *quid pro quo* for these increased duties, the honorable member for Kennedy has urged that he receives advantages in other directions; that railways and roads are constructed for his benefit, and that in many other ways Government moneys are expended to assist him. I would point out that such provision is made, not for the farmers alone, but for the advantage of the community generally. A railway is just as convenient to the man who wishes to find buyers for his machines in the country as it is for the farmer who desires to send his wheat to the sea-board. Whilst the farmer is asked to purchase his machinery in a protected market, hedged round by artificial restrictions, which confer no benefit upon him. he has to sell his produce in the open markets of the world. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I think we ought to have aquorum. [Quorum *formed.]* {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- The advantages to which the honorable member for Moira referred are enjoyed, not by the farmers alone, but by the whole community, and cannot be made a notification for increasing the burdens of the agriculturists. The honorable and learned member for Corinella had something to say about the competition of cheap labour. The competition in connexion with harvesters is competition with the United States and Canada, countries which are extolled by protectionists as great examples of what can be achieved by protection. Yet, when we are brought into competition with those countries, we hear of their pauper labour. Some explanation is needed to reconcile the two positions. Perhaps No. 66 Bourke-street could afford if. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- We say that, to " cut in," the foreign manufacturers put their machines on the market at prices less than they charge in their own country. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- Our farmers have to sell their produce, not in a protected market, but in Great Britain, where they are called upon to face the competition of the world. During the last two yearsthe export of wheat from the Commonwealth has amounted to 70,836,000 bushels, valued at £11,401,000; but in 1903 our imports exceeded our exports by 10,675,000 bushels, valued at , £2,277,000. At the time many of us fought hard for the remission of the grain duties, in the interests of the pastoral and agricultural industry, to enable cheap fodder to be obtained for the stock, which were dying from the drought. In 1902-3 the Government obtained £597,000 from these duties, and in 1903-4, £265,000 odd, an increase in the two years of about £862,000, whereas the imports for the current year are estimated to return only about £29,000. Did the money go into the pockets of the farmers? I undertake to say that it did not. Those who benefited were the importers, to whom the protectionists profess to be so antagonistic - the men possessed of large capital, who were able to shut out competition. They were the persons able to force up prices, and, instead of this so-called protection being a benefit to the farmer, it was to him, as to the whole consuming community, a distinct disadvantage . and loss. Under the conditions which prevailed in 1 901 -2-3, it is only possible for any taxation of the kind to be a detriment to the farming industry; and it was for this reason that the protectionist farmers of Victoria asked this Parliament to consider the question of the duties on their implements, and to safeguard their interests, not only from outside monopolies, but from the monopoly within their own border. We have had recently presented to us a return showing the extent of the importation of these machines. into the Commonwealth, and we find that in 1905 the number sent from Canada was 1,000, while the number from other places was 730, making a total of 1,730. That was the importation over which the scare was raised about killing Australian industry. How was the importation made possible? During the drought of 1902-3, when the farmers discovered there would be no wheat returned, they cancelled their orders for the machines, with the result that the Australian manufacturers reduced the output or closed their establishments. It happened that the next year there was an exceptionally large yield, and the farmers, who had to have their machines at short notice, could not wait until they were locally manufactured, and had to buy the ready-made article from outside firms. This phase of the question is dealt with in the evidence of **Mr. J.** C. Smith before the Tariff Commission. That gentleman said - >I know several have bought imported harvesters simply because they could not get the local article. In my own case, I ordered a harvester, and found I could not get it until 20th December. Now, as you know, the harvest is pretty well advanced in our district by the 20th December, but I went on with the ordinary stripper until I got the implement. Some of my neighbours could not get one, even as early as the 20th December, and, of course, they had to take the Massey-Harris machine simply because the local manufacturers had no stocks to supply them. That is the last harvest twelve months - the harvest before this. That was the explanation given by a farmer of the big importation of those machines. Apparently, the local manufacturers were afraid to invest their money in turning out sufficient stock to meet possible demands, whereas outside firms, assuming that the crop of the succeeding year might be favorable, made the necessary provision. That view of the position is borne out, to some extent, by further particulars contained in the return. It appears that during 1905 some 2,700 stripper-harvesters were produced in the Commonwealth, and that during the first five months of 1906 the importation fell off. In the earlier part of this year there was no importation at all from outside sources; on the other hand, the Australian manufacturers have started to export. It would appear that what Australian manufacturers cannot do in their own country they are able to do elsewhere - that, while they cannot successfully compete with American and Canadian manufacturers within the Commonwealth, they can compete with those manufacturers at the latter' s own doors.I do not know whether this export business may not be an instance of that dumping which the honorable member for Melbourne Ports tells us is one of the objections to free importation. The return to which I have more than once referred informs us' that during 1905 some 418 machines were exported, while during the past six months 484 have been sent abroad. This would seem to indicate that the opening for exportation is extending. Of the machines exported last year, 389 went to Argentine, while during the first six months of this year 445 have gone to that part of the world. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928 -- That is because this is a "strangled industry." {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- It seems to me that a number of industries could well afford to undergo such strangulation. The countries to which the machines were exported were Algeria, Argentine, Canada, Cape Colony, Italy, and Uruguay. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- The machines were only sent as samples to Canada, because in that country harvesters are not used. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- I always understood that the sample machines were taken out to Canada some years ago, when the idea was pirated. It would seem, however, that the pirating is. still going on. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- About ten machines were sent to Canada, but the climate there does not permit of them being used for harvesting grain. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- The return shows that during the past six months eighteen of these machines have been sent to Canada. These facts seem to require some explanation. The manufacturers say that they require a heavy duty to enable them to withstand competition within the Commonwealth, and yet they are able to hold their own in markets which are more easily accessible to their rivals. It is fair to assume that the export trade carried on by the local manufacturers is a profitable one, and therefore they should be in a position to make a great deal more out of the sales of their machines within the Commonwealth. Our producers have to send their commodities to parts beyond the Commonwealth, and enter into compeition with the producers of other countries who pay lower rates of wages, and enjoy many other advantages. Our farmers have to purchase their machinery in a protected market, and are asked to trust the manufacturers to protect them against combinations and exor- bitant charges. The farmers,- however, say, " Give us an open market, and trust us to purchase our machines from you at reasonable prices." If the manufacturers are not prepared to trust the farmers to deal fairly with them, I do not see how they can reasonably ask the farmers to place reliance in their good faith. I am pleased to notice that the protectionists have at last realized that it is not wise to look merely to the interests of the manufacturer. At one time it was considered sufficient to assist the manufacturer, and trust him to deal fairly with his workmen and the consumers. Now, however, it is considered necessary, whilst giving the manufacturer a certain amount of protection, to stipulate that he shall not charge the consumer more than a certain price, and that he shall share with his employes the advantage conferred by the protective duty. In this connexion I consider that the Tariff Commission have very substantial grounds for the position they have taken up. In the first place, we find that the local manufacturers were induced to enter into a combination with the importing firms, with the object of increasing prices, and the result was that the cost of the stripper-harvester to the farmer advanced from £70 to £81. For some time one of the manufacturing firms - Messrs. Martin and Company, of South Australia - held aloof from the combination, but eventually one of the partners attended a meeting, and, against the wishes of his colleagues, committed his firm to joining in the arrangement into which the other manufacturers had entered. That firm took the first opportunity to withdraw from the combination, and shortly afterwards the importers took umbrage at the action of ' the local manufacturers in endeavouring to secure the imposition of increased import duties, and the combination was broken up. It is thus apparent that the consumers should be specially safeguarded against the results of any similar operations in the future. I have a very strong admiration for the way in which Messrs. McKay Bros, have brought their machines to the front. I do not wish to be harsh in my criticism of that firm. I simply select it because of the material it affords me to illustrate the way in which the workers'; have been dealt with by manufacturers engaged in this industry. I find that some years ago when **Mr. McKay** was located at Ballarat, an effort was made to secure the establishment of a working man's union there. With that object in view, **Mr. Laidlaw,** a representative of the Agricultural Implement Makers' Union, in Melbourne, visited Ballarat in 1901. As the result of his visit, there was a conference between the employes of the factory at Ballarat and Messrs. H. V. and G. McKay, in the local Town Hall, for the purpose of deciding whether the industry should be brought under the operation of the Victorian Factories Act. At that representative gathering of employes, **Mr. H.** V. McKay is reported to have said - >He thought the existence of the Board would be detrimental to the trade. He wanted to impress upon them the necessity of being allowed to conduct his own business as he pleased. The employes should weigh well any action they might take, so as not to clog the wheels of what was now a thriving business. He trusted the men would return the confidence he had always placed in them. According to his statement, he did not view the establishment of a Wages Board with any degree of favour. In the first place, he wished to be allowed to conduct his business in his own way, and in the second he warned his employes that the establishment of a Wages Board would clog the wheels of a thriving business. At the same meeting, **Mr. G.** McKay, who said that he was the paymaster of the firm, stated : - >One effect of the trade being brought under the Act would be that improved labour saving machinery would have to be obtained, and this would mean the displacement of many hands. He was of opinion that the creation of Wages Board trades should be discouraged. Thev should seriously consider what they did, as it would affect their own as well as the firm's interests. Despite these strong representations, a ballot was taken, which resulted in no of the workmen voting for the establishment of a Wages Board, and fifteen against it. After some considerable agitation, the iron.moulders -only a section of the workers engaged in the industry - were brought under the operation of a Wages Board. The Board was gazetted in October, 1904. It fixed the maximum wages for iron.moulders of the best class at 60s. per week, and the minimum at 54s. The wages of moulders' labourers were fixed at 38s. The question of improvers was dealt with as follows : - One improver was allowed to every two journeymen or fraction thereof employed in the trade or business, an ironmoulder receiving not less than 8s. per day if employed upon work other than pipe moulding or work incidental thereto. The improvers were to receive during the first year 5s. per week of 48 hours, for the second year 7s. 6d. per week, for the third year 10s., for the fourth year 12s. 6d., for the fifth year 15s., for the sixth year 20s., for the seventh year 25s., and thereafter the minimum wage. As soon as this decision was gazetted, the Sunshine Harvester Works at Ballarat were closed, and both the *Argus* and *Age* newspapers stated that the reason underlying this action was the operation of the Wages Board system. As a result of that statement that section of the Factories Act came in for a good deal of adverse criticism. In the newspapers, **Mr. McKay** bitterly complained that he had not been given notice of the intention to' enforce the Wages Board provision at Ballarat. But the point which I desire to emphasize is that whilst the Sunshine Harvester Company was objecting to the Wages Board system, the firms who were engaged in the industry in Melbourne had to conform to the conditions prescribed by the Wages Board, and to enter into competition with that company. In response to this complaint by **Mr. McKay,** the *Argus,* on 8th October, published an interview with **Mr. Harrison** Ord, the Chief Inspector of Factories in Victoria, who said- >No complaint had reached the Minister, no concession in the way of extension of time was asked for, and no protest was lodged against the enforcement of the determination. **Mr. Ord** says further that the Department is at a loss to understand why a leading manufacturer who has always been credited with having paid a fair rate of wage, could possibly be injured bv a determination which, as a fact, has merely adopted the rate previously generally paid in the trade. If the determination was so injurious, **Mr. Ord** thinks the Minister might have been approached, or the Industrial Appeal Court invoked to remedy the wrong. Country firms were represented on the Board that gave this decision, and the very proposal to which **Mr. McKay** objected emanated, not from an employe, but from the employers. I find, on reference to the *Age* of the 12th October, 1904. that a large deputation waited upon the Minister of Labour. **Sir Samuel** Gillott. with respect to the decision of the Wages Board. It was stated that 450 men, were affected by the closing of the Sunshine Harvester works. The following conversation is reported to have taken place: - >The Minister. - How many adults are affected ? > > **Mr. Kerr.** I am not prepared to say. It affects about twenty ironmoulders. > >The Minister. - And how many are there in Victoria ? > > **Mr. Harrison** Ord. About 900. > > **Mr. Kerr.** Even supposing that myself and others do go to work at the Braybrook establishment, it means that thirty or forty of us have to break up our homes in Ballarat. ' In this connexion, **Mr. McKay** addressed a communication to the Minister himself. Writing on the 13th October, 1904, to the Chief Secretary, with reference to the effect of the Wages Board decision, he said - >With reference to the application of the Wages Board conditions to the iron moulding, steel moulding, and malleable iron departments of the ! Sunshine" Harvester works, I would respectfully point out that in consequence of the Act I am prevented from making any use of this very costly part of my Ballarat factory. > >At considerable expense I have arranged for a temporary supply of castings from my factory in Braybrook. > >I would respectfully request that something be promptly done to remove the embargo of Wages Board conditions from the implement and harvester business. > >I further request that if this cannot be done at once you will give me an assurance that the Wages Board conditions will not come into operation at the factory in Braybrook. If you will do that I am prepared to considerably extend the factory, and will instal some more costly machinery, while if there is any chance of the Wages Board conditions being applied there I do not feel justified in spending the money. > >As this whole matter involves a most serious question, I would respectfully urge that it receive your early and earnest consideration. > >I am, **Sir, yours** respectfully, (Sgd.) H. V. McKay. That indicates the attitude taken up by the McKay firm with respect to Wages Boards. I find from the *Argus* of the 8th October that **Mr. McKay** stated that a number of unionists had waited on him to express their sympathy with .him in his attempt to remove his establishment from under the Wages Board. Here- we have it stated that a number of working men who were to be benefited by the decision of the Wages Board, whose conditions were to be improved, and whose pay was to be increased, actually came forward and asked that no benefit should be given to them. The matter came up for discussion at the Trades Hall, Melbourne, and the *Argus* report says - >The matter was mentioned at a meeting of the Trades and Labour Council in the evening during a conversational discussion, and the members said that investigation into the wages paid by the firm would prove astounding. The carpenters engaged at the works were classed as agricultural implement makers, and they received rs. per day less than the amount they were entitled to. It was also alleged that the moulding department would be closed permanently, and in consequence sixteen men would leave for Braybrook next week. Eventually it was decided to write to the Australian Workers' Union there, and ask that steps be taken to organize the branches of the trade affected by the establishment of the works. That indicates the action taken by **Mr. McKay** for the purpose of getting outside the Wages Board. In connexion with this phase of the question, an old employe of the Sunshine Harvester works, **Mr. Weickhardt,** gave some evidence before the Tariff Commission. I advise honorable members who wish to be seized of the position of affairs to look at that evidence. First of all he gave evidence that he was employed at the factory for a considerable time in the capacity of manager. He stated the conditions which obtained there in respect of the wages paid, and the number of youths employed. His evidence was rebutted by **Mr. Bult,** the manager, and **Mr. Porteous,** a carpenter, who claimed to represent the working men. If honorable members will look at his evidence they will observe that **Mr. Weickhardt** did not appear before the Commission as an educated man. His statement was put in a very crude form - the material he had, if handled by **Mr. Bult,** or **Mr. Porteous,** would, I think, have been used in a very strong and emphatic manner. Whilst nothing can be said about the form in which **Mr. Bult's** statement was made, still, when it came to be sifted, there was something wanting. **Mr. Bult,** who apparently was posing as the manager of the firm, possessed very little knowledge of what was going on in the factory. He could not give the number of men employed there, or the wages supposed to be paid - matters which certainly ought to be known to any man employed in his capacity. So far as one can judge, the Sunshine Harvester Works would need to look elsewhere for a competent manager if they wish to proceed on proper lines. If we turn to the evidence of **Mr. Porteous,** the carpenter, who represented the working men, it will be found that his production would do credit to a very well educated man. In fact, it seems to indicate that the firm are throwing away a very useful servant when they employ such a talented man in the capacity of a carpenter. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- Does the honorable member imply that there are no talented carpenters ? {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- No ; I draw attention to the great difference between the two men. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- I think the honorable member will find that it is not a question of better education with **Mr. Porteous,** but the question of **Mr. Weickhardt** being a foreigner. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- I do not know whether **Mr. Weickhardt** is a foreigner or not. But this is what he said on page 1826 - >Now, coming to some of the wages paid. Let us go into the carpenter's shop - Tregeniza, 20s. week. Blacksmith's shop - Lang, married man, with a family, 27s. 6d. week, on the drop hammer, putting lights out at night to make up; Kaufman, tinsmith's labourer, *£1,* wife and family to support; Campbell, man, labourer, *£1,* wife and eight childrento support; Shields, man, labourer, *£1* 10s., wife; Owen, man, tinsmith's labourer, 15s. ; Norman Teesdale, fitter, wife and child, 10s. per week ; Pearson, man, labourer, in the tinsmith's department, 12s. 6d. week ; Harrison, best tradesman in the shop, 30s. ; Green does Williams' work for 20s., saves *£1* 8s. on the man's wages; Gullock, a competent plumber, 15s. weekly. I fixed wages, increased wages, and had to reduce wages. George McKay says cost is going up, come down ; sack so many men, get more out of the others; still, you must have so man men, therefore, cut the wages. That is the way in which he put the case for the men. He did not make a general statement, but gave the names of the working men. He showed that men were working in the factory at sweated wages. If that condition obtains there is no wonder that the firm object so strongly, as the papers indicate, to the application of the Wages Board provisions to their industry. It has been objected to **Mr. Weickhardt** that he was a dismissed employe, and that his evidence should be discredited. The manager and the representative of the working men made carefully-prepared statements. They picked out those points in **Mr. Weickhardt's** evidence which would give them a reasonable opportunity to discredit it. They tried at every point to do so. But his statements as to the names of the men, the wages, and the conditions were not touched. When the manager was cross-questioned by the Commission, he had such a poor memory that he could not remember whether those men were employed at the works or not. He could not supply any particulars respecting **Mr. Weickhardt's** statements about the sweated wages, which were asserted to have obtained in his time at the factory. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- But he was only one out of fourteen. All the others got good wages. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- That is the point I am coming to. Here is a firm which is championed by the honorable member, an antisweater {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- I beg the honorable member's pardon. I have never championed the firm. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- I meant the industry. If there is any firm in the Commonwealth which is responsible for this matter receiving the consideration it is getting to-day it is this firm. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- The honorable member is quite wrong. The agitation began with the workmen of another firm. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- This firm has been more prominent than any other firm that I know of in agitating for an increased duty. The evidence given before the Commission tends to show that it has not paid fair wages to its employes, that it has not kept in line with the other manufacturers, who probably would have paid fair wages even if the Wages Board had not seen that they did. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- There is only one Wages Board, and it applies to one branch of the trade - the moulders. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- If honorable members will turn to theArgus of 7th October, 1904, they will find an article dealing with this very matter, and bearing the caption - " Wages Boards decision: 600 men thrown out of work." **Mr. H.** V. McKay is reported to have said - >I may add that the relationship existing between me and my men has always been of a most cordial character, and to-day a petition was signed by practically the whole of my employes, asking that we should be relieved of the Board's finding. The men were signing a petition asking not for increased wages, but for a continuance of the conditions which **Mr. Weickhardt** said obtained in his time, and which were not controverted before the Commission, so far as I can ascertain. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- The honorable member would not condemn the twelve disciples because one went wrong? {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: **- Mr. Weickhardt** has explained the means adopted to obtain signatories to this petition. He said that he conveniently suppressed the fact that it was in opposition to the finding of the Wages Board, and that if he had not informed the men that it was a petition praying for increased protection it would not have been so largely signed. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr Thomas: -- Are the farmers in the honorable member's electorate willing to pay more for their harvesters? {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- They are willing to pay a fair thing ; but not to be sweated by the manufacturers of these machines. Under the heading of "The Strangling Tariff," the *Age* of 12th October, 1904, published the report of an interview which the employes of the Sunshine Harvester Works had with the Minister. At that interview, **Mr. Kerr,** one of the speakers on behalf of the employes, inquired what was the good of fixing a minimum wage if they could not get any work to do? That remark represented the feeling of the men in the factory, who had been given to understand that if they stood by the finding of the Wages Board there would be no work for them. Carlisle says that liberty is divine, but the liberty to die of starvation is certainly not divine, and the men doubtless felt that whilst it might be a good thing to secure high wages, it was better to bear those ills we have, Than fly to others that we know not of. **Mr. Porteous,** the workmen's representative, said at this interview that the firm had always paid 8s. per day for skilled labour. The difficulty was with regard to the boys at the machines. It was only boys' labour, and the number of iron-moulders was limited. **Mr. Ord,** Chief Inspector of Factories, who was present, said in reply to that objection : - >Then you seriously ask for the suspension of the determination made two and a half years ago, because there is some difficulty in regard to juvenile labour, which could be removed at once if the matter were put before the Minister by the manufacturer? In answer to this, **Mr. Porteous** is reported to have said: - >It was only a matter of time, and the Braybrook Works would also be affected. In the *Age* of 10th October, 1904, **Mr. McKay** is reported to have waited on the Minister, with a request that the determination of the Wages Board with respect to moulders should not be extended to the firm's factory at Braybrook. He said - >The moulding work in his factory was of a very light character, requiring very little skill, and could be done by boys. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Why does not the Prime Minister apply the "gag" that he was bragging about? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- I do not think that it would do the honorable member for Parramatta any harm. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- The *Age* made the following comment - > **Mr. McKay,** since the determination has come into force, has indentured a number of apprentices, but apparently he desires facilities for more unrestricted employment of casual labour. **Mr. Ord** stated that the proposal that the rate of pay should be 8s. per day was moved by a representative of the employers, and was only carried, by the casting vote of the Chairman, against a higher rate moved by a representative of the employes. I come now to another phase of this question. **Mr. Porteous** wrote a letter to the editor of the *Age,* which appeared in that journal on11th October, 1904. That letter contained the following statement: - >Considering that the enormous and lucrative trade now carried on in Australia by foreign combines and companies has only been made possible by the untiring efforts of the labour leaders in their interests, the time has come to claim a substantial recompense. A lump sum of say£50,000 down, with an additional yearly contribution of£100,000 to the Labour Party's fighting fund could readily be spared by these beneficent and deserving foreign makers. The money has been faithfully earned. This gentleman, who speaks of bribery as if he had had some experience in connexion with it, was alluding to the action taken by the Labour Party when the Tariff was under consideration. He went on to say - >I feel convinced that these wealthy combines will rise to the occasion, and make due recognition of the invaluable help extended to them by the Labour Party. In reply to this letter, **Senator Higgs** addressed a communication to the editor of the *Age,* which was published in that journal, under the heading of " The Labour Party and Protection," on 12th October, 1 904. He described the letter written by **Mr. Porteous** as an unfair attack upon the Federal Labour Party, and proceeded to give him the following advice : - > **Mr. Porteous** would do better if he directed his guns to that section of the protectionist manufacturers who, while benefiting by protection, are too mean to spend one Denny to circulate the literature that will educate the free-traders of Australia, and make a scientific protectionist Tariff possible - too mean to throw a literary shell amongst those protectionists who, sheltered from the blast of foreign competition, refuse their work people a few rays of sunshine. So much for the attitude of **Mr. H.** V. McKay, who refused to allow the Wages Board to interfere, stating that he must be allowed to conduct his business in his own way. In other words, he believes in free-trade in labour, but asks for protection for himself against foreign competition. At first, he wanted £15 a machine, but now he wants £25. There has already been considerable controversy in regard to the action of the Minister of Trade and Customs in increasing the valuation of imported harvesters to £65. That step should not have been taken without ample justification, and if a mistake has been made, it should be rectified. After exhaustive inquiries, all the members of the Tariff Commission, free-traders and protectionists alike, were convinced that the American machines can be made for £38, and the Australian machines for £41. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- On what evidence was the valuation increased? {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- It seems to have been supplied by an interested party, which should have necessitated corroboration before it was acted upon. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- Was not most of the evidence taken by the Tariff Commission the evidence of interested parties ? {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- No doubt ; but the evidence was given on oath, by a number of witnesses, whereas the Minister acted upon the unsubstantiated statements of an interested person. According to the Commission, of the £81 charged for the locally made harvesters, something like £22 is expended in selling charges, and £18 is profit. The selling charges are ridiculous, and show that the manufacturers have a lot to learn. They should not be allowed to learn at the expense of the farmers. The profit of £18 a machine gives one manufacturer a net income of £30,000. These facts show that the Ministerial proposal cannot face the light of day. To impose a duty of 40 per cent. upon the imported machines, which, according to the Tariff Commission, is what a fixed rate of£16 is equivalent to, is practically to prohibit their importation. The Commission was equally divided as to the course which should be taken in regard to the harvester duty, the free-trade section, consisting of **Senator Clemons,** the honorable members for Perth and Illawarra, and **Mr. Wamsley,** reporting That the facts do not justify the special prominence given to the subject of foreign competition, in respect to stripper-harvesters, nor the alarmist statements made in reference thereto. . That the introduction of stripper-harvesters during the last four years from Canada and America has had the effect of increasing the demand, stimulating the skill and enterprise of Australian manufacturers, and supplementing rather than supplanting local production. That the manufacture within the Commonwealth is rapidly expanding, and that in addition to supplying the larger part of local requirements, a considerable export trade to neutral markets is being profitably carried on. That the conditions of competition in Australia do not necessitate any increased protection to local makers, who are at no disadvantage in regard to cost of manufacture except when their equipments and methods are inadequate. That the evidence does not justify the fears expressed that the local industry will be seriously injured by outside competition unless the present Customs duty is increased. On the contrary, the evidence is clear that Australian manufacturers, by accepting reduced but still ample profits, could secure under the present Tariff a virtual monopoly of the whole trade, the price of the machine to users being much too great in relation to the manufacturing cost. Those were their deliberate conclusions as the result of sifting the facts from an immense mass of evidence. Any business that can show an increase of 300 per cent. in five years cannot be said to be strangled or dying. At any rate, a good many other industries, such as the farming industry, which can derive no benefit whatever from protection, cannot show any corresponding expansion. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr Salmon: -- That refers to only one individual, and not to the industry as a whole. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- If such progress is possible for one firm, I should imagine it is possible for other firms. Of course I admit that there are firms and firms - that there are some which are more progressive and up-to-date than others - but, at any rate, what I have quoted shows what one particular firm has done during a period in which it was supposed to be seriously attacked by outside competition. I propose to stand by the present position, but, failing that, I shall support the proposal of the Tariff Commission as against the proposal of the Government. This is too big a question to be dealt with in a hurried manner at the tail-end of a hurried session, and no harm can be done in allowing the matter to be dealt with by the new Parliament. Dumping has already been provided against by legislation ; and the question of imports does not appear very serious, if we may judge from the fact that during the past six months no machinery of thiskind has been introduced into the Commonwealth. On the contrary, local manufacturers admit a substantial increase in their output during the period in which they claim they were suffering from competition. I trust that the Committee, in its wisdom, will not go any further in protecting this special industry. I propose to give members of the Royal Commission, or honorable members, any assistance in securing that the proposal shall not operate unduly against either consumers or farmers, and that workmen shall receive some benefit from the increased duty. {: #subdebate-12-0-s24 .speaker-KVJ} ##### Mr STORRER:
Bass .- As I shall not vote on this question, I wish to take the present opportunity to intimate that if the motion for a duty of £16 be lost, I shall submit an amendment that the duty be I believe in fair protection, but I feel almost inclined to think, after what I have heard, that it is a crime to be a manufacturer or to be connected with a productive industry of any description. We have heard much of the wrongs that manufacturers are supposed to commit ; but the honorable member for South Sydney was, I thought, very humorous when he referred to the accusations hurled across the chamber, considering that he at the same time was making very strong assertions regarding honorable members who differ from him. There have been many charges of unfairness and injustice, amd even of robbery made against manufacturers. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- And there have been accusations hurled by the honorable member for Canobolas. {: .speaker-KVJ} ##### Mr STORRER: -- The honorable member for Canobolas is not a supporter of mine. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- The honorable member for Canobolas is a supporter of the party of the honorable member for Bass. {: .speaker-KVJ} ##### Mr STORRER: -- I am not a party man, but rather an independent. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Not a party man? The honorable member is the best party hack in the House. {: .speaker-KVJ} ##### Mr STORRER: -- I had intended to reply to the attack made upon me last night by the honorable member for Parramatta, but I am not one who engages in personalities, if I can restrain myself, as some honorable members do not appear to be able to do. The Federal Parliament ought to be above all personalities, and afford an example of how to conduct legislative business. I have some notes here as to points with which I desire to deal, but I have no wish to take up time in view of the fact that -there is a desire to come to a division. Last night something was said to the effect that the manufacture of harvesters would not affect Tasmania. My opinion, however, is that every industry in Australia affects every State - that if £100,000 be spent in manufacturing articles in Melbourne, Tasmania is bound to receive some benefit, because those engaged in the manufacture must require potatoes, apples, and other products. On the other hand, if we have to send our money to Canada or America we are not likely to receive any such benefit. However, at present, I simply desire to indicate the amendment I shall move in a certain contingency. {: #subdebate-12-0-s25 .speaker-KUF} ##### Mr SPENCE:
Darling .- The discussion seems to hinge more on the working of **Mr. McKay's** factory than on the question of strippers and harvesters. I think that after a couple of days and nights spent in this debate, there has been about enough expenditure on even the discussion, not to mention the money expended in - making the Tariff inquiry. I should say that the farmers of ten years hence will regard us people of 1906 as having been very foolish. In Victoria it has already been proved that the Government can construct the most complex machinery in the shape of rolling stock, and those of the future will wonder why we were not wise enough to undertake the manufacture of harvesters. On the one hand, it has been stated that a great deal of sweating is carried on in connexion with the industry. We have been told, for example, that men who have been working at the trade for seven years are not paid even a living wage. On the other hand, it is stated that the farmers are paying £40 or ^50 in excess of the legitimate value of the machines. The farmers, by contributing £5 each, could start a co-operative concern and make their own machines, or the State could undertake the work of supplying their requirements. What would be easier than to start an agricultural machinery branch at the Newport Workshops? Of course, I know that the farmers would be told that such an enterprise would savour too much of Socialism, and possibly they would be frightened bv that bogy. It has been shown that there is an immense amount of waste in connexion with the present system for supplying the requirements of the farmers, and I trust that those most directly interested will be prompted to apply the obvious remedy. We are told that the selling expenses amount to about £20 per machine. A large proportion of this amount must be spent in advertising,^ for which the farmer has to pay. If the farmers could by means of a cooperative enterprise manufacture their own machines they would be able to save all this outlay. I recognise that the ideas to which I have given expression will take some time to sink deeply into the minds of those immediately concerned. The inevitable evolution will have to. take place before any practical result is attained. I do not wish to see any local industry crushed by foreign competition, and although I consider that the Government propose to impose too high a duty, I am perfectly willing to afford the local manufacturer an opportunity of securing the home market. I think that the 25 per cent, *ad valorem* duty recommended by the protectionist members of the Tariff Commission should be sufficient to achieve the object aimed at, and I am prepared to grant that measure of protection. If we impose a duty of 25 per cent, it will be impossible for foreign manufacturers to compete upon fair competitive lines with the local manufacturers, and if any dumping is attempted the provisions of the Australian Industries Preservation Bill will operate to protect the local manufacturers. In view of the fact that the machines cannot be landed here from abroad at a cost of less than £65, and that similar machines can be produced in the Commonwealth for £40, the foreign competitor would appear to have no chance under the proposed new conditions. I shall support the proposals of the honorable member for Wide Bay, which are intended to protect the workmen engaged in the industry, and I trust that as what may be termed the new protective policy is extended the workmen in all other industries will be similarly safeguarded. {: #subdebate-12-0-s26 .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS:
Dalley .- To my mind, the honorable member for Darling has put the position in a nutshell. Either there should be voluntary co-operation on the part of the farmers, with a view to manufacturing stripper-harvesters for themselves, or a strong case has been made out for the nationalization of the industry. From the evidence which has been presented, I am certainly of opinion that the firms which are engaged in the manufacture of harvesters have been blackmailing the public. In this connexion we must recollect that the stripper-harvester is effectually protected from the operation of dumping. Up to the 31st May last I find that during the present year no machines have been imported into the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-JZF} ##### Mr Fuller: -- Let us take a division. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- The honorable and learned member forgets that he himself occupied a considerable time yesterday in defending the recommendation of the freetrade members of the Tariff Commission. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- How long is the honorable member likely to occupy? {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- Not half so long as the honorable member occupied in defending **Mr, McKay,** and about half the time that he .occupied in climbing down from the position which he had taken up when the honorable member for Wide Bay attacked him. The free trade members of the Tariff Commission summed up the position in reference tb the duty upon harvesters in .bout seven paragraphs. They found no evidence to justify the imposition of a higher rate of duty. The protectionist section of the Commission, upon the other hand, occupied several pages in urging excuses for their action, and finally recommended the imposition of an *ad valorem* duty of 25 per cent. I was, indeed, surprised to learn that the Chairman of that body was prepared to recede from the position which he originally took up, and to accept, in lieu of an *ad valorem* duty, a specific duty of *£10* per machine. The whole of the fight upon the Government proposals has centred around the question of the valuation of the stripperharvester for Customs purposes. The Minister declares that -£65 represents its fair invoice value, whereas both sections of the Tariff Commission affirm that its proper value for Customs purposes is *£,4*.* Personally I am prepared to accept the statement of the Commission. The honorable member for Wide Bay has submitted an amendment, which the Ministry are evidently prepared to agree to. Apparently thev are willing to climb down from the position which they formerly took up, and to allow the Law Courts to determine the true valuation of these machines. I am sorry indeed that it has been thought necessary to insist upon firms like that of **Mr. McKay** complying with reasonable conditions so far as their employes are con cerned. I have no desire to get into the bad graces of honorable members bv trespassing longer upon their patience at this hour of the morning. As a free-trader, I shall support the rate of duty which was imposed bv the first Commonwealth Parliament. The industry is in a flourishing condition, and there is no necessity whatever for any increased duty. I shall support the proposal to impose an *ad valorem* duty of 25 per cent, upon stripper-harvesters, with the intention of moving at a later stage to restore the original duty of 12 per cent. I have no particular interest to defend, but I do maintain that it is unfair to protectionists that the iron trade should be dealt with in this piecemeal fashion. If I were a protectionist I certainly should insist that the duties upon harvesters, metals, and machinery should be dealt with by the same Parliament. I think that the Government would be well advised, as protectionists, if they stayed their hands until they could deal with the whole question of metals and machinery, including, of course, agricultural, ^implements. The iron-workers in the large industries of New South Wales will naturally complain when they see that special efforts are being made to protect, the agricultural implement makers, whilst nothing is being done for them. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: -- The harvester matter was considered to be the most urgent and important. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- I am not complaining of the action of the Royal Commission. They no doubt have furnished reports as they got them ready. But is it not a significant fact that this "most urgent" industry is once more a Victorian industry ? I do not. object to Victorian industries getting a share of the Tariff benefits, but I submit that the representatives of the other States would be open to blame i'f they did not draw attention to the remarkable circumstance that the languishing industries of Victoria are considered to be in pressing need, whilst the industries of other States are not dealt with at all. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr Salmon: -- Would not the honorable member object to our dealing with them without reports from the Tariff Commission? {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- It is an open secret that the protectionist section of the Commission has practically decided upon its report regarding metals and machinery. Is not that so? {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: -- Yes. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- The honorable and learned member for Bendigo confirms my statement. It simply remains for the freetrade members of the Commission to supply their report. But what I complain of is that the iron trades generally are being unfairly treated when, whilst one particular industry is singled out for special treatment, they are neglected. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: -- Probably the report on metals and machinery will be before honorable members either to-morrow or next Tuesday. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- Can we believe that the Government will attempt to deal with the report on metals and machinery during this Parliament? Without canvassing the position from a party stand-point, I again draw the attention of Ministers to the manifest unfairness of neglecting large industries such as we have in New South Wales. I deeply regret that the Minister of Trade and Customs said to-day that witnesses before the Tariff Commission were bullied and threatened. I was very pleased to hear the Chairman defend his colleagues. When witnesses came before the Commission with requests from which they expected to derive gain at the public expense, it was not to be expected that they would be so sugar-coated as to be unable to submit to a proper examination. People who ask for State assistance by means of increased duties ought to be able to stand questioning. I may state frankly, as a free-trader, that if these witnesses had shown by their evidence that they were being treated unfairly under the Tariff, and that there were anomalies, I should be prepared to listen to their complaints. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- But is the honorable member a free-trader any longer? {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- I say, again, in answer to the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, that while I consider that it is the lowest and most despicable thing in politics to look for loot from the public, still, if that is to be the policy of Australia, I am not going to be foolish enough to stand aside and see industries in my electorate suffer without making an effort on their behalf. My experience in this Parliament shows me that in the opinion of too many protectionists it is only the industries of Victoria that are to be looked after, whilst those of Australia generally may "go to pot." While I do not believe in the principle of taxing the people for the benefit of private interests, I certainly do say that if protection is to be the fixed policy of Australia 1 am going to take my share in putting in claims, though I regret that politics in this country should have come down to this level. Returning to the matter of harvesters, the position in regard to them is very much like that with respect to sewing machines, which are produced for £4, whilst the user has to pay £15. Apparently the samepractice is in vogue in regard to harvesters. No one can contend that 25s. a week is a fair wage for a journeyman, to say nothing, of an improver. It is only sufficient for an apprentice. If a duty of 25 per cent. be imposed, I shall vote on every occasion for the workers in the industry getting their fair share of the protection thus afforded. The McKays are doing remarkably well as it is, and I do not see why the Parliament should make a further gift to them. I regret the bad treatment which kindred trades have received from the Government, and I did expect that some protectionist members would rise to say a few words on their behalf. I protest against the neglect of other industries while a small industry like that of agricultural implement making in Victoria is receiving this attention. {: #subdebate-12-0-s27 .speaker-JR7} ##### Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
Barker -- At this late hour I am not going to detain the Committee. I rise merely to explain that I am not prepared to follow the Government in imposing a duty of £16 per machine ; but I am quite ready to give the harvester manufacturers a protection of 25 per cent. The whole question turns of course upon the valuation. In my opinion, £65 is an excessive valuation. I am disposed to believe that the South Australian manufacturer who put the value down at about £40 gave a fair estimate. But out of consideration for the Ministry, and as a loyal Ministerialist, I am prepared to stretch a point and to vote for a fixed duty of £12. Amendment negatived. {: #subdebate-12-0-s28 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- - I understood that the amendment of which the honorable member for Wide Bay gave notice was to be moved at this stage. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I have seen the amendment on the contingent notice-paper ; but it has not been, moved. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- If it is not going to be moved it is all right. I move - >That the following words be added to the item " Stripper-harvesters *£16 "* : - " and on and after 7th September, 1906, 121/2 per cent. *ad valorem."* {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- On a point of order, sir, if you accept the amendment of the honorable member for Parramatta, and it is rejected, will it then be possible for honorable members to move for the imposition of higher duties until the proposed duty of £16 is reached? {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- I think that if the Committee reject an amendment that on and after the 7th September the duty shall be 121/2 per cent., an honorable member can then move that on and after the 8th September it shall be 15 per cent., and soon. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- If the amendment of the . honorable member for Parramatta be defeated, it will be competent for an honorable member to move for the imposition of any duty which he may think proper, either higher or lower than 121/2 per cent. That is the practice which was followed when the Tariff was being considered. {: #subdebate-12-0-s29 .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON:
Grey .- I understood that the honorable member for Boothby was to move the amendment of which the honorable member for Wide Bay gave notice. If it is in order, sir, I shall move the amendment. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- As I have not yet put the amendment of the honorable member for Parramatta from the Chair, the honorable member will be quite in order in moving the amendment to which he refers. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I would prefer the honorable member to move the amendment at the end of the motion. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- Very well. Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted - put. The Committee divided. AYES: 12 NOES: 32 Majority ... ... 20 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Amendment (by **Sir John** Quick) proposed - That the following words be added to the item " Stripper harvesters £16 " : - " and on and after 7th September, 1906, 25 per cent. *ad valorem."* {: #subdebate-12-0-s30 .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY:
Moira -- I do not wish to protract the debate-- {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The whole matter is open to discussion, and I desire an explanation of this proposal. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- I do not wish to express an opinion as to the rights of any honorable member. What I desire to know is whether this amendment, if carried) will determine the question of whether a fixed or an *ad valorem* duty shall be imposed ? {: #subdebate-12-0-s31 .speaker-JR7} ##### Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
Barker -- I wish to know, **Mr. Chairman,** whether I shall be in orderin moving, after this amendment has been disposed of, that on and after the 7 th instant, the duty be £12? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- If the amendment moved by the honorable and learned member for Bendigo be carried, it will not be competent for the honorable member for Barker to move that which he has indicated. If, on the other hand the amendment now before the Chair be negatived, he will be able to submit it. {: .speaker-JR7} ##### Sir LANGDON BONYTHON: -- Would it not be better to allow my amendment to be first submitted to the decision of the Committee ? {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: -- Certainly not. {: #subdebate-12-0-s32 .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr THOMAS:
Barrier .- We have had a lengthy debate on the question of whether the cost of the imported harvester in the country of origin is £65 or £38. I voted against the last amendment because I was following the lead of the Chairman of the Tariff Commission, who, I understood, intended to propose that a fixed duty of £10 - which I was led to believe was equivalent to a duty of 25 per cent. on a valuation of £38 - should be imposed. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- They will not be made here for £38. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr THOMAS: -- Who is to determine the valuation ? If the decision is to rest with the Minister, then an *ad valorem* duty of 25 per cent. will mean whatever he chooses to make it. The honorable gentleman has valued these machines for Customs purposes at . £65, but has given the Committee no proof that that valuation is correct. I thought that the honorable and learned member for Bendigo was going to move for a fixed duty of £10 per machine. If we agree to an *ad valorem* duty of 25 per cent., and the Minister insists upon a valuation of £65, the rate charged will be really 40 per cent. on what the Tariff Commission says is the cost price. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928 -- The Minister cannot do that after the evidence which has been published. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr THOMAS: -- But he is doing it. I think that we should have some explanation from the honorable and learned member for Bendigo. Some of us have already voted under a misapprehension. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Is the honorable member going to follow the protectionist members of the Tariff Commission ? {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr THOMAS: -- Yes, when it suits me to do so. {: #subdebate-12-0-s33 .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo .- At the beginning of the discussion I intimated that I intended to propose a fixed duty of £10 per machine, which would be equivalent to an *ad valorem* duty of 25 per cent. on the factory price of £38 ; but, as the honorable members for Echuca and Corinella and others said they would prefer an *ad valorem* rate, I yielded to their suggestion. I admit that there is more certainty about the fixed rate ; but the proposal now before the Committee will carry out the recommendation of the Tariff Commission, and I am not wedded to either form of duty. I intend, however, that the proposed *ad valorem* duty shall be levied on a factory price of £38, plus the statutory 10 per cent. increase. Litigation is at present pending in the Law Courts for the purpose of determining the value of the imported machines. Mr.McCay. - The Minister ought to undertake to abide by the decision of the Court. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- I apprehend that it will be binding upon him, and that he will refuse to abide by it at the peril of his office. If I thought that the proposed *ad valorem* duty would not be levied on the valuation which I have mentioned, I would insist on a fixed duty ; but I assumethat the evidence is so overwhelming that no Minister would dare to fix the valuation at £65. {: #subdebate-12-0-s34 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- It is useless for honorable members to shelter themselves behind the plea that the Court will fix the valuation. The Minister is the man who will do that. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- The Opposition should have moved a motion of want of confidence in the Government if they thought that the Minister's action was wrong. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I agree with the honorable member. We refrained from doing so because of the uselessness of the proceeding. The Committee believes now that the value of the imported machines in Canada is £38. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The Committee does not believe that. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- To test the matter, I move - >That the amendment be amended by adding the words, " On a basis of£41 value." {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I suggest that the honorable member should not move that amendment until the honorable member for Barker has been given an opportunity to test his proposal to make the duty *£12.* {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- If the amendment of the honorable member for Parramatta is carried, the amendment of the honorable member for Bendigo as amended will be put, and if rejected, the honorable member for Barker can then move his amendment. On the other hand, if the amendment of the honorable member for Parramatta is negatived, the amendment of the honorable and learned member for Bendigo will be put, and, if negatived, the honorable member for Barker will still have his opportunity. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- I wish to call attention to the fact that the honorable member for Barker rose and had commenced to move his amendment when he was interrupted, and gave way to other honorable members. He is therefore clearly entitled to move his amendment first, if he so desires. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- It has "been the practice throughout this discussion to permit the lower duty to be voted on first. Practically the duty will be the same whether the. amendment of the honorable member for Barker, or the two amendments which are now before the Chair are carried. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- Do I understand that the amendment of the honorable member for Parramatta is open to discussion? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Yes; I was about to reply to the honorable member; for Corinella, who stated that in the event of the amendment before us being rejected, it would be competent for the honorable member for Barker to still submit his amendment. The amendment proposed by the honorable member for Parramatta is an amendment on the amendment proposed by the honorable and learned member for Bendigo; so that in the event I have indicated, it will be still competent for the honorable member^" for Barker to submit his proposal. {: #subdebate-12-0-s35 .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON:
Bland -- I hope the Committee will not take such an unwise action as to tie the hands of this Committee or the Customs Department for many years ahead. In any case, the valuation of stripper-harvesters varies, in common with the valuation of every other kind of commodity, from year to year, according to circumstances and the cost of production. To adopt the proposal of the honorable member for Parramatta would mean that we fix what the valuation of stripper-harvesters is to be; and that seems to me to be absolutely ridiculous. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- There has been a Commission to fix the valuation as a matter of evidence. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Even if a Commission reported to-morrow that the valuation was *£65* in Canada, that would not settle the valuation for the following year. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- Does anybody believe the evidence that the valuation is ^65 in Canada ? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I have not the remotest idea of what the value of a stripper-harvester is in Canada, and I do not believe that any one in this House, not even the members of the Tariff Commission, 'have any idea. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr Brown: -- Does the honorable member think that it is a higher value than in Australia ? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I do not suppose that it is, but it is hard to ascertain. The manufacturers in Canada can consign their goods from their factory to their agents here, and, as it were, sell to themselves, so that it is not a transaction in ordinary business that can be examined. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I am quite prepared to meet the honorable member on that point, and to add the words " until the Court has decided the value." {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- That is a very ingenious suggestion ; but the honorable member for farramatta ought to. be aware that there is no provision in the Customs Act for a Court fixing the values, of articles proposed to be imported. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I thought there was. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Not at all. {: .speaker-L0R} ##### Mr Lee: -- Why is a case before the Court now? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I am not prepared to say why a case has been taken before the Court. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- In order to expose the dishonesty of the Minister. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I wish to say that if the honorable member for Werriwa were honest he would not, in this way, charge the Minister with dishonesty. It is most outrageous on the part of the honorable member. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order. I have repeatedly called the honorable member for Werriwa to order, and he has disregarded the authority of the Chair. I must ask the honorable member to apologise to the Committee, and to cease his interjections. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- I must admit, of course, that conduct like this is not parliamentary ; but we must remember that, after all, there is a good deal of excitement over this matter, and some of us believe there has been a swindle. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order ; the honorable member must withdraw and apologise to the Committee. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- T apologise to the Com,mittee for my interjection just now. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member must withdraw the statement he has made in reference to the Minister of Trade and Customs. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- I feel that I would rather go out of the House. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Will the honorable member withdraw it? {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- Well, I withdraw it. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I wish to say emphatically that if the honorable member for Werriwa has any charge against the Minister of Trade and Customs, or any other Minister, it is his duty to make that charge on the floor of the House, in clear and distinct language, so that the charge may be investigated and proved or disproved. That is the fair and honest thing to do. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I rise to a point of order. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I am sick of these insinuations ! {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I rise to a point of order. It is a rule of Parliament that an honorable member may not refer to a statement that has been withdrawn, and I object to the honorable member for Bland pursuing this line of argument. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I was not referring merely to the statement made by the honorable and learned member for Werriwa a moment or two ago, but to the continual references and insinuations of that honorable member. If the honorable and learned member has any charge to make, it is his duty to lay the evidence in support of it before Parliament and the country. If the honorable member has no evidence, he ought tobe manly enough to make no charge. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- I desire to have your ruling, **Mr. Chairman,** as to whether the honorable member for Bland is doing right in pursuing this matter after the remark has been withdrawn and an apology made? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I understand that the honorable member for Bland is referring to some other statement which I did not hear. If the honorable member for Bland has heard such a statement, he has a perfect right to refer to it. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- This arises out of an episode earlier in the evening. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I was not referring to the interjection of the honorable and learned member for Werriwa a few moments ago. The honorable member can take an opportunity to make any charge he thinks necessary. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- Is the Minister of Trade and Customs not quite capable of defending himself? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- That is for the Minister of Trade and Customs to decide. I am now speaking as an individual, and I say-- {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I rise to a point of order. I submit that the honorable member for Bland is not now discussing the question before the Chair, and I ask that he be directed to do so. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I ask the honorable member for Bland to direct his attention to the question before the Chair. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- That, I admit, is a valid point of order. What I was urging was that it would be altogether unwise to tie the hands of the Customs Department as to the valuation to be placed upon harvesters, or any other commodity which it was sought to import. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- There is the fixed duty. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The fixed duty is quite another matter, with which I shall deal in a moment. I am now referring to the fixing of the value of a commodity for the purpose of imposing an *ad valorem* duty. We might as well fix a value for boots and shoes, or any other commodity which is imported. I point out to the honorable member for Parramatta, and other honorable members who may dissent from the decision of the Minister in regard to the valuation of harvesters, that there is a parliamentary way of calling to account any Minister who errs, or makes an improper charge. There is always the opportunity to challenge his position in the House. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- Under Cabinet rule, we have to put up with the Minister of Trade and Customs. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Some day, when the honorable member for South Sydney is in the Ministry, he may hear it said that Parliament has to put up with him, and suffer some of his ideas. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- Parliament would be putting up with an honest man, anyhow. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- And I am happy to believe that no honorable member is todayasked to put up with any one who is dishonest. I do not know that we need pay much attention to those who protest too much. With regard to the amendment, I think that it is a very great mistake indeed for us to lay down the value of any imported article. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- How can we impose a proper duty unless we have a value to base it upon? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The honorable member exhausted his eloquence in attempting to prove that a fixed duty was an improper thing. I do not agree with him. I believe in a fixed duty where the range of values is not so great as to lead to enormous differences. The experience of the world in Customs matters is that it is wisest, in the interests of the revenue and of commerce, to impose a fixed duty, if it is at all practicable. Under the present proposal, the duty would be fixed, but in a round-about way which I regard as altogether objectionable. If a fixed duty is imposed the manufacturer or importer will have a fair idea of the terms upon which he is competing. He will know that his competitor cannot get ahead of him by resorting to faked invoices - and such things are not unknown in the commercial world. If the honorable member for Parramatta would ask the importers of Sydney, I am sure that they would tell him that, where the range of values is not too great, they would prefer to have a fixed duty. The honorable and learned member for Bendigo indicates that the protectionist members of the Commission recommended a 25 per cent, *ad valorem* duty upon the understanding that the basis of value would be ,£38 or ,£41. But the report does not seem to bear that interpretation. It says - if the duty be raised from 12^ to 25 per cent. *ad valorem* on the invoice value of stripperharvesters, then an invoice value of ^38 odd will yield a duty of ;£io os. 2d. ; that if the present valuation for duty fixed by the Minister of Customs at ^65 be sustained, which now yields a duty of £8 2s. 6d., this at 25 per cent, will give ^16 5s. per machine. There is no indication from the protectionist members of the Commission as to which of these two values should be adopted. {: .speaker-KQ4} ##### Mr McColl: -- That was because the matter was in suspense. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I do not blame the members of ' the Commission for that. I understood the honorable and learned member for Bendigo to be speaking with authority on behalf of the other protectionist members of the Commission as well as himself, but their report leaves open the question as to the value upon which the proposed dutv of 25 per cent, should be levied. Therefore, we are at liberty to assume that they are not unanimous, and do not all agree with the honorable and learned member for Bendigo. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- I know that they are not unanimous. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I question very much if some members of the Commission would agree to the imposition of a duty which would amount, according to the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, to an addition of only *£2* to the amount levied at present. I would ask honorable members who are protectionists to consider the position. The honorable and learned member for Bendigo says that the industry is in danger, and that 'the duty upon the imported article must be materially increased. Then he proposes to increase, the duty from *£8* to *£10.* I ask what kind of treatment that is for a protectionist like himself to ladle out to an industry which, upon his own showing, is in danger. For the last twelve months a duty of *£10* has been levied. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: -- No; the duty levied has been *£8,* and that has been based upon the Minister's arbitrary valuation. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- During the time that the report of the Commission was in course of preparation, and at the time that it was signed, the duty of *£8* was being collected, and yet, while that duty was in existence, the honorable member said that the industry was in danger. Now he is prepared to add only *£2* to the duty. The industry is in danger whilst an *£8* duty is being levied, whereas a duty pf .£10 will save it. That is the kind of recommendation we get from the honorable and learned member. {: .speaker-KQ4} ##### Mr McColl: -- That is humbug. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The honorable member ought to be a judge of humbug. If the industry is in danger whilst a duty of *£8* is being collected, there is surely necessity for an increase of more than *£2.* I am prepared to vote for a duty of .£16 or of any lesser amount, so far as this industry is concerned. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- Hear, hear. That is protection. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- It is not the moderate protection of which the honorable member has boasted. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- That will not suit South Sydney. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I am willing to take my chance of that. In view of the attacks to which this industry has been sub- jected from outside the Commonwealth, it is worth our while to render it secure against the unfair competition of manufacturers in other parts of the world. The talk to which we have listened for some time past as to the injury that would be done to the farmer 'by an increase of duties, comes from men who contemplated with absolute equanimity the robbery of our producers by the importers' ring. They never attempted to take any action to safeguard the farmer against the machinations of the importers. I do not see that any injury will be inflicted upon the farmer by an increased duty upon harvesters or agricultural machinery, so long as we take steps to insure that the prices to the consumer are not increased. In this instance we are taking precautions in that direction. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- Does the honorable member think that £65 is a fair valuation for stripper harvesters? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I think that it is a fair valuation for machines that have been sold until recently for £81. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- Up to *£90-* {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- That was a little time ago. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- The report of the Tariff Commission shows that they have been sold for £63. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- If that be so, it indicates the length to which competitors from America will go in their endeavour to crush the Australian industry. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- It was Martin and Company's machines that were sold for that price. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I do not know upon what evidence that statement is made. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- The honorable member has not read the report. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I have read the report. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- It is contained in the report. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- That does not make it gospel. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- It shows that the honorable member does not know what he is talking about. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The honorable member may be a Pooh-Bah or the Lord High Executioner, but the fact that a statement is contained in a report does not make it accurate. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- It is embodied in the evidence given before the Commission. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I have heard wiser men than the honorable member doubt the accuracy of evidence. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- The honorable member does not know what he is talking about. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- If it will satisfy the honorable member, I am prepared to admit it. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr Henry Willis: -- Then the honorable member should sit down, and let somebody else talk. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I must ask the Committee to assist me in preserving order. If honorable members will insist upon continually interrupting the honorable member who is addressing the Chair, it is impossible to maintain order. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- In my view, the farm ing community need apprehend no danger from the imposition of a duty of *£10, £15, £20,* or £25 upon stripperharvesters, so long as steps are taken to insure that the locally-manufactured machines are sold at a reasonable price. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- That condition is not embodied in the resolution. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- But it will be embodied in the Bill, and if it were not, I would not be prepared to support as high a duty as I otherwise would. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I stated when I introduced the resolution that it would be embodied in the Bill. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Exactly. I am quite prepared to admit that it is not wise to impose a duty the operation of which will create a local monopoly unless we take steps toregulate that monopoly, and, if necessary, to dispossess its holders in the interests of the consumer. Here it is proposed to take steps, not only to insure thai the wage earners in the industry shall beprotected, but that the consumers shall be safeguarded against any possibility of robbery at the hands of either a local or an outside trust. I understand that the duty which it is proposed to levy upon stripperharvesters will be withdrawn if within fifteen months the price of those machines be not reduced to *£65.* {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- £70. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- The honorable member and those who are with him in this matter should hold a meeting to decide as to which is the correct price. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The honorable member must recollect that it is a quarter to5 o'clock in the morning. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- But we require to know what we are voting upon. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The price of the machines' must be reduced to £65 within fifteen months, or the duty will be withdrawn. With that safeguard it seems to me that no danger need be apprehended by the farmers. In conclusion, I trust that the Committee will hesitate before committing itself to the very round-about method of converting a fixed duty into an *ad valorem* rate. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I have already told the honorable member that we can solve that difficulty very quickly. Let the Court fix the value of the machines for Customs purposes. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Is it not simpler to say that the duty shall be so much per machine? Let us vote either for or against that proposal, and then the traders will know exactly where they are in reference to the importation of these harvesters. It seems to me highly desirable that, above all things, we should have clearness, and that can best be secured by the imposition of a fixed duty. {: #subdebate-12-0-s36 .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY:
Corinella .- As between the imposition of a fixed duty and the round-about method proposed by the honorable member for Parramatta, I have no hesitation in indorsing the view of the honorable member for Bland. I hold that an *ad valorem* duty based upon a fixed value would simply pre-judge the very question that the imposition of an *ad valorem* duty is supposed to leave open. I am aware that objections can be urged against *ad valorem* duties which cannot be urged against fixed duties, but, as I remarked some hours ago, our difficulty is that we do not know what is the real dutiable value of these machines, and consequently we are unable to say what the specific duty should be. All! parties were agreed last evening that a specific duty based upon the principle of a 25 per cent. *ad valorem* rate should be imposed. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- How ? {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- All who were in favour of increasing the duty were agreed upon that point. The Minister of Trade and Customs himself said that the Government proposal was based upon the imposition of a 25 per cent. *ad valorem* rate upon what they regarded as the proper valuation of these machines. I urged that because we did not know what was their fair dutiable value we were not able to translate the inconvenient *ad valorem* rate into the convenient fixed rate. While the honorable member for Bland was speaking upon the amendment proposed by the deputy leader of the Opposition, the Attorney -General interjected that the Courts were at present engaged in investigating the question of what is the proper dutiable value of these machines - that a Commission has been issued by the Supreme Court to ascertain that value. I wish to know whether it is a fact that an appeal against that Commission is now pending? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- No. There was an appeal to the Full Court from the decision of a single Justice. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- Has that appeal been dealt with? " . {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- Has it been allowed? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- No. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- Do the Government intend to appeal from that decision to the High Court? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- Not from that decision. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- Then the Commission is going to Canada to investigate the actual dutiable value of these machines? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- It is going somewhere. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- We cannot say what the evidence taken upon commission will show to be the true dutiable value of the machines. I say frankly that I do not believe that the Commission will say that £65 is a fair valuation. I do believe that it will say that something between £38 and £48 is fair. But we are not in a position to decide. If we establish a fixed duty, we are guessing at the value - the very thing that this Commission is going abroad determine. What I want to know from the Minister is this: When that Commission comes back from Canada or the United States, it may be that the case will not turn upon that point after all. I wish to know, whether the case turns upon the evidence obtained by that Commission or not, does the Government intend to accept the results ascertained by the Commission? Assuming that it has the power to fix the value at what it likes, does the Government intend to accept that finding as evidence of the dutiable value of the article? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- No Government would bind itself to accept the finding of any legal Commission. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- If the Commission finds, and the Court even finds, that the dutiable value is, we will say, £44, but if the Court also finds that the Government has a right to fix it at?65, does the Government reserve to itself the right to retain the value at ?65 ? I think that that is a fair question, and that the courtesy of an answer is due to me. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- It would be positively dishonest on the part of any Government to do that. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- My vote upon this matter may turn upon that question, and therefore I am entitled to. ask the Minister for information. If the Prime Minister thinks that I am asking anything that is unfair I will stop at once. {: #subdebate-12-0-s37 .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist -- - The Commission, as the honorable member knows, can have no definite result. It will simply take evidence. That evidence may or may not be conclusive. In this matter there will probably be a margin of difference. That margin may be unimportant, or it may be grave and serious. No Government - indeed, I would say no sensible man - to be bound! by his words hereafter would pledge himself in advance to accept the findings of such a Commission. The Government will exercise the same independent judgment as any man would exercise on such a question. The evidence will be before the public, and it will be before the representatives of the public in this House. They will have an opportunity of judging the Government, who will do what, under their responsibility, they believe to be in the public interest. {: #subdebate-12-0-s38 .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY:
Corinella .- That is not the information which I desired to obtain. I will explain my point again. The Postmaster- General may laugh, but I can assure him that I am earnest in wishing to find out the exact position, and that I shall givemy vote accordingly. What I wish to get at is this : What I understand from the Prime Minister is that the Government reserves to itself the right - assuming that it has the legal power to do so if the matter in question is decided in its favour - to maintain the valuation at ?65, even although the evidence taken on commission shows that ?65 is too high. Of course, there may be conflicting views. But suppose that the evidence shows conclusively that the valuation is between ?45 and ?55, to take a specific case. If the reasonable conclusion from evidence is that the value is below ?65, does the Government mean that it reserves to itself the right still to keep the valuation at a figure which the evidence does not justify, or does the Government mean that if the evidence enables it to come to a reasonable conclusion, it will accept that conclusion? Does the Government intend *bona fide* to follow the evidence if the evidence is clear enough to be followed ? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Is the honorable member referring to the future and to the past, or to the future only, and not to the past? {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- What will happen when the evidence on Commission becomes known ? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- Does the honorable member mean the effect on the case, or on (he future duty ? {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- On the future duty, of course. {: #subdebate-12-0-s39 .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat, Minister of External Affairs · Protectionist -- - As I have said - and it is not a quibble - it is a question of margin. The duty has been fixed on a valuation of ?65. If it is shown by the evidence that the valuation for duly should be between ?60 and ?65, we might retain the valuation at ?65. Under the Act, as I read it. the Government would be entitled to take that view if it considered that the valuation of ?55 was artificial, and not the real value. The intention of the Act is that the duty shall be imposed upon the real value of an article. It is intended to guard against the tricks of trade. The Government will have to take full responsibility for the exercise of its powers in this regard. If there should be any departure from what ought to be done the House will deal with it. {: #subdebate-12-0-s40 .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY:
Corinella .- The position put by the Government is that, assuming that the evidence enables the Government to form a reasonable conclusion on facts as to what the real value is - whether it is ?65 or ?40, or anything between - the Government will deal with it accordingly. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Certainly ; any Government must. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I say, on the face of that, that if the value as ascertained is to be taken as the basis, then, assuming that there is a legal power to exercise the authority, I am satisfied to accept the 25 per cent. basis. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- I am not. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- Of course the honorable member's fiscal views and mine are not in accord. But it is because the matter is in a state of flux that I shrink from fixing the duty now. I think that the 25 per cent. basis is, on the whole, a liberal basis. It is a fair basis under the special circumstances of this case. I do not want to see the duty fixed at £10 if the real value is more than £40, and I do not want to see the duty fixed at £16 if the real value is between £44 and £65. The 25 per cent. duty might be imposed on the definite understanding that the dutiable value is to be honestly fixed in accordance with the evidence. It is because we do not know what the fixed duty ought to be, and because we really always ascertain it by some reference to the dutiable value that I shrink from a fixed duty now ; and I was hoping that the Government would tide us over this coming season at any rate. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- In what way? {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- By imposing an *advalorem* duty. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- We might take the *ad valorem* duty at the present valuation. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I say this frankly, that there is no evidence to justify a valuation of £65 now. As I have put my views frankly against those of the importers I want frankly to put the view on the other side. I think that the weight of evidence is against the £65 valuation. That is a limit that no one expects that we shall reach by means of evidence. I did expect that the Government would refix the value. I have looked through the Commission's report and the evidence. That evidence comes largely from a quarter which is interested. It is evidence which is largely unchecked because there is no opportunity of checking it. {: .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr Conroy: -- The manufacturing price of the Australian machines can be ascertained, and the importers say that theirs can be made more cheaply. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- The evidence as to the cost of production here is very vague, although it points in. the direction of a value a little under £40 in each case. But I do not think it is conclusive, and, therefore, I do not wish to be bound by it. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- Should not the Committee have a reasonable idea from the manufacturers as to the cost of building a harvester ? {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- In my opinion, the silence of the manufacturers or of the importers would entitle us to draw the inference against them. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- The information was tendered confidentially to the Tariff Commission, and they got it. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- The publication of the information to the whole world could not have hurt the business of the manufacturers, so far as the rivalry was concerned. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- Yes, it could. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- It is impossible to suggest a reason why either importers or local manufacturers could have suffered by disclosing the cost of production, so far as the rivalry between two sets of makers was concerned. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- The information was given to the Commission, and put in. {: .speaker-JZF} ##### Mr Fuller: -- - It was never handed in to the Commission. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- It was offered. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I defy any one to point to a single reason in this case why either importers or manufacturers could have been hurt by stating the cost of production. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- A man does not give the secrets of his business away to his rivals. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- In this case the only thing which could have been given away was the amount of profit, because the manufacturers had given away nearly everything except the cost of production. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- Why was not the offer accepted? {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- Surely at this hour the honorable member does not want me to go into a matter of that kind ! In my opinion the Government should say to the Committee that while they think that £38 is too low a value, they consider that£65 is too high, and do not propose to retain the proposed duty of 25 per cent. on the latter basis. For the present an intermediate amount should be fixed upon, and then the true value could be fixed when we had final information to guide us to a determination. {: #subdebate-12-0-s41 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- - I have listened very carefully to-night to all the speeches, and marvelled that honorable members should have forgotten the statement I made about a year ago, when this matter was before the House, I forget under what conditions. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- On a motion for the adjournment of the House. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- In my speech, which may be seen in *Hansard,* I clearly stated the course of action, and why it was taken. When honorable members state that I have not given any information, they ignore what took place on that occasion if on no other. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr McWilliams: -- Was that in reference to the letter from Italy? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I do not remember whether the document was among the papers on that occasion, but probably it was. When I learned that it was a copy, I compelled the production of the original letter ; but that was only one factor in the matter. I am very much surprised indeed at the action taken by the honorable and learned member for Bendigo. I think it will tend very much to influence the hearing of the cases which are now before the Court. If he will only look at the evidence taken by the Tariff Commission, he will find that a valuation of £59 or £60 was given. Honorable members seem to forget that, under the' Customs Act, the Minister has to consider, not only the cost of making a harvester, but all incidental cost until it is placed on board. That is where the whole trouble commences. Mr.Johnson. - The f.o.b. value is £38. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- The f.o.b. value was the value after deducting all expenses from the factory to the ship. What was carried on? I found out that there was a certain value givenfor the harvesters, 'and that the railway company, and every one connected with the business, were all receiving a part of the rebates. To prevent a continuance of that practice, I did what I was authorized by law to do. I added the full cost of railway freight, commission, and everything up to the point of the article being free on board. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr Brown: -- Yet the local manufacturers of harvesters say that there is no protection against outside competition. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- That is a matter which is arguable. I am not dealing now with that point, but with the question as to how the value was raised according to law. Section 154 of the Customs Act says that - >The value shall be taken to be the fair market value of the goods in the principal markets of the country whence the same were exported in the usual and ordinary acceptation of the term, and free on board at the port of export in such country, and a further addition of 10 per cent. on such market value. If the honorable and learned member for Bendigo will look at the statements made to the Commission he will find that they vary. According to the evidence of **Mr.** Patterson, the cost of making a harvester here is £41 ; the importing expenses and duty amount to £20 ; the setting up costs *£2 ;* and then comes in the question of the selling expenses which I have not taken into consideration at all. I have seen some invoices in reference to the freight. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- Does the Minister mean to say that he charges the *£20?* {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- No. I notice that in one instance the freight was stated at *£7,but* I have seen invoices where it was given at *£5.* The only thing which has to be taken off the £20 is the freight and duty. If we deduct *£5* for the fr eight from the *£20,* it leaves *£15.* Then if we take the cost of production at £41, it brings the total cost up to *£56.* {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- But the duty has to come off too. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- When Idealt with the question of value, the duty was about *£4.* If we take the freight at *£5,* and the duty at *£4,* it makes *£9,* and, deducting that from the *£20* it leaves £11. I do not know exactly the cost of setting up a harvester here. I have not been able to go through the details in the papers, because they have only just been obtained from the Crown Law Offices. If to the *£41* we add *£11* and 10 per cent, on the market value abroad, it brings the total value to about *£59.* {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- No ; to about£56. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I made a calculation here, and, roughly, that is how the value works out. There are some other figures to be included. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- Those given by the Minister only total *£53.* {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I am taking the cost of producing the locally-made machine - *£41 .* I think that we ought to take that, and assume that the cost of the imported isas much as that of the Australian machine. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- That is disputed. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Everything is disputed. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- The extra *£3* brings up the total to £56. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- The Prime Minister is quite right. I am showing honorable members that according to the figures which the Chairman of the Tariff Commission Has cast aside- {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: -- No. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- The honorable and learned member, in connexion with this matter, is taking the side of the importers. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- That is not a fair statement. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- He is taking the figures of the importers. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- Exactly. What I intendedto convey was that the honorable and learned member for Bendigo is accepting the importers' figures in preference to those of others. I am told that **Mr. Patterson's** figures are more correct than are any others. That being so, if the amendment submitted by the honorable and learned member for Bendigo be adopted, it will mean that the duty will be based on a valuation of *£12* or £13 less than the evidence contained in the report of the Commission shows should be fixed. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: -- How does the honorable gentleman arrive at that conclusion? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- Anad *valorem* duty of 25 per cent., based on a valuation of is equalto a fixed duty of about £10 {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: -- And the addition of 10 per cent. under the Customs Act would bring up the total to £41. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I cannot make elaborate calculations at this stage. May I briefly explain the considerations by which I was influenced in fixing a valuation of £65 on the imported machines? I communicated with the British Consul in America, and also sought information in Canada with respect to the cost of these machines, and I received from the Canadian Government a reply that the Minister had decided not to afford any information regarding the values and manufacture of machinery of this kind intended for export. Surely honorable members will give me credit for the belief that that was not a very wise attitude to take up. It placed the Customs Department of the Commonwealth in an extremely difficult position. I wish honorable members to clearly understand that if the Government can be convinced that the f.o.b. cost is not £65, they will be prepared to accept what is an equitable valuation. They certainly have no desire to assess duty on what is more than the true value. But when I found that every manoeuvre was being resorted to - and I dare say the same thing is done in nearly all cases - to secure a very low invoice for the Customs valuation, it was my duty to endeavour to ascertain what was the true valuation for Customs pur poses. I think that honorable members will recognise that the duty proposed by the honorable and learned member for Bendigo is altogether too low.I do not say that a valuation of £65 may not be a little too high. When I am convinced that it is, I shall be quite prepared to accept what is equitable. I shad great difficulty in dealing with this matter, and I strongly recommend the Committee to impose a specific duty rather than an *ad valorem* one. There is much difficulty in ascertaining the value of machinery, and particularly of these machines, whilst trouble is also experienced in connexion with the importation of parts. Some of these machines come out in a half-finished state, and parts are introduced in all sorts of conditions. The International Harvester Company, which has a factory in Canada, wished to send its machines to the other side of America, and knew that if they sent them from Montreal' they could get them carried at a low rate. A short time ago I received an intimation from the British Consul at Chicago that when a certain train arrived in that city from Montreal the trucks were opened and Chicago machines were placed in them. Some of them were sent to New Zealand, and others to Brisbane, but beforethe communication from the British Consul arrived they had been distributed, and nothing could be done. I am not wedded to a duty of *£16 ;* but it is very hard to determine what is the exact duty that ought to be levied. I would ask honorable members what other course is open to us than to fix the *ad valorem* rate on the valuation we have made. If, as the Prime Minister says, the report of the Commission which has been issued to take evidence abroad, showed that the valuation was too high, no Minister or Ministry would attempt to go beyond what was clearly proved to be the legitimate assessment. I for one should not think of doing so, but the Ministry could not very readily decide what may not be very clear even when the Commission is returned. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The Minister says that he would not go beyond what was clearly shown to be the proper valuation. The Tariff Commission has clearly shown what they regard as a fair charge. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I differ from that view. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Would the honorable gentleman treat the report of the Law Commission as he has treated that of the Tariff Commission? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- That Commission is going to the country of export to ascertain the value. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: -- Will the Government allow the evidence taken by the Law Commission to be considered, and the question of valuation decided by the Supreme Court. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- The honorable and learned member must not overlook the fact that as these machines are not used in Canada, it is impossible to ascertain their commercial value there. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: -- Then if the Commission cannot decide the question how can the Minister do so? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- The Commission cannot decide the point, and the Ministry can only decide what would be an equitable valuation having regard to the evidence taken by the Commission. I have not referred to the price of £61 paid for one of these machines in Italy, and the case in which £65 was paid for a machine sent to Buenos Ayres. Those facts had something to do with my decision as to what the valuation should be. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- They are not of much assistance to the Minister in supporting that valuation. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- They were only a factor. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: -- The price quoted in respect to the machine sent to Italy was the c.i.f. cost at Genoa; the factory cost at Toronto was £38. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- £41 is the valuation they give in the case of machines sent to the Argentine. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- But there are other charges. The Minister is not fair in failing to allow for shipping and other charges which have to be added, and to the fact that in the case in question terms were given. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- It has been distinctly stated that they have not given that amount as the true valuation since there is no duty leviable. It is stated in the papers that they do not wish to place the true value on these machines, lest injury may be done to their business. That being so, not much reliance can be placed upon the valuation. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- What does the Minister say as to the other point already brought before the House, that they were actually selling machines in Adelaide for £41 or £42 and giving terms? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- The honorable member refers to sale of machines to Clutterbuck and Company, of Adelaide, for £42 or £43 ? {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- The statement is made in the report that, selling large numbers to Clutterbuck, they could sell at a lower rate than they might be expected to charge to a person buying only a few machines. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- The agent of the Massey Harris Company told the Tariff Commission that the company had never sold a machine at a loss ; the transaction referred to shows that they did sell at a loss. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- No; because it is maintained that the price of £38 carries the factory profit. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I am reminded by the Attorney-General that the invoices to Clutterbuck were house-to-house invoices. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- No; Clutterbuck is an independent firm. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- That is a question in dispute at present. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- Yes; and I believe that I shall receive a subpoena summoning me to give evidence in Adelaide in Clutterbuck's case very shortly. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: -- Would not the Minister relieve himself of a tremendous responsibility if he allowed the Supreme Court to decide this matter on the evidence available ? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I do not think the Supreme Court the proper tribunal to do this. I should be very glad to have the task of making a valuation taken off my shoulders. I should have been glad of that at the outset ; but I have had to take the responsibility of seeing that the Department receives its proper duties. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I suppose we may take if that the honorable member still believes that his valuation of £65 was a fair one? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I do not wish to say anything on that subject in view of the case which is coming on. My impression is that it may be a little too high; but to go back to a valuation of£38 or *£42* would be to adopt a ridiculously low amount. It may be that £65 is not the exact value, but I defy any human being on the slim, or rather difficult, evidence I had, to fix the exact value. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- " Slim " is a good word. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I had to determine the valuation, and while I do not doubt for a moment that the amount fixed may be a little too high, it is not so high as to justify a reduction to£45 or £50. However, I have now tried to give honorable members all the information I can, and, in addition to that already given, it ought to satisfy them that I did my best to get at the true value. {: #subdebate-12-0-s42 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The Minister has been very frank with the Committee, and, personally, I am much obliged to him for it. He admits that the present valuation of £65 is too high. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I say that it may be. I think that it is a little too high. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I do not wish to hold the honorable gentleman to exact words. What I wished to know was the state of his mind in regard to this valuation. He tells us that it has undergone some modification. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I wish that the honorable member had to make the valuation, and that I could avoid the trouble of doing so. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I have no quarrel with the Minister on the present occasion. My desire is to get at the facts. We are now considering a proposal for the imposition of a duty, and must have some basis of value in our minds. Is the proposed 25 per cent, *ad valorem* to be imposed on a valuation of£65, on a valuation of £45, or on a valuation of *£35?* Honorable members may quibble as they like in regard to fixed rates, but every duty when imposed must be at a fixed rate. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Why not move to make the duty£1 2 ? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I am not prepared to do that. Considering the cost of importing, a duty of £12 would be extortionate, and I should be no party to the imposition of such a rate. We cannot get from the Government a clear statement of their intentions in thefuture. All they say now is, " If it is clearly shown that the valuation is too high, it will be lowered." How is it to be clearly shown if the Tariff Commission have been unable to clearly show it? It is true that a Commission has been sent to Canada to investigate the matter; but the Minister has told us that they cannot find the values there, because they are not kept. Surely the Commission which has just been issued will meet with the same difficulties as the Tariff Commission met with. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- But it will have the great advantage of being on the spot. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- What advantage will there be in that if the valuss cannot be got there? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- The commercial value cannot be got there, because there are no sales to test it. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- There is one thing that we can do, and that is to ascertain the values of the Australian machines. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- We should not agree to this duty until they show their hand. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Never in my parliamentary career have I known a Commission to be appointed to investigate a subject, and then, without a tittle of justification, to be flouted by Ministers, who insist upon an arbitrary value of their own. No parliamentary Government in existence has ever gone through an experience such as that now proposed. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- What is the value of the Commission's report? They know nothing about the cost of the machines. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I believe that they know all that is to be known, and that that information is contained in their report. I do not think that any better evidence could be obtained by going to Canada 1,000 times. I am, therefore, prepared to rely upon the Commission's report. They say that the manufacturers of stripperharvesters in Australia declined to give information respecting the factory cost of making those machines in this country. There is only one course for the Government to take, and that is to decline to alter the duty until the cost of these machines is made known. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr Johnson: -- That would be the straightforward course to take. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- There is no other course to be taken. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Any excuse for no duty ! {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Any excuse and subterfuge for a duty. Men appear before the Tariff Commission and say that their industry is prospering, their output increasing by leaps and bounds, and their export trade growing ; but they will not tell the Commission anything else. On that information the Government propose to nearly double the existing duty. Here is what the Commission says - from the data submitted to the Commission by such manufacturers, viz. : - Although the manufacturers would not themselves submit the cost, they gave the Commission the data so that the members could themselves make up the cost. Where is the difference ? The report proceeds - >That the cost of the material of a stripperharvester amounts to about *£26,* and as the wages paid in its manufacture amounts to 30 per cent. of the cost of the finished article, the inference has been drawn that the total cost of a locallymade stripper-harvester is about £37 3s. Assuming this statement and the inference therefrom as being correct, and adding to the cost of materials and the cost of wages another 10 per cent. to represent general expenses of manufacturing, management, lighting, insurance, *&c,* the cost of a complete machine in Australia should work out at about£41. That is the cost of the machine in Australia - {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- But the Commission reports that the American machines can be made more cheaply. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The Commission goes on to say - >That we are of opinion that the Massey-Harris and the International Harvester Companies make stripper-harvesters at a cheaper rate than the manufacturers in Australia, - That is, at any rate, cheaper, than £41 - and that they are able, notwithstanding the natural protection of distance and shipping charges, as well as the duty, to go on increasing their imports to swamp, and eventually capture, the whole of the Australian trade in stripperharvesters ; that such a result would be a great calamity to Australian trade, commerce, and industry, and would in its ultimate consequences be most injurious and disastrous to farmers. I am reading that, although it is against me; I think we ought to have all the facts on which the Commission arrived at a decision. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- Would the honorable member be in "favour of the Commonwealth turning out one or two machines in order to ascertain the actual cost? That would be Socialism. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Because they cannot get Socialism, some honorable members would vote to give certain manufacturers an advantage against the community. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- Do not be angry ! {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- That is the position of the honorable member for Wide Bay, and those who are voting with him an this occasion, namely that because they cannot socialize this industry, they will still further entrench private enterprise. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- Would the honorable member approve of the Commonwealth making one or two machines in order to ascertain the cost? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I see no necessity to socialize this industry. I do not believe that the honorable member is justified in taking the position that because the industry cannot be socialized a private monopoly of the kind should be further entrenched. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- I am suggesting the building of one or two machines to ascertain the cost of production. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- That is all a quibble. The honorable members' franker colleague to-night has said that the industry ought to be socialized as quickly as possible. The position of the honorable member for Wide Bay, and of the leader of the Labour Party, is that because this industry cannot be socialized at once, therefore private enterprises should be bolstered up still further, and enabled to dip into the pockets of the farmers. I prefer to act all through on the basis of the accuracy of the report of the Royal Commission, which has investigated the facts so far as the facts are susceptible of investigation, and has presented its conclusions to us. We are told that from data supplied by manufacturers in Australia, the cost of manufacturing this machine here is not more than £41, and that the cost of manufacture in Canada is less than the cost in Australia. Those being the facts, what has the Minister of Trade and Customs to say in reply ? The Minister, first of all, frankly admitted that he regards his present valuation as too high. After all the honorable gentleman's ternbast and boasting, he now tells us that his valuation is unfair and unjust - that is the statement from his lips to-night. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- The Minister did not say anything of the kind. Mr.JOSEPH COOK.- But the Minister gave me justification for saying it for him. However, there is no use in quibbling about the verbiage, because it is quite clear that the Minister believes the valuation of £65 is too high. In the absence of any data outside that supplied by the Royal Commission, on which to form a reliable judgment, what ought we as reasonable men to do? Ought we not to follow the Royal Commission so far as facts are concerned. It must be remembered that both sections of the Royal Commission signed this report as to the accuracy of the information - free-traders agreed with protectionists that the valuation was a correct one. We are told by the Minister) that we cannot get any correct information on the point from Canada, and yet, in the meantime, we are to fix a duty. Will the Minister wait until the facts are ascertained before the duty is fixed? The Government will not even agree to accept the facts when ascertained, and bind themselves to make the duty accordingly. What a farce it is our fixing a duty under the circumstances ! I desire to say that I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. I see the difficulty, but I shall not withdraw the amendment unless I am permitted to take the usual course, and move a still lower duty. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Lower than 25 per cent. ? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Yes. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir John Quick: -- Certainly. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I ask leave to withdraw my proposed amendment. Amendment of the amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. {: #subdebate-12-0-s43 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- - I move - >That after the words " Stripper-harvesters, each ; £16," the words " and on and after 7th September, 15 per cent. *ad valorem,"* be inserted. My idea is to adopt the valuation fixed by the Minister, which will evidently remain in force for some considerable time. At the present rate of progress at least two years must elapse before a legal decision is given in regard to the harvester case. A 15 per cent. duty upon a harvester valued at £65 would represent an impost of about £9 15s. {: #subdebate-12-0-s44 .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN:
Canobolas -- I wish to refer to one remark made by the honorable member for Bland in the course of his impassioned address, which appeared to me to be particularly di- >Tected towards myself. The honorable member said that those who were objecting to the imposition of increased duties upon stripper - harvesters were prepared to allow the farmers to be handed over to the tender mercies of monopolists. I wish to know whether the honorable member has any faith in the Australian Industries Preservation Bill, which was intended to protect us against the operations of trusts either within or beyond the Commonwealth. He represented to me and to other honorable members that that measure would prove an effective safeguard and Iaccordingly gave it my support. I am as strongly opposed to monopolies of any kind as is the honorable member for Bland, and yet, because I am not prepared to vote for any increased duty upon stripper-harvesters, I am told by the honorable member that I am prepared to play into the hands of monopolists. Has the honorable member come to the conclusion that he made a mistake when he recommended honorable members to vote for the measure to which I have referred? If so, the sooner he takes us into his confidence and places the position fairly before us the better. I am not disposed to place make-believe enactments on the statute-book. I think that it was most unfair of the honorable member to make the statement he did with respect to myself and others who are opposed to the proposed increased duty. I came into this House under certain pledges to my constituents, and I am going to stand by them as long as I amhere, even though I may offend the honorable member for Bland. The question of fixed duties, as compared with *ad valorem* duties, was fully considered when the Tariff was under discussion, and it was then decided to discard specific and composite duties in favour of *ad valorem* duties. It was shown that certain fixed duties levied under the Victorian Tariff gave rise to very serious anomalies. In one case the fixed duty upon certain goods resultedin subjecting the lower-class articles to an impost equivalent to an *ad valorem* duty of 60 per cent., whilst goods of a higher quality were subject to a duty of only 18 per cent. We have been told that when the strippers were first introduced here the price was fixed at £120, whereas the machine could reasonably be sold to-day for *£45* or £50. If we fixed the duty for stripper-harvesters upon the basis of a valuation of £65, we might, within a very short time, find that, owing to improved methods of construction, the machines could be sold for £20. In such an event, the *ad valorem* charge would be enormously increased. I do not see that any greater difnculty would be experiencedindeter mining the value of stripper-harvesters than is met with in fixing the value of a hundred and one of the other articles enumerated in the Tariff. I have no doubt that the protectionist members of the Tariff Commission had a natural inclination to adopt the valuation fixed by the Minister, and I assume that thev must have had very good reasons for coming to the conclusion that a lower figure more accurately represented the value. I think that the Minister has made a mistake in fixing the value of the imported stripper-harvester at .£65. If not, it will be unjust to compel the local manufacturers to reduce their price to ,£70. The margin between ,£65 and .£70 is not sufficient to yield the local manufacturer a- reasonable profit. The position presents the two horns of a dilemma. Either ,£65 is an over valuation, or the proposed decision to arbitrarily fix the selling price within a couple of years at £^70 is unwarranted by the facts of the case. I desire to encourage the local manufacture of machinery under reasonable conditions. I would prefer to purchase a machine from an Australian manufacturer than from a foreign manufacturer. But I cannot fail to recognise that whilst the farmers have been sweated by outsiders they have also been imposed upon by our local manufacturers. Consequently, whilst giving fair consideration to the latter, I do not think that we should place the farming community completely at their mercy. I can show quite as good a record from the stand-point of endeavouring to protect the interests of the farmers as can the honorable member for Bland. It comes with ill grace from him to charge me, or those associated with me, of opposing the proposed duty in a covert effort to further the interests of outside manufacturers and monopolists, to the detriment of the class to which I belong. {: #subdebate-12-0-s45 .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay .- As nearly alwavs happens after an all-night sitting, a good deal of feeling has been aroused, and many things have been said which would have been better left unsaid. I have no sympathy whatever with those who make personal charges against individuals occupving high offices. I do not think that such charges ought to be made in a careless way. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I rise to a point of order. We have had a dose of this sort of thing from the honorable member's leader, and I submit that it is totally irrelevant to the question under consideration. {: #subdebate-12-0-s46 .speaker-KNJ} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Mauger:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA -- The question before the Chair is whether an *ad valorem* duty of 15 per cent, shall be imposed upon stripperharvesters after the 7th September, 1906. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I claim the right to refer to a matter which has been debated, unless that portion of the speech of the honorable member who made the charge has been ruled out of order. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.That portion of the speech of the honorable member for Bland was ruled out of order, and he immediately proceeded to discuss the main question. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I differ from you, sir Of course it .is a matter which, can very easily be decided. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Whilst the honorable member for Bland was speaking, the honorable member for Parramatta raised the point of order that his remarks were not relevant to the question before the Chair. The honorable member for Bland admitted that they were not, and at once proceeded to debate the main question. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- It was not the honorable member for Bland who made the charges, so that you, sir, have evidently not considered the matter at all. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- The honorable member who made the charges has since wriggled out of the Chamber. He was not man enough to remain after he had made them. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The point of order which I raised was that inasmuch as the charges had been withdrawn, the honorable member for Bland could not further refer to them. My point of order was upheld. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- Very well. I am content to leave the matter there. It is a singular circumstance that whenever a reference is made to -charges of that character a point of order is raised by the honorable member for Parramatta, who is the deputy leader of the party from which such charges usually emanate. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- What does the honorable member mean to insinuate? Let him speak out plainly. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I do not say that the honorable member seeks to cover his retreat in any way, but I do say that when such charges are made, the more fully they are ventilated the better for all concerned. There is one point connected with the report of the Tariff Comission as to which I am exceedingly disappointed. The inquiry {: .speaker-KVJ} ##### Mr Storrer: -- Why should any manufacturer expose the whole of his business to this Parliament? {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- When a person seeks to borrow, he has usually to make a. statement of. his affairs before he can obtain an advance. Similarly, an individual who is seeking the aid of Parliament to increase the selling price of his manufactures to the public, is bound to give adequate reasons for his action. {: .speaker-KVJ} ##### Mr Storrer: -- Does the Colonial Sugar Refining Company do what the honorable member suggests? {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- Yes. The honorable member can obtain all information regarding what that company pays to its workmen. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr Salmon: -- Will they disclose what they do with their profits? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- No. They conceal that. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- If the honorable member for Yarra wishes to know it, I will undertake to get the information for him. {: .speaker-KDR} ##### Mr Ewing: -- The Colonial Sugar Refining Company will not tell anybody what it costs them to produce a ton of sugar. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- They will not disclose what is the difference between 'the cost of a ton of sugar landed at their refinery and the cost of producing a ton of refined sugar. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- That is the same point. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- It is not. The Colonial Sugar Refining Company will tell the honorable member what it actually costs to produce sugar, but they will not reveal the cost involved in converting .it into refined sugar. The profits which thev make are disclosed in their balance-sheets. I am not here to defend the Colonial Sugar {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- Is it not a fact that the manufacturers gave the information privately to the Commission? {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- If they gave that information privately, surely there can be no objection to a statement being made authoritatively showing the amount of money spent in making one of these machines. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- There may be justifiable reasons why such information should not be published. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- If the Government does not know the actual cost of making one of these machines, .it is entitled to manufacture one or two in order to ascertain. {: .speaker-KVJ} ##### Mr Storrer: -- To make one or two machines would cost probablv £200 each. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I . know something about mechanics, and I can assure the honorable member that he is wrong. It is humiliating for representatives of the people in a Legislature to find that a shroud of mystery envelops the question of how much money is involved in producing a particular machine. That is the whole point. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- The manufacturers are prepared to say that a machine costs over £52 to make, but thev were asked to declare facts concerning their whole business, and were bullied by a free-trade member of the Commission because they would not. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- It is useful information that it costs £52 to manufacture one of these machines, but unfortunately it does not reach us through the proper channel. If the manufacturers are prepared to swear to that statement, why have they not done so? {: .speaker-KZV} ##### Mr Ronald: -- It is in the Tariff Commission's report. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- Will the honorable member show me the place where it can be found? I think that the valuation of £65, which is the figure fixed by the Minister of Trade and Customs, is too high. After a good deal of banter, the Minister has frankly expressed his own opinion that that valuation is too high. That information was not given a bit too soon. I have already said, by way of interjection, that in my opinion it would be dishonest on the part of a Government after a Commission had been sent to America to ascertain the manufacturing cost of these machines, still to continue to exercise Ministerial power in valuing them at a figure higher than the evidence disclosed to be justified. The Minister of Trade and Customs has expressed his opinion upon that point more clearly than did the Prime Minister. He tells us that he is prepared to accept the facts ascertained by the Commission which has gone to America. That is a sensible and straightforward thing to do. Some honorable members have suggested that they would not trust the Minister. I have seen nothing in his conduct to cause me to distrust him in any wav. I would rather trust a Minister who stated straightforwardly that he had taken up a wrong position than I would trust one who was not frank, and who concealed information which he had at his disposal. I do not wish to refer to the differences that have arisen between honorable members professing different fiscal faiths. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- What is the honorable member's fiscal faith? {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- It is to do the very best I can for the people df Australia. 1 am free to follow any course that I believe in, and shall not come into conflict with my constituents by doing so. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- It was a fair question to ask. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- The honorable member has taken up one or two different attitudes. I have heard him argue that no dutv should be imposed except for revenue purposes. I have also heard him say that, as some people are getting an advantage from certain duties, he does not see why his constituents should not share in those advantages. There are other honorable members who, like the honorable member for New England, say that they would not ask for any assistance throueh the Customs for their constituents. There are some who believe that it would be better for Australia to have no commerce whatever. They believe in absolute prohibition. I cannot share that view by any means. I do say, however, that most countries appear to get along in pretty much the same wav. no matter what fiscal principles they adopt. There is, for instance, the great protectionist country of the United States, in which there is some of the bitterest poverty to be found in any country, and as regards the employment of youths and long hours of work in their factories we have nothing to equal the tragedies which take place there. On the other hand, we have boasted free-trade countries in which tens of millions of persons are on the verge of starvation. Believing, as I do, that the distribution of wealth is unequal and inequitable, can I appear here and vote for the proposal of the Government? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Can the honorable member connect his remarks with the question before the chair ? {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- Yes. The question before the Committee is whether a certain import duty would benefit the people. The /TEMPORARY .CHAIRMAN.The question is that on and after the 7 th September there shall be a duty of 15 per cent, on harvesters. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- Yes, and the only argument advanced by the Ministry and the Tariff Commission in' favour of the proposal is that it would provide work for the people. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable member has classified most of us on the fiscal question, but he has not vet classified himself. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I am answering the inquiry from the Chair. The imposition of import duties has had various effects in different countries, and in every case the result has been unsatisfactory. I do not think that I ought to trespass on the patience of the Chair to state the reason for the failures. The fiscal policies of various countries have absolutely failed in their object, and that is the better distribution of wealth. I have no reason to think that a prohibitive duty would operate to reduce the price of the harvester, as the Ministry desire, and are passing legislation to insure. I believe that the legislation will more or less fail to achieve that object. I do not think that the Government will be enabled by that means to reduce the price of the harvester to a certain amount. If the manufacturers ignored the law, the Government would not interfere. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- The honorable member's own proposal would compel them. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I think not, because it does not refer to the selling price. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- The honorable member suggested the imposition of an Excise duty. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- The Government state that if the proposed duties be imposed, we are assured that the selling price of the machine will be less than it is at present. But my view is that Parliament ought not to impose high duties without taking care that the employes in the industry shall receive a portion of the benefit so conferred. **Mr. Chanter.** - That is also to be proposed in the Bill. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- There is no Bill before the Committee. I am doubtful whether the Government will be able to insure that the price of t'he machine shall not be more than a certain sum - and I believe that they honestly desire to attain that object - because there are many methods by which' manufacturers, especially if they have a monopoly, can charge a higher price than that prescribed by the Government. For instance, they could deliver an inferior machine unless we maintained an army of inspectors. {: .speaker-KVJ} ##### Mr Storrer: -- No one would ruin his business by making an inferior machine, {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I believe that in their own interests the manufacturers would produce the best possible machine, at the same time they would demand the highest price which the farmers would pay. I do not complain on that score. My complaint is that notwithstanding all our investigation and expenditure, we cannot get a definite statement of the sum expended in producing a machine fit for delivery. I have made personal inquiries, and heard that the item of wages does not amount to more than £12 per machine. In my opinion, it would be a fair thing, as proposed, to impose a duty equal to the amount paid in wages in constructing a machine. Like other- persons, I had no authority to compel a declaration ofl the true state of affairs. I would not have mentioned the amount if I had not got the information personally, and I believe that, to a certain degree, it is reliable. {: #subdebate-12-0-s47 .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS:
Dalley .- The honorable member for Canobolas, in defence of his position, described the speech of his leader as an "impassioned address." I put it to the Committee that in two Parliaments we have never heard from a member of the Labour Partv a warmer speech in the early hours of the morning in defence of a proposed duty. There is no doubt that the honorable member for Bland was speaking at high pressure, and that he fought as strenuously for the proposal as if he were Prime Minister. I interjected at the time that he was fighting the principles of the Ministry instead of the principles of the party to which he belonged. The honorable member for Canobolas and the honorable member for Wide Bay, the deputy leader of that party, have practically borne out what I am saying. I think it is wise to put it on record that the honorable member for Bland ,.is such an ardent protectionist that he will put before everything else prohibitive protection as against the protection of labour. The honorable member for Canobolas rajked his leader fore and aft when he was absent; but I shall not pursue that course, because I should like to attack him in his presence. I want to emphasize the statement of the honorable member for Wide Bay that the value of the labour in a harvester is £12, and that because of that . amount of labour the honorable member for Bland and others are asking the Committee to impose a high if not a prohibitive duty. The honorable member for Bland was asked whether he thought that £65 was a fair value, and he said that it was. A little while afterwards the Minister of Trade and Customs said that, in his opinion, it was a little above the value. The honorable member for Parramatta has made a very admirable suggestion, and I think that the difficulty in which we are placed would be overcome very quickly if. it were analyzed. He says that he will press for a duty of 15 per cent, on the Minister's valuation of £65, which would give an advantage of £9 15s. to the local manufacturers. Two days ago the honorable and learned member for Bendigo asked for a fixed duty of £10. Although he is an ardent protectionist, still he has receded from that position, and now asks for a duty of 25 per cent., which is equal to a fixed dutv of *£10* 5s. per machine. The freetraders were beaten on their proposal to adhere to the agreement for fiscal peace, and thereby retain the existing duty of 12 j per cent., and they now make a very fair proposition. They practically agree to the duty of £10 which was asked for by the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, and supported by many protectionists. The members on this side want an *ai valorem* in preference to a fixed duty, because if the Commission which the Government has appointed should find that a machine is worth less than £65 the consumer would not have to pay on the same value as ho would if we had imposed a fixed duty of £10, or any larger sum. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- Are we in every case to appoint a Commission to ascertain the true value of goods for Customs purposes? {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- A Commission has already been appointed. The honorable member apparently is a believer in 40 per cent, duties. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- I believe in effective protection. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- The honorable member for Bland, in the early hours of this morning, said that he believed in a local monopoly as long as the position of the consumer of its products was considered. It is not Iong^ since he supported the passing of a Bill for the repression of monopolies, and the question which the honorable member for Canobolas put as to whether Or not that was a mere make-believe measure was a very pertinent one. If the Australian Industries Preservation Bill is not a mere " make-believe," protectionists should have no reason to fear anything in the shape of dumping. When I rose to address the Committee at 3 o'clock this morning far more Government supporters than members of the Opposition had Spoken to the question. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- When did the honorable member go to sleep? {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- It would not do for a free-trader to go to sleep when all these little games are going on. The Government are now fighting for a fixed duty of £16 ; for that is what an *ad valorem* duty of 25 per cent, on their valuation would amount to. The protectionist members of the Tariff Commission recommended an *ad valorem* duty of 25 per cent., whereas the free-trade members of it urge that there is no evidence to justify an increase in the Tariff. It seems to me,' therefore, that the amendment moved by the honorable member for Parramatta is an admirable compromise. The honorable member for Barker would not have attempted to suggest a duty of j£i2 had" he not believed that the Government would accept it; and, since his proposal would be equivalent to an *ad valorem* rate of 18J per cent, on the valuation fixed by the Government, I fail to see why they should fight over what is after all only a difference of a couple of pounds. The honorable member for Canobolas is to be highlv complimented on the stand he has taken. He has said that he disagrees with the views of his leader on this question, and that he intends to fulfil his pledges to his constituents. I said the other day that I could not fail to notice that there was a cloud on the political horizon, but that I would not take any action in the direction of supporting protectionists' proposals until I had consulted my constituents. When the Tariff was under consideration, I did not vote' for a protectionist duty on machinery that would be of assistance to any of them, and the honorable member for Canobolas is not the only one in this Chamber who is not going back on his election pledges. We are in duty bound to do our best for the electors and for Australia generally. I am not going to be attracted by any proposal to place either the importer or the manufacturer on a pedestal. Both are actuated by the same motives; they are out for "game," and if they can use this Parliament to their advantage they will do so. I have never reflected on a Minister, but regret to say that I have heard serious aspersions cast upon some honorable gentlemen. If an honorable member, no matter on what side of the House he may sit, says a little too much - if he reflects unjustly on the character of a Minister or any other honorable member - he ought to be prepared to withdraw his statements, because the public character of honorable members ought to be protected ; if, on the other hand, he says too little, he should be made to explain himself fully. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Let us have a division. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- After sitting all nightand the time has been consumed, not by speeches of members of the Opposition, but by those of other honorable members - it is not fair that we should be called upon to commence a new day at half -past 10 o'clock for the transaction of fresh business. I think, therefore, that the Minister should promise that, when he gets this motion through, the Government will consent to adjourn until Tuesday next. We do not wish to be compelled to discuss these proposals till half-past 10, when, under the Standing Orders, no new business can be taken. {: #subdebate-12-0-s48 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON:
Lang .- If I had my way, there would be no duties on agricultural implements. The evidence laid before the Tariff Commission will convince fair-minded men that the local industry does not need protection, the cost of importing harvesters being in itself suffi cient to secure the local manufacturers from too fierce a competition. If duties had to be imposed, I would prefer *ad valorem* rates in cases where there were different qualities of the goods affected. But with a Minister like the honorable member for Hume in power, valuations may be so increased, on one pretext or another, as has been done in the case of harvesters, that the actual duty imposed by Parliament may be doubled. The Minister admitted this morning that he had no reliable evidence upon which to base his harvester valuation, and conveyed the impression that ,£65 was fixed upon to make it certain that there would be no escape for the importer. It is obvious that this is the valuation upon which the proposed increased duty is going to be charged, in entire disregard of the reports of the Tariff Commission. A Commission has been issued by the Supreme Court for the purpose of conducting an impartial and non-political investigation as to the values of harvesters in Canada. In the face of all those facts, and in the face of the statement of the Minister that it is not possible to get reliable evidence in Canada, we must assume that it is the intention of the Government to adhere to the value of ^65. It is not reasonable to trust the administration of *ad valorem* duties to a Minister of the views of the present Minister of Trade and Customs - a Minister who exercises his powers of administration in a high-handed, tyrannical, arbitrary, and merciless manner in the persecution of importers. If we could only be sure that the value of ' the. article would remain at a certain figure, or would not very materially depart from a certain figure over a given period, it would be better to have a specific rather than an *ad valorem* duty. We have to-night had one bit of entirely new information from the Minister. If the Minister has before him the original papers which were laid on the Library table on the occasion when the adjournment of the House was moved for the purpose of discussing this question, the original letter which was said to have come from Italy is not included. I went very carefully through all those papers, and all I could find was a copy of a copy of an alleged letter, and all the references in the documents were to the copy of a copy. The Minister now informs us that he has since insisted on the production of the original letter, which he has seen, and I suppose that that letter is available for other persons to see. This is the first time we have been informed that the Minister has seen the original of a document which was the only evidence tendered in support of the application for the increase of the duties. The Minister has to-night informed us that he acted originally on information contained in the copy of a copy of a letter. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I did not say that ; I said that a copy of the letter was first presented, and that I demanded to see the original. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- There was then no evidence of the existence of an original, and I should like to ask the Minister if he has any objection to let any other honorable member see the document, which no doubt would be very interesting to every gentleman in the Chamber. I should like to say that the cost of importation is, in itself, sufficiently high to constitute a natural protection ; and in this connexion, I direct the attention of honorable members to the evidence given before the Royal Commission. This natural protection amounts to something like 44 per cent., apart from the duties, and surely that is sufficiently high to enable any industry to be successfully carried on in Australia. I direct honorable members' attention to page 1736 of the Minutes of Evidence, Vol. 4, where they will find the evidence of **Mr. Alfred** Patterson in regard to metals and machinery. The Minister of Trade and Customs has admitted the evidence of **Mr. Alfred** Patterson to be the most reliable placed before the Commission - an admission which is indorsed by the whole of the members of the Commission in their recommendations. The evidence shows that the local manufacturers would derive a sufficiently high profit without any duty whatever. For example, the profit derived by the Massey-Harris Company is .£8 is. od. per machine; by the International Harvester Company, ,£17 9s. 5d. ; and by the Sunshine Harvester Company, from ^£31 to £33. Therefore, if the local manufacturers reduced their price bv ,£8, they would knock out the Massey-Harris Company, and if they reduced the cost to the farmers by ,£17, they would render it impossible for the International Harvester Company to compete with them. A reduction of ^£17 would bring the price of the Sunshine harvester down to .-£64, which would still yield a profit to the company equal to 38 per cent. These figures seem to me to furnish an unanswerable argument against the imposition of any duty whatever, and to fully justify me in opposing the Government proposal. **Mr.** JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta [6.55]. - I should like to withdraw my amendment, because I think that before attempting to fix anv duty, we should test fine feeling of the Committee upon the question as to whether the impost should be a fixed duty, or upon an *ad valorem* basis. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment (by **Mr. Joseph** Cook) negatived - >That the word " fixed " in the headline, be left out. Amendment (by **Sir Langdon** Bonython) proposed - >That the following words be added to the item " Stripper-harvesters, *£16 " :* - " and on and after 7th September, 1906, each *£12."* {: #subdebate-12-0-s49 .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY:
Wentworth .- I hope that the honorable member for Barker will recognise that the Committee were under the impression that they would be afforded an opportunity of voting upon the proposal to levy a duty of £10 upon each of these machines. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- The honorable member will have the opportunity of doing that subsequently. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I am sure that the honorable member for Barker would be the very last who would desire to achieve a reputation for sharp practice. I trust that he will see that his amendment will place honorable members in a very difficult position. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I should like to point out that when the Tariff was under consideration in 1901-2 no rule was laid down as to whether a higher or a lower duty should first be voted upon by the Committee. The proposals submitted were decided in the order in which they were moved. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- Upon a point of order I should like; to know whether - if the higher duty be carried - honorable members will be afforded an opportunity of voting upon a proposal to impose a lower duty? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- If the Committee carrv the proposal of the honorable member for Barker the duty of *£12* per machine will stand. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- There might be a number of honorable members who wish to record their votes in favour of a lower amount. I am sure that the Ministry have no wish to prevent them doing that. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- They can move to substitute a lower duty in the amendment. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- The rule that the Committee should first vote upon the lower rate of duty proposed is a very good one, and might with advantage be adopted on the present occasion. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- When we were discussing the Tariff, we more than once decided in favour of a certain duty, and immediately afterwards affirmed that on and after a subsequent date a lower duty should be collected. I take it that there is nothing - assuming that the proposal of the honorable member for Barker be carried - to prevent the Committee from declaring that on and after a subsequent date a duty of £10 per machine shall be imposed upon stripper-harvesters. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- That is so. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I would point out to the honorable member for Wide Bay that it is quite competent for any honorable member to move an amendment upon the amendment of the honorable member for Barker to leave out the figures "12," with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figures " 10." Amendment (by **Sir John** Quick) proposed - >That the amendment be amended by leaving out the figures " 12 " with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figures " ro." {: #subdebate-12-0-s50 .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY:
Corinella -- Assuming that some honorable members are in favour of imposing a duty of *£11* upon these machines, the amendment of the honorable and learned member for Bendigo will prevent them from placing that fact upon record. During the discussion of the Tariff, in the first Commonwealth Parliament, the rule was laid down that the Committtee should first vote upon the lowest duty proposed. Divisions were taken upon the amendments submitted in an ascending scale, and thus an opportunity was afforded to honorable members to vote upon each successive amount. The rule which is being adopted in the present instance was not followed upon that occasion,, because it would practically have excluded divisions upon all intermediate rates. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- It will be open to any honorable member to move for the insertion of an intermediate rate. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- But in 190 1-2 the rule which is at present being followed would have prevented honorable members firom voting upon intermediate rates. I recollect distinctly that time after time honorable members who had proposed a higher rate of duty gave way in order that divisions might be taken upon lower rates. The proposal of the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, if carried, will mean that there will remain only a choice as between a duty of *£12* and of *£10.* {: #subdebate-12-0-s51 .speaker-L0Y} ##### Mr WILKINSON:
Moreton .- My recollection of what occurred in 1901-2 differs somewhat from that of the honorable and learned member for Corinella. When the right honorable member for Adelaide submitted the Tariff resolutions, the first proposal put from the Chair always related to the highest rate of dutv proposed. The great majority of the duties embodied in the Tariff as it was originally framed were reduced. If we adopted the same practice upon the present occasion, the duty of *£16* per machine which has been proposed bv the Government would be the first question decided. {: #subdebate-12-0-s52 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I confess that I do not see any insuperable difficultv in this matter. I admit that my recollection is that, when the first Tariff was under consideration, we first considered the lowest duty proposed, and then decided the other duties in the order in which they were submitted. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- As the honorable member for Moreton has pointed out, the duties proposed by the right honorable member for Adelaide were in nearly every instance highes than those which were agreed to by Parliament. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- However, it seems to me that that does not matter. After honorable members have voted upon the proposal of the honorable member for Barker, it will be quite competent for them to move that on and after a certain date the duty imposed upon harvesters shall be *£11.* Therefore, I do not see the slightest difficulty about the matter. I am prepared to adopt the method proposed, seeing that we shall be in precisely the same position as if we adopted the alternative method. Question - that the figures "12," proposed to be left out, stand part of the proposed amendment - put. The Committee divided. 21 17 resolved in the affirmative, of the amendment negatived, (by **Mr. Poynton)** pro- AYES: 0 NOES: 0 Majority AYES NOES Question so Amendment Amendment posed - That the amendment be amended by leaving out the figures " 12," with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figures "11." {: #subdebate-12-0-s53 .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr CHANTER:
Riverina .- I desire to make a personal explanation. I have been 'informed by the Opposition whip that in the last division I was paired with the honorable member for Hunter. Personally, I did not pair with any honorable member, but I find that the Government whip paired me, and therefore I accept that pair. I voted without knowing of the arrangement. {: #subdebate-12-0-s54 .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr SALMON:
Laanecoorie -- I asked the Government whip when I entered the chamber just before the division was taken whether I was paired, and he told me that I was not. He has since informed me that I was paired, but that he had overlooked the fact. I need hardly say that I had not the slightest idea that I was paired, or I should not have voted. . {: #subdebate-12-0-s55 .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- Some explanation is due from me. We have had two or three divisions on this subject. The honorable member for Wentworth has been acting as Opposition whip, and previous to the last division, by arrangement between us, no pairs were recorded. When the last division was about to be held, I looked round the chamber to see whether my pairs had gone out, and I thought that none of those honorable members whom - 1 had paired were taking part in the division. Perhaps the fault was mine, but I point out that no difference was made to the result of the division, except that if none of those honorable members who had paired had voted, the majority would have been reduced. I admit that a mistake has occurred, and am very sorry foi- it. {: #subdebate-12-0-s56 .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY:
Werriwa .- Surely the Committee will accept the amendment, because it is evident that the amount of the proposed duty is more than the amount paid in wages for the construction of a harvester. The discussion has shown that the wages are not less in Canada and America than in Australia. Yet it is proposed to depart from a sound rule, which, I think, would have commended itself to even protectionists. {: #subdebate-12-0-s57 .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr KING O'MALLEY:
Darwin -- I am in favour of imposing a duty of £12 per machine. I am paired with the honorable member for Parkes, but I wis'h to say that, in my opinion, that duty is not enough. When I look round the Chamber I see honorable members who came in here clothed in protectionist doctrines from nose to toes. It seems to me that a mighty earthquake has shaken their foundation, and that their protectionist principles have fallen into a great chasm. Apparently they have become so nude of political principles that if it were a personal instead of a political matter, they would be arrested for indecency. {: #subdebate-12-0-s58 .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON:
Grey .- I wish to tell the honorable member for Darwin, who has just woke up, that the duty now proposed is nearly equivalent to the cost of labour in the production of a harvester. We are informed on the best authority it is possible to get that 30 per cent, on the value of the finished article represents the total cost of labour employed in its production. The only testimony at our disposal represents a fixed duty of £12 8s. per machine; so that the honorable member for Darwin is very generous to the manufacturers, who have not had the courage to produce their books or give us any information. They have been eager enough, however, to come down to us and plead for assistance. They want to secure for themselves the Australian market, and yet up to this time they have refused to tell us the cost of production. I look upon it as protection run mad to impose a duty equal to the total cost of the labour employed in the production of a machine. It may suit the honorable member for Darwin, but it will not suit me. {: #subdebate-12-0-s59 .speaker-KVJ} ##### Mr STORRER:
Bass .- At about 2 o'clock this morning I agreed to pair with an honorable member on the understanding that the point at issue would be settled in the course of a few minutes, and that he was to go home. I am in favour of the amendment, and I regret this continual slating of Australian manufacturers, because it was not at their request that the Tariff Commission was appointed. It was represented to the late Government that the people of Australia were suffering through certain manufacturers losing their trade, and that men were accordingly thrown out of work, and, therefore, the Commission was appointed. I am surprised to find that Labour members, who ought to take an interest in our working men, prefer money to be sent to Canada or somewhere else than to be given to our own people. I cannot understand why some representatives of working men should be continually urging that manufacturers should produce their books. If they were in business they would not be prepared to produce their books to any Board, and for their cost of production to be published broadcast. I, as a manufacturer, contend that it is not the province of Parliament to ask a business man to show his books. I feel certain that importers have never been asked, for instance, to show their invoices to drapers. It seems to me that some honorable members are very fond of importers, but detest Australian manufacturers. At 2 o'clock this morning I agreed to pair under a misapprehension, and I am sorry that I did. This morning we have seen two honorable members voting who were paired, six outside paired, while eight members of the Opposition have been resting in their homes. {: #subdebate-12-0-s60 .speaker-KQ4} ##### Mr McCOLL:
Echuca .- Three hours ago a proposition was made to honorable members on this side that the suggested duty of £12 per machine should be accepted, and a return offer was made that a duty of *£11* would be agreed to, being equal to 25 per cent, on the value of the machine, as found by the Tariff Commission. After careful examination, it has been found that the value is a few shillings under *£44,* so that a duty of £11 is equivalent to the duty of 25 per cent, recommended by the Commission. The charge that we have no consideration for manufacturers, and favour importers, utterly fails when it is remembered that it is proposed to grant more than double the present duty. I am prepared to follow the lead of the honorable member for Bendigo, and to vote for a duty of *£11,* which is equal to an *ad valorem* dutv of 25 per cent. {: #subdebate-12-0-s61 .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay .- To say that the imposition of high duties would make work for the people and bring about an era of prosperity is just about as accurate as to say that in those countries where the highest duties are levied the greatest destitution exists. If we could give to every Australian industry a protection equal to the total cost of the labour employed in producing the article, what would' be the result? According to the honorable member for Bass, there must be a great mystery regarding the cost of producing a smali article like a stripperharvester, and we are asked to respect it. Messrs. Harland and Wolff, however, will show the cost of each item ; but, of course, they would have to produce their, books. Much has been said as to the refusal of these manufacturers to produce their books. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I say most decidedly that they ought to produce them. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- I have always admired the resolute will of the Minister. When he takes a work in hand he can generally carry it through. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I have never been able to obtain the books. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- And the honorable gentleman wishes to ascertain the facts? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Most decidedly. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- From the point of view of the honorable member for Bass, there is a good deal of force in the argument that there are many trade secrets, and that one man does not know what it costs another in the same trade to produce a given article. That argument, however, is not a sufficient justification for the attitude taken up by these manufacturers. We ought to know what is the cost of production, because the Wages Boards will want to know what wages trie employes are paid. It is an easy matter to keep a record of the time occupied by a man in working on a piece of machinery. The honorable member for Fremantle inquired where the cost of production begins. In my opinion, it starts from the time that the raw material is taken into the factory. {: .speaker-JWA} ##### Mr Carpenter: -- And that is sometimes a finished product. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- What a notable statement! We produce no steel from Australian ore, and, therefore, we must import for use in the manufacture of these machines what is the finished product of another person. {: .speaker-JWA} ##### Mr Carpenter: -- The honorable member has missed the point. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- Some honorable members may be disposed to be hilarious over the prospect of securing a very high dutv, and I shall not regret its imposition if it be the verdict of the Committee; but, at the same time, I would point out that if this proposal be carried to its logical conclusion it will not have the effect which some of mv honorable friends imagine. {: #subdebate-12-0-s62 .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN:
Canobolas -- I wish to point out that in New South Wales alone there are 74,000 landholders, 66,000 of whom occupy areas under 1,000 acres in extent, and that they cultivate fully half of the land which they hold. Most of the cultivated land is held by small farmers, whose means are limited, and who have, consequently, to work on a narrow margin. It is essential to their success that they shall be able to obtain their machinery at a reasonable price. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- We propose to enable them to get it at a reasonable price. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- This proposal means that we are to give the local manufacturer a protection equivalent to the total cost of the labour and material employed in building the machines. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- Some members of the Opposition have said that a duty of *£11* will be equivalent to the labour cost, but not to the cost of labour and material. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- I am informed that the Tariff Commission report that it would be equivalent to both. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- No. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- It would be equivalent to the cost of the labour. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN: -- Surely that should be sufficient. As the honorable member for Wide Bay has pointed out, when local manufacturers refuse to produce their books to assist us in estimating the correct valuation to be placed on these machines, they put themselves out of court. I was glad to hear the Minister say that, in his opinion, these books should be produced. If it is possible for an Arbitration Court to secure the production of books in order that necessary information relative to an industry may be obtained, why should we not be able to do the same? From the refusal of the manufacturers to produce their books the inference may fairly be drawn that the proposed duty is not warranted. There are only twenty-four manufacturers of agricultural machinery in Australia, as against more than 270,000 farmers, who will be affected by this proposal, and I repeat that if we grant a protection equivalent to the labour cost of these machines we shall give the former substantial assistance. {: #subdebate-12-0-s63 .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY:
Werriwa .- It is generally urged by protectionists that duties are imposed to cover the difference between the wages in force in the competing and protected ' countries. But we are being asked to vote for a duty which will give an advantage to the local manufacturer equal to more than the total sum which he pays in wages. Although the cost of the harvesters has been referred to as about £37, I know that when one of the chief manufacturers was trying to obtain financial assistance he said that he could produce machines for between ,£28 and ,£29. I informed honorable members of that fact some months ago, and tried to get a member of the Tariff Commission to question **Mr. McKay** on the subject; but he declined to give any information in regard to cost. The International Harvester Company have stated that their machines do not cost more than .£28 each. As the carriage and other charges upon imported machines amount to *£.14,* and the Committee has rejected the proposal to make the duty ,£io, honorable members evidently intend to give the local manufacturers an advantage of at least ^25. Is not that going altogether too far? The Ministry and its supporters are pledged to maintain fiscal peace; but they are so forgetful of their pledges that at the very end of the last session of the Parliament they are bringing forward these controversial proposals. One cannot but feel contempt for their action. The harvesting season is approaching, and, as the effect of the proposed duties will be to prohibit importation, there may be a shortage of machines. The promise of the manufacturers not to increase prices is worth noting, because any man could buy up a whole season's output and re-sell at a higher price. Probably the outside local manufacturers are not aware of the agreement between McKay and the Minister, and have not made arrangements for a supply of timber and other requirements to enable them to meet the increased demand which a stoppage of importation is likely to cause. This, instead of being a deliberative assembly, has become a mere recording assembly for the registration of agreements made behind our backs. I shall have to vote for the ;£n duty, because it is impossible to get the Committee to agree to a lower rate. {: #subdebate-12-0-s64 .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson -- I enter ray protest against what is being done. The proposed duty means prohibition. In the past, these machines have been sold for as little as *£63,* and we have it in the evidence that a handsome profit could be obtained by selling them at *£70-* As **Mr. Gladstone** said on one occasion, this is not protection - it is imposition and robbery. The users of harvesters are numerous in the. district which I represent, and it is a shameful thing that they should have to pay a duty of *£1* 2 on each machine they buy. I hope that the effect will be to bring the Massey-Harris Company and the International Harvester Company into Victoria to compete with those people who want a monopoly of this industry. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I should not object to the Massey-Harris Company. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- Or the International Harvester Company? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I do not know about that company. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- We may depend that these companies will come into Australia to manufacture, and will smash up the Australian combine. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I smashed that up long ago. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- There is at present a silent combine in the business, because there is no difference in prices. In 1890 in South Australia machines, which required no more labour than those now on the market, were sold at £73; and machines can be produced as cheaply now as then. I intend to protest against this extortion, this robbery of the people - which does not result in protection. This industry can defy competition, and, therefore, does not need protection ; and I think the Prime Minister and others are honest in saying that the object is prohibition. It is a standing disgrace to the Government to propose prohibition, and the establishment of a monopoly, for which the consumer will ultimately have to pay. {: #subdebate-12-0-s65 .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON:
Grey -- It is apparent, from the apathy shown on this side of the House, that there is a determination to perpetrate this robbery. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order; the honorable member must withdraw that remark. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- I repeat deliberately that if we impose the duty now- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order ; the honorable member must withdraw the statement he has made. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- Then I shall withdraw the word "robbery," and say that this is the worst imposition ever perpetrated on the Commonwealth. With the natural protection df £14 16s. 6d., and the proposed duty of £12, we shall practically give protection amounting to £26 16s. 6d. on a machine which costs £38. Yet honorable members are content to sit down quietly while a deliberate attempt is made to confer this advantage on a few individuals who have craved, at Parliament House and at public meetings, for an increased duty, but who have not had the manliness to show us what is the cost of their product. So far as I am concerned, this duty shall not be imposed. I should be ashamed to meet my constituents - men who have had to suifer from drought, and whose wives and families have had to live practically on boiled wheat - if I countenanced such a pronosal. In Victoria there is a manufacturer of this class of machine who last year made £34,000. Yet honorable members can sit down calmly while this piece of political robbery is going on. So far as I am concerned, if I can get any one to support me, this proposal shall not go through this week. During the whole course of the Tariff debate, a few years ago, there was not a single instance of our having allowed practically the whole cost of labour as the measure of protection. What has the argument been all along with protectionists? They declare that in other parts of the world labour is cheap ; and, because of that, they desire to make up the difference between the wages. What is the difference in this particular instance? The difference is practically £2 9s. 4d. ; and, in consideration of that, it is proposed to give protection amounting to £26 16s. 6d., or nearly three-fourths of the value of the whole machine. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- This is a proper labour man ! {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr Thomas: -- Do those manufacturers not also get a benefit under the Bonus Bill ? {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- Yes, and also under the anti-dumping legislation. To-day we have been told that out of seventy associations of farmers, fiftv have expressed their opposition to the proposed duty. Really, it would appear as if people in Melbourne knew better what farmers required than do the farmers themselves. It is cruel and criminal to impose this dutv in a dying Parliament. Let the Government go to the country, on this issue ; and I venture to say that there would be a very different vote to that which we saw a little while ago. I ask the supporters of the proposed duty to go into the country districts and advocate it. 1 venture to say that no farming com-, munity would return a representative pledged to this policy. When people come here craving for the whole of the market of Australia - urging that a wall should be erected around the Commonwealth - is it unreasonable to ask them to tell what it costs to make this machine? Yet the Tariff Commission has been treated with absolute contempt by men who can sit all night here waiting in order that this money may be put into their pockets. As I said before, so far as I am concerned, the duty shall not be passed at the proposed rate. {: #subdebate-12-0-s66 .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY:
Moira **.- Mr. Chairman-** {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Here is a man who uses a machine ! {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- I must compliment the honorable member for Grey on the wonderful vitality he displays at this hour of the morning after a most arduous sitting. I could quite understand the righteous indignation displayed by the honorable member if any attempt were made to despoil the unfortunate people whom he has depicted in the farming districts of Australia. My heart goes out to them. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- The honorable member shows that by proposing to give the manufacturers a protection equal to *£26* per machine. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- I appreciate to the fullest extent the sympathy which the honorable member displays for the farmers of South Australia, but I join issue with him when he states that certain honorable members, including myself, have no consideration for them. Furthermore, I take exception to his statement that certain honorable members have come here to pander to Che manufacturers. I entered public life as a protectionist, and I came into this House at the last election pledged to uphold protectionist principles. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable member was also pledged to fiscal peace. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- This fiscal war is not of my seeking. My constituents know very well that I shall vote every time for what I conceive to be effective protection. I stated last night how far I was prepared to go. In my opinion, the imposition of the increased duty will not have the effect of increasing the price of harvesters, but, on the other hand, will tend to diminish their cost to the consumers. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- Then the honorable member would support the imposition of a duty of *£16* per machine? {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- I said so last night, and I made a similar statement twelve months ago. When the action of the Minister of Trade and Customs in regard to the re-adjustment of the valuation of harvesters was under discussion, I stated that if the valuation had been raised to ^100, and a duty much higher than that now proposed by the Government had been collected, the cost of the machines to the farmer would not have been increased. Results have justified my opinion, inasmuch as the increase in the duty by about 100 per cent, did not result in advancing the price of harvesters. With regard to the proposed increase, I think that the case was very plainly presented by th? honorable member for Bland. The duty that is now being collected amounts to about _£9 per machine, and according to the figures supplied by the representatives of the importers themselves, the value of their machines is about *£46* or ^47. Therefore a duty of 25 per cent, would be an equivalent to a fixed impost of *£12.* I am prepared to accept that. Apart from anything that may be said in regard to other industries, the imposition of protective duties upon agricultural implements and machinery has tended to reduce rather than to increase the price to the consumer. Within the last fortnight certain protective duties were proposed for the benefit of the man on the land. Upon that occasion the honorable member for Grey, who is now denouncing those who are supporting a duty of 25 per cent, had nothing whatever to say against a proposal to give the vignerons of Australia a much higher degree of protection. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr Thomas: -- That was partly a moral and partly a fiscal question. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- The preference was given to the Australian producers of brandy owing to the special value of their product for medicinal purposes. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- I wish to direct special; attention to the fact that the honorable member for Grey and others who are displaying so much righteous indignation with regard to the present proposal had no compunction about imposing a still higher rate of duty for the special benefit of their constituents. I am reminded of the statement made by the honorable and learned member for Angas, that it is upon such occasions that a convenient halfwayhouse is provided for those who are freetraders by conviction, but protectionists by strict necessity. Apparently the honorable member for Grey was compelled by strict necessity to vote in favour of giving a preference to the Australian brandy producers, and was induced by his free-trade convictions to keep silent. I am not prepared to sit quietly by whilst any honorable member accuses me of acting in such a manner as to impoverish those whom I represent. I have no interest in the manufacturers of these machines, but if we establish factories under the conditions which prevail in Australia I maintain that a benefit will be conferred upon the entire community. {: #subdebate-12-0-s67 .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby .- In reply to the remarks of the honorable member for Moira, I wish to point out that there are no grapes grown in the district represented by the honorable member for Grey for commercial purposes. I might further remind the Committee that it is grossly unfair to twit the honorable member with having deserted his free-trade principles in order to serve the interests of his own electorate in connexion with the salt duty. Whilst it is true that a large quantity of salt is produced in his constituency it is not produced for commercial purposes. His vote upon the occasion to which reference has been made was cast in the interests of the producers of South Australia. As a protectionist I have always felt grateful to him for the assistance which he rendered us, and it comes with ill-grace from protectionist members of the Committee to gibe at him. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- I did not vote for the duty upon salt, but simply against a recommittal of the item. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- Exactly. In my opinion, the honorable member has been one of the most consistent free-traders in the House. {: #subdebate-12-0-s68 .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON:
Grey .- Lest honorable members should forget the tender mercies of the local manufacturers bf stripperharvesters, I propose to read a few extracts from the report of the Tariff Commission. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- This looks like a " stone- wall." {: #subdebate-12-0-s69 .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable member for Riverina is a good judge of " stonewalling " tactics. Although I recognise that I am in a minority, I do not think that any harm can accrue from a repetition of certain statements- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member will be out of order if he indulges in repetition. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- Only a little while ago the local manufacturers of stripperharvesters expressed their sympathy with the farmers in a very practical way by increasing the price of their machines from £63 to ,£80. We are assured upon the best possible authority that that charge was a gross imposition, and yet it is now proposed to allow these manufacturers to charge ,£8r for their machines for another twelve months. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- No. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- The Minister's proposal will not apply to the present time. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Yes, it will. **Mr.** POYNTON. - It will not apply until 1907. **Sir- William** Lyne.- I intend to propose that the price of stripper-harvesters shall not exceed .£75 until next February, and that it shall then be reduced to {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr Thomas: -- But the machine only costs ,£38 to produce. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- It is now proposed that the cost of these machines shall be reduced by *£6,* although it is well known that the present price is nothing short of an imposition. If they were to lower the price to *£65* the manufacturers would still make a very fair profit on the cost of construction. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- What would the im- porters charge if they had their way ? {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- I am not concerned about the importers any more than about the manufacturer^ ; but I am concerned about the men who have to use these machines. I would not trust either an importer or a manufacturer if he had a monopoly. I want to know how the Government is going to enforce the reduction of *£6,* of which we have heard so much? If it were proposed to deal with the matter by way of- excise on every machine sold, there would be some guarantee; but at present the proposal in that. respect is utterly unworkable. In October, 1902, these manufacturers put their heads together and formed a combine, in conjunction with the importers, for the purpose of forcing prices. They fixed a minimum price of ,£84 in New South Wales, and .£81 in Victoria. **Mr. McKay** told the Tariff Commission that he considered those prices onlv fair. What he terms a fair profit is ,£18 2s. 6d. per machine. After the two South Australian manufacturers joined the combine the price of machines which had formerly been sold for ,£63 in the Wimmera District of Victoria was raised to j£8i. The guarantee of the local makers is worth absolutely nothing. I am astonished that representatives of farming constituencies should agree to such proposals. Not only the House, but the country, has been insulted by these men, who can find time to come here night after night, attend meetings all over the city, and subscribe funds for sending men to work up an agitation, but who will not tell us the cost of producing a harvester. We have no desire to interfere with their business arrangements. If they care to run their concerns without an appeal to the House it is quite a matter of indifference to us what the cost of production is. But when it is deliberately proposed to increase the duty in order to secure to them the Australian market, and to shut out other implements of the kind, we have a right to know the cost of production. Let the proposal be hung up until we can ascertain how much more protection it involves than is now disclosed to us. The only way in which it has been possible to get an idea of the approximate cost of producing a harvester has been to ascertain from one party the cost of the material, and get from another party the percentage of the material in the manufactured article. By that means we have been able to elicit that ^38 is a fair estimate of the cost price. Suppose that a fixed duty of *£12* were imposed, what a silly position a representative of the people would be in when he went on to a platform in his constituency, and was asked by an elector to state the cost of constructing a harvester ! He would have to admit that, although the Parliament had secured the Australian market to the local manufacturers, he could not answer that question. I venture to predict that in the near future there will be an enormous increase in the production of harvesters. We are just approaching the solution of the great question of closer settlement. As the number of settlers increases, so the demand for the harvester will increase, and it will be possible for the manufacturers to penalize the farmers. *Sitting suspended from 8.35 to 0.35 a.m. (Friday).* {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- I am afraid that the Minister of Trade and Customs, and those associated with him in this movement do not realize that there is every indication that within the next ten years the area at present under cultivation will be increased tenfold. In this morning's newspaper reference is made to a proposition to resume some millions of acres, and I am satisfied that within the next few years .many thousands of these machines will be in use. We should do nothing to prevent those going on the land from obtaining the machines at the lowest possible rate. {: .speaker-KZV} ##### Mr Ronald: -- The local supply would be reasonable enough. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- The existing manufactories in Australia will not be equal to the demand for these machines a few years hence. On almost every holding where wheat is raised, one of these harvesters is to be found, and the demand for them must steadily increase as the area under closer settlement expands. The Government propose to place these manufactures in the hands of a few. Is it their intention that the farmers of Australia shall not have an opportunity to secure improved machinery from abroad? It is true that the Australian harvester is an excellent machine, but I venture to assert that the manufacturers here have yet to learn much in respect of machinery that is now being imported. If we adopt the Government proposal, it will be said later on that we should protect makers of all kinds of agricultural implements bv proportionately high duties. It is a singular thing that whilst the manufacturer requires his tools of trade - and every piece of machine'ry necessary for his work - to be placed on the free list, he is anxious to have a high Tariff wall to protect his own industry. It is unfair 'for the Government to attempt, on the eve of a general election, to force this proposal through the Parliament. Some honorable members appear to know little of the privations suffered by the backwoods men. I know of districts where men have taken up vermin-infested areas which they have to fence in with wire netting before they can produce a sheaf of hay. Men who have taken up these agricultural holdings are fighting valiantly against heavy odds, and yet it is proposed to place them in. the hands of these manufacturers, who, instead of rising to the occasion, show, in some cases, a tendency to build unnecessarily heavy machines. To this cause the extent of the importations of harvesters may be largely ascribed. In some cases the weight of the local machine is so much greater than is that of the imported, that an additional horse is necessary to haul it, and that is an important consideration to a struggling farmer. The Government invite us to, in effect, shut our imports, and thus to do away with the incentive to local manufacturers to keep their machines thoroughly up-to-date. I would make a final appeal to the Minister to accept my proposal. It may be suggested that the difference of *£1* will be of no material importance, but there is no doubt that it will make a great difference to the farmer. There is every reason to suppose that the manufacturers will advance their prices to an extent corresponding with the increase of duty. We know very well that when a duty was imposed upon oatmeal the price of that commodity was advanced to the fullest limit of the protection granted to the local manufacturers So it is in every other case. We have evidence that the manufacturers of harvesters deliberately entered into a conspiracy to increase the price of their machines from £63 to £81, and have for some years past been deriving the benefit of this advance. To my mind we should be legalizing robbery if we afforded them any further facilities for imposing upon farmers, many of whom have been struggling for years against adverse conditions. Surely a duty of £10 per machine should be sufficient to give the manufacturers all the necessary protection they need. It should, in effect, be sufficient to recoup them for the whole of the labour expended. If that is not protection run mad I do not know anything about the subject. {: #subdebate-12-0-s70 .speaker-K4E} ##### Mr CONROY:
Werriwa .- I cordially indorse the remarks of the honorable member for Grey, and I was very pleased to listen to his contribution to the debate. According to the proposal now before us, the farmers of Australia are to be called upon to pay the whole of the wages of the men employed in the manufacture of harvesters, whilst their employers are to be permitted to pocket the profits. We have been assured that the manufacturers will be required to sell their machines at a smaller price than they would be able to obtain if they were free from alt restrictions. Further, it is stated that provision will be made for an immediate reduction of the price to £75 ; but I would point out that two years ago, before the methods of production were improved, harvesters were being sold for £65. Thus the reduction offered is worth absolutely nothing, and is intended merely to deceive the farmers. According to the evidence given before the Tariff Commission, the local manufacturers entered into a combination in October, 1904, and raised their prices to £81. They were previously selling their machines at £70, and at a 10 per cent, reduction on that price in the case of purchases made direct from the manufacturers. As a matter of fact, the Murtoa Farmers' Union had machines offered to them at £62 each. If it had not been for the combination among the manufacturers, t,he stripper-harvesters would have been available to the farmers at a price much lower than that proposed to be fixed under the Bill which the Minister has promised to introduce, lt is perfectly plain that the action now proposed to be taken will have the effect of keeping up prices, instead of exerting an influence in the opposite direction. There will be no competition from outside, and the local manufacturers' ring will be able to work their own sweet will upon the farmers, who are being deceived and tricked in every possible way. I thank the honorable member for Grey for his speech ; and I can say that I fully indorse the opinions he expressed. {: #subdebate-12-0-s71 .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE:
New England -- This attempt to raise the duty on harvesters is simply an outrage, especially in , view of the fact that our manufacturers are already selling these machines at a very great profit. We know that some time ago the price was as low as £60, and that it was raised to *£81,* owing to the action of the ring. I refuse to be a party to helping any combination of the kind. I can not forget that St was because of the action of the inside men that the ring was brought into existence. The Australian manufacturers could get the whole of the trade by selling their machines at a fair price; but this they have refused to do. One of the importing firms is now selling this machine at £70, and we ought not to consent to the proposal before us simply in order to give the Minister an opportunity to say that owing to the imposition of the mew duty the price has been reduced. In my opinion, at least £26 worth of the material in each machine is imported, leaving only £13 worth of labour to be done within Australia. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr Thomas: -- If there are duties on the parts imported, it gives the local .manufacturer a strong case for a duty on the finished article. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -There may be a duty on the smaller parts, although there is no duty on iron and steel ; but that is not the point. I desire to emphasize the fact that a duty of *£16* per machine is proposed in order that £13 worth of work may be created within the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr Thomas: -- The duty will be reduced to *j£i2.* {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- But the "Minister; proposed that it should be That harvesters can be made here successfully is proved by the immense increase of the local output of late years. Last year the local production largely exceeded the importation. The proposed increase of duty will not benefit the consumers, because it will not reduce prices. On the contrary, it will give the manufacturers an opportunity to charge more for their machines. It is "claimed that it will give more employment to our people; but while if all the agricultural implements required in Australia are manufactured locally, employment may be found in the industry for perhaps 600 men more than are now engaged in it, work will be taken from the large number now connected with the business of importing. The coming here of ships gives work to our people in many directions, and 'the stoppage of importation would injure them by putting an end to their employment. It is, however, well known that it is impossible to manufacture locally all the agricultural implements and machinery required by Australian farmers and cultivators. Between 1900 and 1904 the value of the output of the Victorian implement industry increased by £199, 000, and the number of Hands employed by 350, so that 600 is a very liberal estimate of the number to whom employment would be given if the whole agricultural implement trade was under the control of the local manufacturers. At the present time there are 2,770 people connected with the industry. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr Thomas: -- Is the honorable member sure of his figures? {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- Yes. They have been taken from the Tariff Commission's report. In Victoria the number of hands employed in the industry in 1899 was 1,107, and in 1905, 1,624; in South Australia in 1899, 242, and in 1905, 723; in New South Wales in 1899, 193, and in 1905, 386; and in Western Australia in 1899, 38, and in 1905, 39. There are no figures available for Queensland and Tasmania. Thus it will be seen that the total number employed in the Commonwealth in 1905 was only 2,770. Adding to that number the 6.00 to whom work might be given if the whole of- the agricultural implement making were done in Australia - which is an over-estimate - the total number then employed would be only 3,370. To get the 7,13 worth of work done in making a harvester the people of Australia are asked to pay a duty of £16. No doubt these remarks are displeasing to those who are helping the manufacturers to fleece the public, but that will not prevent me from proclaiming my views on the subject. The Treasurer, speaking yesterday at a luncheon, said that last year Australia's exports were valued at £54,000,000, of which £38,000,000 represented the produce from farming and grazing, while ,£16,000,000 was mineral wealth. Yet, for the sake of the miserable industry of harvester making, which has proved that it can do well without a duty, it is proposed to penalize our producers in every direction. I shall vote to secure whatever reduction of the proposed duty can be obtained. Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted - put. The Committee divided. 19 24 AYES: 0 NOES: 0 Majority AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. {: #subdebate-12-0-s72 .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY:
Wentworth -- I move - >That the following proviso be added : - " Provided that on stripper harvesters the product of white labour in any section of the British Empire, the duty shall not exceed *£10* per machine." My object in submitting the amendment is to afford the Government an opportunity to prove the sincerity of their professions in respect of preferential trade. If my proposal be carried, the result will be that upon stripper-harvesters imported from any country other than a part of the British Empire, and upon harvesters which are imported from any portion of the Empire and which have not been exclusively constructed by white labour, the -duty will be *jQi2,* whereas machines imported from any part of the British Empire which have been exclusively constructed by white labour, the duty will be *£10.* Consequently, we should be offering a preference of £2 Per machine to Canadian manufacturers. My object is to extend to people of our own -blood overseas who build these machines entirely by white labour, such a preference as the Prime Minister, has for years been advocating. {: #subdebate-12-0-s73 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- I *hope* that the honorable member will not press his amendment, because the Government are quite prepared to enter into any reasonable preferential agreement with the Government of Canada. I understand that within the past few days a cablegram has been published in the press indicating that the Dominion Government lis communicating willi the Prime Minister with a view to ascertaining whether it is not possible to enter into some such arrangement. When that communication is received, the matter can be dealt with. If we can make any fair reciprocal arrangement with the Dominion Government, I can assure the honorable member that we shall embrace the opportunity to do so. {: #subdebate-12-0-s74 .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY:
Wentworth .- The Government have submitted proposals relating to preferential trade with the United Kingdom. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! The honorable, member cannot, discuss a matter which already appears upon the business paper. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- The *personivel* of the House may undergo a change as the result of the approaching general elections, and I wish to test the *bona fides* of the Imperial sentiments of the Committee at the present juncture. Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added - put. Tne Committee divided. Ayes Noes Majority 15 28 13 Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. {: #subdebate-12-0-s75 .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo -- By way of personal explanation, I wish to state, **Mr. Chairman,** that I was called away to attend a meeting of the Tariff Commission, and was inadvertently absent when the division took place on the proposal that the duty be *£11* per machine. Had I been present, I should have voted for that proposal. Amendment (by **Sir Langdon** Bonython) put - >That the following words be inserted after the item "Stripper Harvesters, each, *£16": -* "and on and after 8th September, 1906, each The Committee divided. 38 AYES: 0 NOES: 0 Majority 4r 3 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. {: #subdebate-12-0-s76 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- In view of the vote that has just been taken, and the decision arrived at, I move - >That after the words "Strippers, each £8," the words " and on and after 8th September, 1906, *£6,"* be inserted. This will bring the duty more into line with that which the Committee has just decided shall be imposed on stripperharvesters {: #subdebate-12-0-s77 .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh -- The Government are placing their supporters in a very peculiar position. I said last night that I was entirely in favour of their proposals, but we now find the Government running away from them, although they have not been defeated. I do not feel inclined to depart from the views that I expressed last night, but the action of the Government may give rise to misapprehension as to the position occupied by some honorable members. It is questionable whether the duty on strippers ought to be reduced. I should like the Minister to inform the Committee what is the difference between the cost of making a stripper and that of manufacturing a stripper-harvester? Some honorable members may assert that a higher duty than the present one means prohibition, but I do not think so. Even if that were so, it would be an inducement to me to vote for the duty. I shall not quarrel with the Government ff they think that they are making a fair proposal in view of the reduction of the duty upon stripper-harvesters. I merely wished to make mv positioni clear. {: #subdebate-12-0-s78 .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby -- - I understand that strippers are sold at from £45 to *£S5,* and if that be so, the proposed- duty of *£8* would correspond more closely than would *£6,* with the duty imposed upon stripper-harvesters. {: #subdebate-12-0-s79 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- When the duties were first decided upon, they were based upon a 25 per cent, *ail valorem* impost, and were fixed with due regard to the relative values of the machines. In view of the fact that the duty upon stripperharvesters Has been reduced by one-fourth, I am seeking to reduce the duty upon strippers in similar proportion, and thus preserve the harmony which characterized the original proposals. {: .speaker-KY8} ##### Mr Phillips: -- There are no strippers imported. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- That isi my impression, because I know that strippers are one of the most common articles of manufacture by country implement makers. Amendment agreed to. Amendment (by **Sir William** Lyne) proposed - >That after the words " Metal parts of stripper harvesters and strippers, per lb., 2£d.," the words " and on and after 8th September, per lb., 2d.," be inserted. {: #subdebate-12-0-s80 .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE:
New England -- I understand that the metal parts referred to can be obtained at from 12s. to 16s. per cwt., and, as 2d. per lb. would be equivalent to 18s. 8d. per cwt., it will be seen that the duty would be equivalent to over 100 per cent, *ad valorem.* It would be absurd to impose any such duty. It appears to me that although honorablemembers were elected under a pledge to preserve fiscal peace, they are intent upon introducing prohibition. If the present proposal were carried it would be in distinct violation of the pledge given to the electors. At the very outside, the duty should not exceed 25 per cent, *ad valorem/* therefore nothing beyond a duty of id. per lb. should be imposed. Local manufacturers find it to their advantage to import some of the parts instead of making them here, and if we impose too high a duty we shall penalize our manufacturers, and at the same time place unnecessary obstacles in the wav of owners of imported machines who may require duplicate parts. I wish to encourage the manufacturing industry, but not by imposing duties. My desire is to make everything free of duty. It seems to me absurd to attempt to force our industries along to an extent that is not warranted by the requirements of the community. I feel very strongly disposed to move that the duty should be 25 per cent, *ad valorem.* {: #subdebate-12-0-s81 .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY:
Corinella .- If my memory serves me rightly, a request was made by some of the manufacturers for a duty of ^25 upon stripper-harvesters and a duty of z£d. per lb. upon the metal parts. The proposed duty upon the parts was regarded as corresponding with and proportionate to the .£25 duty upon the completed machines. Therefore 2d. per lb. would not be the equivalent of the reduced duty of *£12* per machine. I am informed that, roughly speaking, there is a ton of metal parts in a stripper-harvester, in which case a duty of 2d. per lb. upon such parts would represent an impost of £Ji8 13s. 4d. - an amount very largely in excess of the duty proposed to be levied on the completed machine. The Tariff Commission recommended that there should be an increased duty on only some of the parts, namely, malleable castings, and that the duty should be fixed at 20 per cent., and not 25 per cent. Consequently the Government proposal of 2d. per lb. is largely in excess of the proportion which it should bear to the duty upon the completed machine, and also largely in excess of the amount proposed by the Tariff Commission. In view of the reduction of . the duty upon stripperharvesters to ;£i.2, the duty on the parts should be reduced to id. or ijd. per lb. If we impose too high a duty, it will operate to the detriment of the farmers, who will have to pay very much higher prices for duplicate parts of imported machines. So far as I can work it out, id. is the proper proportion of duty according to the Tariff Commission's report. To my mind, it would be detrimental to our farmers to place a high duty on parts. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- Parts are always sold at prices proportionately higher than those charged for complete machines. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- Yes, and to put a high duty on them will increase that difference, and burden those who now have imported machines. {: #subdebate-12-0-s82 .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY:
Moira .- The duty on stripper-harvesters has been reduced by one-fourth. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- Is not a duty of 2^d. per lb. on parts out of proportion when compared with the original duty of *£16* on a stripper-hars'ester ? {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- I do not think so, talking into consideration the amount of metal. The machines vary in weight from 23 to 26 cwt. The parts of the American machines are known as malleable castings. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- The duty covers all metar parts. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- Would it cover wheels ? {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- Yes; metal wheels. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- In my opinion, the importers deal very unfairly with customers who want duplicate parts. For three duplicate steering wheels they charge, according to their catalogue, *£20* 5s., while the Australian manufacturers charge only ^14. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- The proposed, duty would increase that trouble. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- In my opinion, it is relatively not so high as a fixed duty of *jQiz* oh each machine. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- What is the weight of the ' three wheels to which the honorable member referred? {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- The honorable and learned member may be able to get that information by examining the catalogue. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- The makers' profits come largely from the sale of parts. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- For that reason we should be careful not to allow parts to be imported at duties relatively lower than are charged fdr machines. Otherwise, we may have parts imported and put together here. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- Supposing the weight cf a machine to be 24 cwt, a duty of 2d. per lb. on parts would be equivalent to £22 8s. on the completed machine. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- I cannot say offhand how much of a harvester is wood and how much is metal ; but I think that 2d. is a fair duty to impose on parts, having regard to the fact that the duty upon the machines is *£12* each. {: #subdebate-12-0-s83 .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN:
Canobolas .- One of the reasons why farmers buy imported machines is that it is easier to get satisfactory parts for them in the event of repairs being needed, or replacements becoming necessary. " The Australian manufacturers have not given sufficient attention to the manufacture of duplicate parts, whereas with the Americans it is a specialty. It is a common experience with farmers to have trouble with Australian duplicate parts, which very often do not fit. That has been my experience. Moreover, the American parts are more durable than the Australian parts. The Tariff Commissioners, speaking on this subject, say - Most of the parts of an imported stripperharvester consist of malleable castings, and it is in the manipulation and use' of malleable castings that the secret of the success of American and Canadian competition in Australia is to be found. The Americans and Canadians used very little forged iron, every joint or boss, or anything of that kind, is made out of malleable iron, which means a great saving. - (Q. 16^8.) On the other hand, the Australian implements are made offorged iron, 01 steel, which is more expensive. Malleable castings are not made in any quantity in Australia, and such as are made at present are not so cheap as those imported. America has practically a monopoly in the production of malleable castings, and can easily undersell local manufacturers. Australian manufacturers cannot produce the essential parts of the machine as cheaply as their Canadian and American rivals; such parts can only be turned out cheaply in the form of malleable castings. The honorable and learned member for Corinella is right in drawing attention to this matter. If the duty were made too high it would prejudice the users of machines. I find that in 1905 the parts imported into New South Wales were valued at while those imported into Queensland were valued at ,£398, and those imported into South Australia at ,£1,325 ; and the interest of both farmers and manufacturers - until the local industry has improved its manufacture of parts - will be best served by keeping down the duty on parts. Instead of reducing the proposed dutv by only Jd., I think that it should be "reduced by *6.* {: #subdebate-12-0-s84 .speaker-KQ4} ##### Mr McCOLL:
Echuca .- We ought to be very careful as to what action we take in this matter, because I am sure it is not the desire of any honorable member that the farmers who have purchased American machines during the last year or two should be penalized. Within the period indicated there has been considerable competition between the various foreign implement makers, and that competition has had the effect of reducing the price of the harvester to the Australian farmer. It would not be fair to penalize him now by requiring him to pay a heavy duty upon the duplicate parts which he may require for the machines which are already in use. Those parts would be difficult to obtain locally. Many of them are patented, and could not be made here. They have to be manufactured by a peculiar process of annealing. They are first cast in the ordinary way, and then put into furnaces for some days, during which period they become very tough., I should like to know if the Minister cannot see his way to meet those who have already purchased American machines, and allow those who may purchase them hereafter to pay the full duty ? {: #subdebate-12-0-s85 .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE:
New England -- When **Mr. McKay** appeared before the Tariff Commission he stated that these malleable castings could be landed here at from 2½d. to 3d. per lb. The Minister's proposal to levy a duty of 2d. per lb. upon them is therefore an outrageous one. It is quite natural that manufacturers should charge relatively more for the duplicate parts of these machines than they do for the machines themselves. Assuming that they are of the weight indicated by **Mr. McKay,** their cost at 2d. per lb. would work out at ,£38. If we levy upon these duplicate parts the heavy duty proposed by the' Minister we shall merely be penalizing the farmers. I regret' that there is no disposition on the part of Victorian representatives to view this matter from a broad and liberal standpoint. They are imbued with; only one idea, namely, that of enriching local manufacturers. Personally I am of opinion that these duplicate parts should be admitted free. The only State in the Commonwealth which is pleading for Government assistance in these matters is Victoria. I may tell the Committee that I have seen offers to manufacture these parts for about 16s. per cwt., so that the duty proposed by the Government is equivalent to an impost of quite 100 per cent. I appeal to the protectionists to be reasonable in this matter. Even the honorable member for Moira must recognise that the proposed duty would constitute a heavy tax upon those who have already purchased machines from abroad. {: #subdebate-12-0-s86 .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY:
Moira -- I estimate that the maximum weight of the duplicate parts that would be required during the life of an ordinary harvester would be 5 cwt. Except in case of accident, the only parts which a farmer would need to renew would be the bearings, the spindles, and the segment of the main driving wheel. The life of an ordinary harvester is about twelve years. I am estimating that during that period it harvests 250 acres each season, or a total of 3,000 acres. I venture to say that my estimate is a fair statement of the position. I feel confident that the weight of metal in the duplicate parts that would need to be renewed would not exceed 5 cwt., or, roughly speaking, 600 lbs. A duty of 2d. per lb. upon these parts would therefore mean £5, which amount distributed over twelve years would be equivalent to 8s. 4d. per annum. The proposal of the Government, if adopted, will bring this duty into harmony with the duties that have already been agreed to. My contention is that the imposition of a protective duty causes a reduction in the price of the article protected. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- There would be' no sense in importing these duplicate parts. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- Exactly. The point which I wish to emphasize is that there will be no increase in the cost of these parts if we adopt the proposal of the Government. {: #subdebate-12-0-s87 .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie .- This is a proposal that requires to be carefully considered, and in respect of. which more information should be forthcoming from the' Minister. Whilst I am prepared to vote for a duty which will give the Australian manufacturer the local market - subject to certain conditions as to selling prices, and so forth - I do not propose to erect a tariff wall against the introduction of parts that may be required under circumstances that render it impossible to impose the conditions I have mentioned. We must be careful not to impose such a duty on parts as would nullify the provision we have made in regard to the complete machine. I have made a rough calculation as to what would be the effect of the Government proposal. Assuming, that the weight of the machine complete is about 24 cwt., a duty of 2d. per lb. on the whole of the weight would amount to about £22 8s. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- But the honorable member is wrong in his premises. It is not proposed to impose a duty in. respect of the total weight. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- A dutv of 2d. per *lb.* would amount to *£22 8s. on* all the parts necessary to make up a complete machine. This successfully disposes of the objection that under this provision it would be possible for these parts to be imported and fitted up for sale as a machine, since the duty paid in respect of them would be double that imposed upon the completed article. If only three-fourths of the weight of the machine were subjected to this duty the total impost would be about *£16* 1 6s. per machine, so that even under that duty no one would think of importing the parts separately and assembling them here. My experience leads me to agree with the honorable member for Moira that the main bearings, spindles, segments, and, perhaps, one or two others, are the parts most likely to require renewal, and that we must be careful to impose such a duty as not to place at a disadvantage those who already own imported machines, and may require any of these duplicate parts. In the circumstances, therefore, I think that a duty of ijd. per lb. on parts - which would be equal to about £13 in respect of the complete machine - would afford effective protection. If the Minister will accept my proposal, he will deal fairly with the Australian manufacturer, and at the same time safeguard the interests of the consumers. {: #subdebate-12-0-s88 .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay .- There is a good deal of force in the remarks just made by the honorable member for Kalgoorlie, but there is another aspect of this question that yet remains to be dealt with. I refer to the fact that stripperharvesters, on which we have imposed a duty of £12, are not brought out here as complete machines. As a matter of fact, the parts are largely assembled here. That is a point that should not be overlooked. The proposal of the Government is to impose on duplicate parts a duty which will be almost double that on the complete machine. As some parts are in greater demand than others, it might pay those who supply them to import from time to time complete machines, and to sell them in separate pieces. Whilst I held office ss Minister of Trade and Customs it was urged that importers should be compelled to bring out their machines in a complete state, the idea being that the cost of transit would in that way be increased. Such a proposition would be scouted by any man who believes that no one should be subjected to unnecessarily costly shippingfreights. The imposition of a high dutv would undoubtedly be unjust to these who have already ' purchased machines from oversea. Parts have to be replaced from time to time, and it would be unjust to penalize, the owner of one of these machines to the extent of even *jQi* per annum in respect of the duty on parts requiring to be renewed. I am sure the Committee does not desire that those who purchased machines under the Tariff prevailing prior to the introduction of these proposals should be prejudiced in any way or disadvantaged by a sudden increase of duty. The proposed duty is too high. I think that a duty of ijd. per lb. would be ample. I have a suggestion to make to overcome the difficulty in regard to those who have already purchased imported machines. My proposal is that for six or twelve months we should allow these parts to come in at the rate of id. per lb., so that those requiring duplicates could obtain the necessary stock. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- Does the honorable member know that the importers have frequently thrown an implement completely out of order owing to their inability to supplv, perhaps, one component part. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- That is a serious charge to make. If importers carry on business in that way it is, to say the least, surprising that they obtain any sale for their machines. Even in that regard the local manufacturers have a great advantage over their foreign competitors. I trust that the Minister will, be able to see his way to permit of the almost free importation of metal parts of harvesters and strippers, so that those who require duplicate parts for imported machines may not be unduly penalized. I am sure that honorable members have no desire to inflict an injustice. {: #subdebate-12-0-s89 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- I find that some difficulty was experienced in substituting a fixed duty for the *ad valorem* duty recommended by the Tariff Commission, and an approximate amount had to be adopted. The prices of the parts range from about 2d. per lb. to is. id. per lb., and a fixed duty of 2^d. would correspond as nearly as possible with a duty of £16 per machine. I think that, if anything, 2id. per lb. is equivalent to something slightlv in excess of 25 per cent., because the departmental officers had to strike an average of the various prices. As a rule, only the smaller parts are imported. Having: regard to all the circumstances. T am willing to reduce the dutv to ifd. per lb. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment (by **Sir William** Lyne) proposed - >That after the words "Metal parts of stripperharvesters and strippers, per lb., *x±A."* the words " and on and after Sth September, per lb., ifd." be inserted. {: #subdebate-12-0-s90 .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON:
Corangamite .- It has been suggested to me by the honorable member for Echuca that the proposed new duty should not become operative for six months, in order to enable those who possess machines to obtain duplicate parts at reasonable cost. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- If that course were adopted a splendid opportunity would be afforded for speculative importations. {: #subdebate-12-0-s91 .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY:
Corinella .- I raised some questions with regard to the proposed duty on metal parts, and I have since obtained information, not only from the Minister, but from the Customs officers. According to my calculations the proposed dutv of ifd. per lb. works out very closely to the equivalent of the *£12* dutv on the stripper-harvesters, and I shall, therefore, support the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Amendment (by **Sir William** Lyne) proposed - >That after the words "Combined cornsheller and husker," the words "fertilizers and seed drills" be inserted. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr Poynton: -- I should like to know whv this addition is proposed? {: #subdebate-12-0-s92 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- It has been represented to me that seed drills and fertilizers are very largely made here, and that there is no reason why all our requirements should not be supplied by locafi manufacturers. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- What are the prersent duties? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- 12 per cent.. These implements come within the same, category as the other articles with which they are bracketed. Amendment agreed to. **Mr. JOSEPH** COOK (Panama;.' 1 [IJ-53]-- 1 move- >That after the words " *ad valorem,* 25 per cent." the words " and on and after 8th September, 1906, 15 per cent." be inserted. I think that we should adopt the old Victorian duty. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- The Victorian duty immediately preceding Federation was 15 pet cent., but prior to 1805 the dutv was 20 per cent. The evidence given before the Tariff 'Commission shows that the troubles of the manufacturers commenced from the date that the duties upon implements were reduced to 15 per cent. {: #subdebate-12-0-s93 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I think that we shall do well to adopt the old Victorian duties, under which the industry with which we are now dealing, and others, nourished. If the Victorian Parliament thought fit to reduce the duty from 20 per cent, to 15 per cent., further reason is afforded why we should adopt the latter rate. We have been told by the representatives of Victoria that all sorts of misfortunes have befallen the manufacturers of that State since the rates of duty prevailing under the old Victorian Tariff were abandoned and lower duties were substituted by the Commonwealth Parliament. They have represented that prosperity would be fully restored if the old Victorian duties were revived. Certainly, the Victorian manufacturers did well enough, and the implement makers sufficiently taxed the Victorian farmers under a 15 per cent, impost. {: #subdebate-12-0-s94 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- In this case we are proposing to adopt the recommendation of the protectionist members of the Tariff Commission. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- This is the first time that the Minister has done so. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- The only reason why I did not accept the recommendation of the Commission with regard to harvesters and strippers was that I considered it preferable to fix a specific duty in order to avoid the difficulties, of valuation for the purposes of an *ad valorem* duty. {: #subdebate-12-0-s95 .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS:
Dalley .- I shall support the amendment. I think that, as the Victorian Parliament,' possiblyled by the Prime Minister, adopted a rate of 15 per cent., and as the other States, particularly New South Wales, were not accustomed to these high duties, it is asking us to make too big a plunge to propose a duty of 25 per cent. I trust that the Government will accept the compromise which has been offered. {: #subdebate-12-0-s96 .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr MCWILLIAMS:
Franklin -- Had not the amendment been moved, I should have asked the Committee to leave out all these items, with a view to leaving the duties upon them as they stand in the original Federal Tariff. The House of Representatives, after thoroughly threshing the matter out. agreed to a duty of 15 per cent, on the articles under renew, which the Senate made 10 per cent., and 12^ per cent, was fixed upon as a compromise. The Victorian rate, which was the highest in Australia on agricultural implements, was only 15 per- cent., and I ask honorable members, not to put a heavier duty on the farmers' tools of trade. The question which I hope the country will be asked to decide' within the next few weeks is whether the great primary industries of Australia exist for the sake of a few Melbourne manufacturers, or whether the Melbourne manufacturers exist for the sake of those who buy their machines. We are continually hearing from those who advocate the piling up of duties that the manufacturers say this and that; but surely the users of these implements deserve consideration. My experience has been that the farmers receive very little consideration at the hands of honorable members. A majority is always ready to vote for duties which will bleed the farmer to enrich the wealthy few in the cities. The members of the Labour Party talk of the necessity of distributing among the many the wealth which is now in the hands of a few, and yet they help the protectionists to compel the poor to contribute out of their poverty to the wealth of the few by swelling the bank balances of the Melbourne manufacturers. The honorable member for Moira on Wednesday night occupied nearly three hours in trying to make four points. One was that, because, im the early days, a number of persons received, grants of land for very small sums, the people who have purchased that land ought' to be made to pay for it. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- That is not a right construction to place on what I said. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr MCWILLIAMS: -- That is the construction placed upon it by the Chairman of Committees. Another point made by the honorable member was that the higher the duties on articles of trade the cheaper will those articles be to the consumers. A third point was that, because the Victorian farmers get certain railway concessions, the farmers of the Commonwealth must pay more for their tools of trade, in order to benefit certain Victorian manufacturers. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- That is not ai fair statement of my position. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr MCWILLIAMS: -- The Victorian protectionists think that the whole Commonwealth should revolve round the Melbourne manufacturers. In my State a Canadian plough is largely used. {: #subdebate-12-0-s97 .speaker-KNJ} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Mauger: -- I ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the amendment. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr MCWILLIAMS: -- The point I wish to make is that the Minister of Trade and Customs is proposing to double the duty on the farmers' tools of trade. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I have been told that I ought to follow the Tariff Commission's report. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr MCWILLIAMS: -- The less the Minister says of the Tariff Commission the better. He stated last night that certain persons refused to give evidence because they would not be bullied by **Senator Clemons;** but I have consulted members of the Commission who are politically opposed to that gentleman, and they say that there was no justification for that statement. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Let the honorable member read the newspaper account for himself. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr MCWILLIAMS: -- At any rate, the Minister made no protest at the time. Only recently I saw a Scotch Dux plough sold for £$ ros. cash. The original Commonwealth duty was 12J per cent., and I have been informed by Customs officials that the expenses of bringing such a plough to Australia amount to from 12^ per cent, to 15 per cenf. ; so that, altogether, the local purchaser pays *£1* 17s. 6d. upon it. The Minister proposes to make him pay that amount in duty, in addition to the charges of importation. I wish to see Australian industries flourish ; but they should not batten one upon the other. These ploughs are necessaries to the tillers of the soil. It is absurd to try to encourage immigration, and to speak of appointing a High Commissioner at an enormous salary for that purpose, and at the same time to tax the farmers' tools of trade. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- What is the condition of the men on the land where there is no such taxation? {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr MCWILLIAMS: -- Prior to Federation, farmers were leaving one of the Austraiian States in much greater numbers proportionately than they were leaving any of the others. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- What State was that? {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr mcwilliams: -- victoria. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- That is not correct. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr MCWILLIAMS: -- Prior to Federation there were more agriculturists leaving Victoria than any other State. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- That is not correct. Victoria has settled more people upon the land than any other State in the Union. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr MCWILLIAMS: -- The facts which I am stating cannot be controverted. If we cross into New South Wales or Queensland, we shall find Victorian" farmers there in large numbers. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member must confine his remarks to the question under consideration. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr MCWILLIAMS: -- The protectionists argue that the higher the duties we impose, the more will the farmers benefit. That, however, is not the testimony of the representatives of the Farmers' Union before the Tariff Commission. They declared in most emphatic terms that they did not desire their tools of trade to be taxed more heavily. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- The Victorian farmer owns Tasmania, he is buying .up New South Wales, and is now negotiating for the purchase of Queensland. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr MCWILLIAMS: -- The Victorian farmer has found that Victoria is a firstclass State, to get out of. I protest against the whole of the primary industries of the Commonwealth being taxed for the benefit of city manufacturers. The curse of Australia is that there are far too many people resident in our cities proportionately to the number who are settled in the country. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- Will a tax of 5s. upon a plough drive a man .out of the city ? {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr MCWILLIAMS: -- The present tax and charges upon a plough which is worth *£5* I0S- is *£** 7s. 6d., and under the duty proposed it will be *£1* 17s. 6d. I shall support the amendment that the duty be reduced to 15 per cent., and if, subsequently, a proposal is submitted in fa vour of the retentionof thepresent duty, I shall vote for it. {: #subdebate-12-0-s98 .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON:
Corangamite -- When the honorable member for Franklin was speaking of tools of trade of the farmer, he was upon very solid ground, but when he declared that prior to Federation Victoria was rapidly losing her farming population, he was upon very unstable ground. I should like to point out to him that stump-jump ploughs are peculiarly an Australian production. The disc cultivator, too, is more or less an Australian production. Winnowers are not. They are largely produced in America - indeed, the most perfect winnowers tome from that country. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- The honorable member is confusing the grader with the winnower. They are two different machines. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- I am quite aware of that. Nevertheless, they practically come {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- Oh, no. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- They are almost entirely mads up of parts which are imported. It is only quite recently that our manufacturers have been putting together fertilizers and seed drills in Victoria. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- ft is only recently that those implements have come into considerable use in Victoria. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- The only real Australian machine is that which is made bv Mitchell. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- There is Munro's machine. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- -What I wish to point out is that these implements are the tools of trade of the farmer. The present duty of 12 per cent, upon them represents a meagre protection. Fifteen per cent., which was the rate levied under the old Victorian Tariff, constitutes a satisfactory measure of protection, but in view of the fact that stump-jump ploughs and disc cultivators are peculiarly an Australian production, I think that the duty upon them should be 20 per cent. {: .speaker-L0Y} ##### Mr Wilkinson: -- - Corn huskers and shellers are also Australian inventions. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- I do not know anything about these implements. We do not use them in the Western District of Victoria. I have had considerable experience of disc cultivators both of Australian and Canadian manufacture. The Australian cultivator is used for working heavy land, and is one of the finest implements that can be obtained in any part of the world. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- The honorable member must not confuse the disc plough with the disc cultivator. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- I am referring to disc ploughs and disc cultivators, which come under the same heading. I suggest that the duty on stump-jump ploughs and disc cultivators should be fixed at 20 per cent. {: .speaker-L0Y} ##### Mr Wilkinson: -- Will the honorable member move to make the whole of the implements included in the list dutiable at that rate? {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- No. I think that the duty upon the other articles should be reduced to 15 per cent. . Included in them are ploughs such as are used very largely in my OB'n district for turning up the {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- I supported it because I could not get a higher duty. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- That duty was found to afford a satisfactory measure of protection to our manufacturers. {: .speaker-KLM} ##### Mr Maloney: -- No, no. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- The honorable member is a prohibitionist, but I am not. I believe in moderate protection. I hope that the Committee will decide that the duty upon the first series of implements enumerated in the schedule of *ad valorem* rates shall be 20 per cent. Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted - put. The Committee divided. AYES: 17 NOES: 0 Majority 14 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Amendment (by **Mr. Joseph** Cook) proposed - That after the words *"ad valorem,* 25 per cent." the words " and on and after Sth September, 1906, 20 per cent." be inserted. {: #subdebate-12-0-s99 .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON:
Corangamite -- But that the honorable member for Parramatta forstalled me, I should have moved this amendment. I appeal to those who supported the Victorian Tariff of 1895 - the honorable member for Laanecoorie, the Attorney-General, an8 also, I think, the Prime Minister, who were at that time members of the Victorian Parliament, and who I believe supported most of the duties then submitted - to stand by this amendment. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- Does the honorable member say that all whom he named voted on that occasion for a duty of 1-5 per cent.? {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- No; but I believe that most of them did. I am certain that the honorable member for Laanecoorie did. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr Salmon: -- That is so. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- Reference has been made during this debate to the speech delivered in 1892 by the present AttorneyGeneral, in which he strongly deprecated prohibition, and spoke in favour of the farmer, and the reduction of duties relating to his tools of trade. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- I spoke in favour of protection, but not of prohibition. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- That is all that I am urging, and I appeal to honorable members to support this amendment. {: #subdebate-12-0-s100 .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr SALMON:
Laanecoorie -- Many things have happened since the Victorian State Parliament dealt with the State Tariff eleven years ago. So far as the protective policy of the Commonwealth is concerned, I stand to-day in a position very different from that which I occupied in relation to the protective policy of Victoria. The incidence of protection has since been varied. I' am glad to say that the policy of protection now embraces not only manufacturers as it did in the olden days, but has regard for the welfare of the employes as well as the consumers, and I am prepared therefore to support the recommendation of the Tariff Commission that an additional duty be imposed. {: #subdebate-12-0-s101 .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE:
New England -- I agree with the honorable member for Laanecoorie that there have been many changes since the consideration of the Victorian Tariff by the State Legislature in 1895. The Victorian manufacturers have now a much wider market than they then enjoyed, and the exports of Victorianmade agricultural implements into the other States are considerably in excess of the imports of the same class entering this State. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- The Victorian manufacturers could export agricultural implements into New South Wales even in 1895. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- The honorable member occasionally wakes up to say something that is not very sensible. The Victorian agricultural implement makers may have been able to send some machinery into the Riverina, which is nearer the Melbourne than the Sydney market. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- They did that eleven years ago. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- I do not know whether I can get into the honorable member's dense head the fact that they sent implements to the Riverina, near the Victorian border. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- In those days even farmers in the electorate of New England used Victorian-made ploughs. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- Perhaps they did. But the exports of Victorian-made agricultural implements into New South Wales are much larger now than they were prior to Federation. I do not object to this, for I am a free-trader, and would .give every man the fullest freedom. The proposal of the Government is an outrageous one. Victoria has been working under the policy of protection for fourteen years, and it is the only State that is howling for more protection. The more she gets the more she likes it. If the whole of the agricultural implement business of the Commonwealth were captured bv the local manufacturers thev would not be able to afford employment to more than 600 men. It is now calmly proposed that the whole body of farmers shall be taxed in order to find employment for this number of artisans. Some consideration should be shown for our settlers, and this Parliament should not be looked upon as one which is specially concerned in protecting the interests of manufacturers. {: #subdebate-12-0-s102 .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS:
Dalley -- The honorable member for New England has entered a vigorous protest against the imposition of protective duties. I quite agree with him that Victoria is a perfect cormorant, as far as protection is concerned. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr Lonsdale: -- Hear, hear; a greedy vulture. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- That State has never been satisfied with the Tariff, and avails herself of every occasion to secure an increase of duties. Her manufacturers have apparently an insatiable appetite for protection. {: #subdebate-12-0-s103 .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr CHANTER:
Riverina .- The honorable member for New England, whose ignorance is equalled only by his arrogance- {: #subdebate-12-0-s104 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! The honorable member must withdraw those terms. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr CHANTER: -If I have committed a breach of parliamentary rule I shall withdraw the observation. I am not going to sit quietly by and allow the honorable member to insult me. I have travelled through the New England district, and I know that the farmers there are among the slowest in Australia. Many years ago, however, when they were free to choose whatever implements they liked, they elected to buy Victorian ploughs, because the manufacturers of that State produced an implement exactly suited to their requirements, and which became recognised as the finest in The world. Moreover, most of the mining machinery in the honorable member's district was made at Ballarat. The honorable member must concede to others the right to hold their own opinions as to what is best for the country, and honorable members should not be described by him as ignorant simply because they happen to differ from him. The honorable member is not acquainted with even the ABC of political economy, and does nOt know what free-trade is. He never had the courage to vote for free-trade in New South Wales when he. was under the leadership of the late **Sir Henry** Parkes, or of the right honorable member for East Sydney. He has always preached, free-trade, but has voted protection when it has suited his constituents. Now, however, that it is proposed to impose protective duties for the benefit of the people of the whole of Australia, the honorable member poses as a friend of the farmers. Free-traders of the type of the honorable member are the greatest enemies of the farmers. {: #subdebate-12-0-s105 .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE:
New England -- - The honorable member states that the farmers in my electorate use Victorian ploughs, and that those implements are the best in. the world. It seems to me that my constituents are showing their common, sense by obtaining the best implements available. I do not object to their using Victorian ploughs or any other kind of implements, but I object to their being limited in their choice. With regard to mining machinery, I need only remark that if the Victorian manufacturers cam compete with the rest of the world thev should not need any protection. The hon orable member made another statement which I should properly describe by using a very short good old British word. I have always voted in this House and elsewhere in accordance with my beliefs, and when the honorable member said that I had voted protection, he stated that which was not correct, and knew that it was not correct. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member must withdraw his latter statement. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- I withdraw the remark, and shall content myself by saying that he made an assertion in ignorance of the facts. On no occasion have I voted for proctection in any shape or form. I have always endeavoured to remove duties, and to reduce those which I could not strike out altogether. When we were fighting for absolute free-trade in New South Wales, I was one of half-a-dozen men who voted against all exemptions from the land tax. When some of the electors in my district told me that if I would impose a protective duty upon potatoes they would support me, I refused to do it. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- The honorable member voted for the duty on sugar. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- I did not, and I defy the honorable member to prove his statement. I voted to reduce the tax on sugar. I hope that the honorable member, when he speaks again, -will tell the truth. *Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m. (Friday).* Amendment negatived. Question - That the item " Stump- jump ploughs, &c." as amended, be agreed to - put. The Committee divided. AYES: 28 NOES: 15 Majority ... ... 13 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment (by **Mr. Joseph** Cook) proposed - That after the words " *ad valorem, 20* per cent." the words " and on and after 8th September, 1906, 15 per cent." be inserted. {: #subdebate-12-0-s106 .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE:
Maranoa .- I was very pleased to hear the honorable member for Corangamite this morning pull up honorable members who were members of the Victorian Parliament when it passed its Tariff of 1895. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- He has since told me that he found that he was mistaken. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- It is a strange thing to me that, after eleven years of prosperity, the Victorians find that a duty of 15 per cent, on agricultural implements is not high enough, and ask for 25 and 20 per cent, on these two items respectively. Until the Labour Party came into existence, the Victorian protectionists had never thought of protecting the wage earners. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr Salmon: -- The honorable member is mistaken about that. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- The honorable member said that certain events had taken place which made him now seek after the higher protection - that previously the manufacturers had been protected, but that now the workers were to be protected. {: .speaker-KRO} ##### Mr McLean: -- The Victorian Wages Boards protect the workers better than do the industrial laws of any other State. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- No doubt; and I admire those who were responsible for their institution. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr Salmon: -- I was a member of a Government which brought more trades under the Wages Boards than did any other Government. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- I am very pleased to hear it. In 1894 or 1895 a meeting was held in Melbourne, at which **Senator Best** was chairman, and **Senator Trenwith** one of the speakers. Several other protectionists also spoke. Just as the motion was about to be put, declaring that protection should be given to the manufacturers before everything else, a working man at the back of the hall asked, " What about the workers?" He was informed that the time was not opportune. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr Crouch: -- In 1895 **Senator Trenwith** was the principal labour man in Victoria. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- A labour man should go in for the protection of the workers before the protection of the manufacturers. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- A good labour man would go in for both. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- I think that the manufacturers may well be left to look after their own destiny. I do not know why the Victorians are now asking for higher duties, seeing that their industries have prospered, and that they have free-trade with the other States and are to have a preferential arrangement with New Zealand. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- These are the recommendations of the Tariff Commission. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- Why has not the Minister followed those recommendations throughout? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Because I wished to impose fixed duties in three instances. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- I ask those who' represent primary producers to give the farmer a show. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- We are doing so. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- By taking money out of his pockets. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- He will not have to pay more for his machinery when the Bill is passed. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- About three years ago two friends wrote to me, one from Central Queensland, and the other from South-west Queensland, asking me to buy a harvester in Melbourne, and to pay cash for it. When I visited the various showrooms, I was asked where I was_going to take the machines. They would not sell without that information. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- They had had machines taken to America as patterns once or twice, and were suspicious. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- I had a cheque for £70 in my pocket ; but when they knew that I had come from Queensland, they referred me to the agents there. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- That is part of the general scheme. I have objected to that practice all along. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- Will this resolution alter that? The machine could have been obtained in Queensland at the price at which it was quoted in Victoria and New South Wales, and yet I could not purchase one for spot cash. Now, however, we are asked to extend more protection to these manufacturers. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- The reduction of price contemplated in connexion with this resolution will compel them to alter their selling methods. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- The point is not what will be accomplished under this resolution, but what has been done. How can the honorable member for Bland say what a manufacturer will be compelled to do? I should like the Minister to inform me what is the motive underlying" the proposed increase of this duty? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Would it not be better for the honorable member to ask the members of me Tariff Commission, seeing that it is their recommendation? {: #subdebate-12-0-s107 .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE:
New England -- I think that the honorable member for Maranoa is perfectly right in his contention. In years past, the particular honorable members to whom he referred, were satisfied with a duty of 15 per cent., because the working man was not then deriving any advantage from it under the law. To-day. however, the position is very different. The proposed increase of duty is sought not in the interests of the workers, but in the interests of the manufacturers. The latter are compelled to pav higher wages than thev did formerly, and to comply with certain conditions, and as a result the Victorian representatives in this Committee wish to recoup them at the expense of the farmer. I am glad that the honorable member for Maranoa has seen through their little scheme. The proposed duty is championed for the purpose of increasing the price of imported ploughs, so that the local manufacturers will be able to demand a higher price. That higher price will be paid by the farmers of the Commonwealth. That is the idea underlying the imposition of the proposed duty. The representatives of Victoria are endeavouring to bolster up the local manufacturers with a view to " getting at " the general community. The articles enumerated in this schedule are the tools of trade of the farmer. I think that our manufacturers can make these implements just as successfully as they -are made elsewhere, but they are not satisfied to accept a similar rate of profit. This morning I stated that the annual value of agricultural implements imported into Australia was £329,000. I find, however, that I omitted to deduct from that sum the value of our exports which amounts to £48,000. It will be seen that the total annual value of the agricultural implements imported into the Commonwealth is only £280,000. If we 'commanded the whole of the trade in this industry it would not afford very much additional employment. In years past, the way in which the AttorneyGeneral fought for the poor farmer and miner was magnificent. One cannot read his speeches without realizing that his heart was touched by consideration for them. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- I would not support the single tax. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- I am prepared to discuss that question with the AttorneyGeneral. He would not support the imposition of the single tax. because it would be in the interests of the masses. He advocates levying higher duties upon the implements of the farmer in the interests of the' manufacturer. I have no hesitation in saying that he assists the wealthy upon every possible occasion. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- How many of the honorable member's colleagues will follow him? {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- I am not responsible for the actions of mv colleagues. The honorable member for Boothby, instead of considering the interests of the community, is fighting for the votes of those individuals who are making agricultural implements in his own electorate. Let him clear his own doorstep before he makes suggestions of that character. The honorable member for Mernda laughs, but he will not laugh when he asks for the imposition of an additional half-penny per lb. on starch. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr Salmon: -- The honorable member is indulging in personalities. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- The honorable member is battling for the manufacturers. The duty upon the articles enumerated in this schedule should be reduced very con siderably. {: #subdebate-12-0-s108 .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON:
Grey -- I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the f acf that we have already determined that the price of stripper-harvesters shall be reduced within a certain period. There is, however, no such provision attaching to the articles specified in this schedule. Upon page 43 of the recommendations of the protectionist section of the Tariff Commission, I find that the onlv condition attached to harvesters reads - >Providing that if the retail or selling price of any implement or machine made in Australia, similar to that upon which the additional duty is hereby imposed be raised above such prices ruling in Australia during rgo5 .the GovernorGeneral may, in pursuance of a joint Address by the Senate and the House of Representatives, suspend the collection of such additional duty upon any machine or implement for such time as may be deemed advisable. I take it that if we increase the duty upon these articles without imposing a similar condition, we shall be fixing the price which rules to-dav for all time. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The provision says " not exceeding. " {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- But the manufacturers are not likely to reduce their prices if they are not liable to a penalty for their failure to do so. If they are to secure control of the home market, which means that they will obtain a much larger trade - we should insert some stipulation regarding a reduction of price in the near future. What gain will the farmer derive if the present price is to remain unaltered ? {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- In the event of Parliament failing to fix a maximum selling price, if the manufacturers agreed to charge an unjust price to the farmers, they would come under the provisions of the Australian Industries Preservation Bill. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- I repeat that, under this resolution, we shall make it legal for a combine to maintain the price which rules to-day. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- With reference to cultivators ? {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- Yes. I think that the position in regard to cultivators needs to be considered. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- It can be dealt with w^hen the Bill is under consideration. {: .speaker-KYD} ##### Mr POYNTON: -- I am afraid that we shall have a good many matters to attend to in connexion with the Bill. I should like to hear now what are the intentions of the Minister. {: #subdebate-12-0-s109 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- I have given consideration to this question, and feel that it is difficult to say off-hand what the maximum selling price ought to be. In one case it has been suggested to me - and I have practically agreed - that there should be a reduction of 5 per cent, in the first year, and of 10 per cent, in the second. I shall embody in the Bill a clause which will be in accordance with the views expressed by the honorable member and those contained in the report of the Tariff Commission. When the Bill is submitted, honorable members will have an opportunity to discuss what the maximum price should be, and what reduction should be insisted upon. {: #subdebate-12-0-s110 .speaker-L0R} ##### Mr LEE:
Cowper -- I support the amendment that the duty be reduced to 15 per cent., on the ground that ploughs and harrows are manufactured all over Australia, and that the industry is not by any means confined to Melbourne. We have large manufacturing works in New South Wales, which, under free-trade, were able to compete successfully with the imported article. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- They do not make ploughs very successfully. {: .speaker-L0R} ##### Mr LEE: -- Blacksmiths all over New South Wales make ploughs that give results as satisfactory as those obtained from the Victorian ploughs. I rose chiefly, however, to reply to the remark made by the honorable member for Bland that protection would not increase the price of these articles. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- I said that it need not, and that under this proposal it should not, because we have fixed a maximum iselling price for .harvesters, and can do the same in regard to ploughs. {: .speaker-L0R} ##### Mr LEE: -- My point is that the effect of this duty will be to increase the cost of imported ploughs. But for these duties, the farmer would obtain his tools of trade cheaper. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- Not at all. If he buys locally-made implements, he will probably secure them at a lower price than before. {: .speaker-L0R} ##### Mr LEE: -- The honorable member is getting away from the point at issue. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- Why should not the farmer buy an Australian plough ? {: .speaker-L0R} ##### Mr LEE: -- Surely a man has a right to buy that which suits him best. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- The honorable member said just now that excellent ploughs were made in New South Wales. {: .speaker-L0R} ##### Mr LEE: -- That is so; but some patterns of imported ploughs are not made in Australia. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- The artizans of New South Wales can make ploughs quite as good as those turned out by any other workmen. {: .speaker-L0R} ##### Mr LEE: -- I am proud to say that they can. Prior to the imposition of heavy protective duties, implement makers in New South Wales were able to compete successfully in, and in many cases to drive the foreign competitor out of, the local market. I have only to point out, in conclusion, that if we impose a duty of 20 per cent, it will mean that every pound which the farmer spends in buying these machines will be worth only 16s. to him. **Mr. WILSON** (Corangamite [2.37].- Shortly before the luncheon adjournment I referred to some votes on the Tariff given in the Victorian Parliament in 1895, and said that the Attorney-General was one of those who supported the reduction of a certain duty. On turning to *Hansard,* I find that I was mistaken - that the honorable and learned gentleman on that occasion voted not for a proposed reduction, but for the maintenance of a high duty. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- What was the rate? {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- It was proposed that a duty of 30 per cent, should be reduced to 15 per cent., and the honorable and learned member voted for the higher duty. {: .speaker-K4I} ##### Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT -- So did I. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- The honorable and learned member for Bourke, the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne, and the honorable member for Gippsland, also voted against the reduction, whilst the honorable member for Melbourne was paired with the " Noes." On the other hand, the Prime Minister, the honorable member for Moira, the honorable member for Echuca, and the honorable member for Laanecoorie, all voted for the reduction of the duty to 15 per cent, When I referred to this matter this morning, the honorable member for Mernda interjected that he and other honorable members voted for a duty of 15 per cent, because they could not secure a higher one. It now transpires that the boot was on the other foot - that they voted for the reduction of the duty. On that occasion the Attorney-General was consistent; he showed that he was advancing from protection to prohibition. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- No. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- I make that statement advisedly, for during the Tariff debate of 1892 the honorable and learned gentleman strongly deprecated prohibition. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- What was the rate of duty to which I objected in 1892 ? {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- The honorable and learned gentleman objected to a rate which he said was bordering on prohibition, he was deprecating the imposition of a duty in respect of the tools of trade of farmers and miners which he said would amount to prohibition. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- Hear, hear. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- The honorable and learned gentleman says that he would do the same thing to-day. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- What was the higher rate which the Attorney-General was opposing? {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- About 45 per cent. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- And when I voted for a duty of 30 per cent., I, as a member of the Government of the day, was carrying out the principles that I enunciated in 1892 by reducing the former duties. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- On the recommendation of a Tariff Commission. I wish to be perfectly fair, and I may say at once that I indorse what the Attorney-General said on the occasion in question. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- It related to a specific prohibitive Tariff. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- I have already said that it did. Speaking in the Legislative Assembly on 6th October, 1962, the AttorneyGeneral said : - >I say that it is .the duty of the Government and of the committee to see that nothing is done to frustrate the desire of the country districts, of the country generally, to open out the means of production which are alone to prove our salvation. We were told the other evening by the Minister of Lands that in the Cabinet there is a strong farmers' interest. I recognise it. He told us that the farmers were well protected. He told us that they had nothing to lose, and that they were well provided for in comparison with the other sections of the community. Unfortunately for myself, I have not the good fortune of agreeing with the honorable gentleman. We are told that the farmer has his reaper and his binder free. So he has. Is his plough free? Is his harrow free? Is his chaff-cutter free? Is the very twine with which he ties up his produce free? Certainly not. This shows that the farmer has much to gain, and that there is much that he ought to gain, before he is placed on a level with his more fortunate brother in the town. I indorse this statement, and refer to it as something that is pertinent to the question before the Chair. I should like at this stage to read what was said by **Mr. -** now **Senator -** Best, a member of the Victorian Government, who was in charge of the Tariff Revision Bill in the State Legislative Assembly. At page. 1088 of the Victorian *Hansard,* vol. 77, session 1895-6. **Mr. Mclntyre** is reported to have interjected, in the course of a speech by that gentleman : " Would you accept the amendment, then?"' To this he replied: - >The Government could, not accept the amendment, for the reason that in some instances it would have the effect of making a reduction from 30 to 15 per cent. So far as agricultural implements were concerned, the Government simply accepted the recommendation of the Tariff Board, and it would appear that it was not against the wish of some of the agricultural implement makers, at all events, that the proposal to reduce, the duty from 20 to 15 per cent, was made. That was the duty on agricultural implements. {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr Mcwilliams: -- How did the AttorneyGeneral vote on that proposal? {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- He voted with the Government for the maintenance of the higher duty. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- The honorable member is absolutely wrong. I was a member of the Government of the day, and we brought in a Tariff reducing the existing one. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- That is so. I have mentioned that fact, and have shown that when an amendment was moved to still further reduce the dutv on agricultural implements, the honorable and learned gentleman voted for the maintenance of the higher rate. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- For the maintenance of the rate proposed by the Government of which I was a member. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- Which was the higher rate. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- It was lower than that prevailing under the then existing Tariff. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- The honorable member for Moira voted for the amendment to reduce the duty to 15 per cent. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- I voted then, as I am voting now, for what I believed to be efficient duties. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- The same considerations that then influenced the Prime Minister, the honorable member for Laancoorie, and the honorable member for Echuca, should weigh with them now. The farmers have the same needs and necessities to-day as they had then. I am not advocating a reduction of the existing duty. Ploughs are now subject to a protective duty of iz£ per "cent., and I think that a 15 per cent, duty would afford fair protection, and would be as much as the farmer should be asked to pay. In fairness to the agriculturists, the ploughs to which I am referring, which are different from those manufactured in Victoria, should be admitted at the existing rate of duty. I admit that in the heavy classes of ploughs, the Victorian implements are among the best in the world, but the ploughs to which I have been referring are of a lighter class, suitable for woflking with one horse and for use in orchards and in light volcanic soils. Most of these ploughs have been imported in the past, and we should give the farmer the advantage of a lower rate of duty. I would also suggest that plough mould-boards 'should be admitted free of duty. I am given to understand that imported mould-boards are almost entirely used by our implement manufacturers. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- I think the honorable member must have misunderstood the representations made to him. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr WILSON: -- The information was given to me by a man who knows as much about farming as does the honorable member for Moira. I hope that before the proposed Bill leaves the Senate, inquiries will be made as to whether it would not be advisable te? place mould-boards' on the free list. {: #subdebate-12-0-s111 .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS:
^Attorney-General · Indi · Protectionist -- I should like to say two or three words with reference to the remarks of the honorable member for Maranoa., who touched upon a question that goes to the root of all matters connected with protection. We have a very great Commonwealth - one of great splendour and great promise. But, with all its magnificence, I shall not think much of it if it is not going to make happier and tetter the lot of the people in Australia who have to labour. My view of protection is that it is part of a great scheme for the amelioration of the lot of those, who have to labour - I draw no distinction between labourers, whether they use the plough, the pick, or the pen. I think that the honorable member for Maranoa was right when he said that we have to look" to the welfare of the workers who are engaged in these industries. I have never- been an advocate of protection by means of Tariff duties merely to ma!ke fortunes for manufacturers, and I should like to inform the honorable member that the same Parliament that passed the Victorian Tariff in 1895 passed the Factories and Shops Act, which made provision for Wages Boards - the first Act of its kind in Australia. In this House at the present time there are a number of honorable members, including the Prime Minister, the 'honorable member for Laanecoorie, the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne, the honorable member for Bourke, the honorable member for Moira, the honorable member for Gippsland, and others, who sat in that Parliament and gave protection to the manufacturers, not merely for the sake of the employers, but for the general welfare of the consumers and the workers. The same honorable members also helped to place upon the statute-book the Factories and Shops Act, which was a humane measure, and which was passed in spite of the resistance of the free-traders. It is the protectionists and not the free-traders, except those connected with the Labour Party, who have done so much for the workers of Australia. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- The free-traders have done as much for the workers in New South Wales. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- That is because the Labour Party pressed them. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- No, the free-traders did it without any pressing. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- During the political history of Victoria the free-traders as such, have done very little indeed to soften the lot of the worker, and give him better conditions. I say that that is a fair answer to make to the honorable member for 'Maranoa. I think that the Prime Minister can fairlv claim the credit of having originated the Factories and Shops Act. That measure was gradually developed, and eventually he was able, along with others, including: myself, to put it upon the statute-book. We feel very strongly, and I think we can share the feelings of the honorable member for Maranoa, and those of the same political mould of thought as himself, that sweating is an abhorrent thing. We desire not only to prevent the Australian worker from being sweated by the man standing alongside him, but also to prevent him from being sweated by men working abroad. There is no reason why, whilst preventing sweating upon our owai soil, we should at the same time allow the products of sweated labour to come into the Commonwealth, and compete with goods produced here. Therefore, I cannot understand how free-trade and labour legislation can go hand in hand. Labour legislation for the improvement of the lot of the workers forms one of the great parts of the scheme of protection, and I believe that our friends of the Labour Party will soon realize that they cannot provide means for paying good honest wages to the workers unless they protect the manufacturers from the. sweated labour of foreign countries. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- That is not what we are afraid of. It is the products of highlypaid labour that we fear. :Mr. ISAACS. - No, not on that ground. This is not the time to enter into details {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- The" Attorney-General is attempting to make political capital, and is making a great show in front of the window. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- The goods in the window are honest goods, and I do not care who sees them. I merely rose to answer a fair question put by the honorable member for Maranoa, and I think that I have replied fairly. With regard to the observations of the honorable member for Corangamite, the remarks I made upon the occasion mentioned I hold to now, and, if the same Tariff were before me, I should make the same statements. They have been quoted as if they were used in reference to protection, and not to that particular Tariff. But any one who honestly desires to find out what I meant may ascertain that I stated in the speech that the question of protection was not on the tapis. The matter under discussion was prohibition. {: .speaker-L1N} ##### Mr Wilson: -- I hope the honorable member does not accuse me of having made unfair use of his observations. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- No, but the honorable member knows that they have been unfairly used. I stated that I was opposed to monopoly, caused either bv unduly high duties amounting to prohibition, or monopoly due to the absence of a Tariff. My idea of protection is that we should impose such reasonable duties as will permit fair and honest wages to be paid in the regular and consistent development of our native resources, and enable us to become a highly prosperous, civilized nation, self-sufficient and able to occupy a high place among the nations of the world. {: #subdebate-12-0-s112 .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS:
Dalley .- The AttorneyGeneral has indulged in a good deal of theatrical display and posturing, and has made a number of statements derogatory to the Free-trade Party. He stated in effect that the enactment of humane legislation was the special function of the protectionists only, and that the free-traders had not accomplished any good work in that direction, and therefore could not be counted as upon the side of the workers. By his remarks he has libelled the honorable, and learned member for West Svdney, the honorable member for Canobolas, and the honorable member for Maranoa, all staunch free-traders. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- I especially excepted the free-trade members of the Labour Party {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- Would the AttorneyGeneral have excepted those honorable members three years ago when they were sitting behind the right honorable member for East Sydney, who, as the leader of the Free-trade Party in Australia, has been instrumental in passing humane legislation of a far more important character than the Victorian Shops and Factories Act. The legislation of New South Wales is as humane as that of Victoria, and in some respects in advance of it. When the right honorable member for East Sydney was fighting the battle against capital on behalf of labour, he had the Minister of Trade and Customs and the protectionists among the Conservative forces arrayed against him. The honorable member for Wentworth reminds me that **Mr. Charles** Atkins, one of the new candidates for the Senate, and a capitalist *in excelsis,* is an example of the protectionist Radical. The AttorneyGeneral, when speaking at Warrnambool, handled more cleverly than any other politician has done the question of protection and Socialism, with a view to clouding the issue before the people of Australia. As a free-trader, I give way to none in my determination to fight for radical legislation. During the last Parliament I supported what radical, legislation the Deakin Government introduced. In New South Wales free -trader and labour member were practically synonymous terms. The free-trade vote would not have been so strong as it was had it not been for the labour backing. {: .speaker-JZF} ##### Mr Fuller: -- Hear, hear. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- The honorable and learned member represents a division in which there are thousands of miners. They would not support him if they did not associate his free-trade views with strong radi-cai principles. The free-traders do not stand for the conservatism of Australia. {: #subdebate-12-0-s113 .speaker-L0Y} ##### Mr WILKINSON:
Moreton .- As the representative of farmers, and having done a little farming myself, I wish to say a few words about the 'Government proposals. I was returned to this House as a protectionist, and received a great deal of support from the farmers of my district. I shall support the proposed duties, because I believe that in doing so I shall assist those, who have honoured me by returning me as a member of the Commonwealth Parliament. To my mind, protection is not for the manufacturers only. Provision is to be made in connexion with these Tariff alterations for the protection of the workers employed in our factories, as well' for the protection of the consumers. I believe that 'the farmers will get as much advantage from the proposals as will any other class of the community. We are always expressing the desire that more people shall be settled on the .land;, but already the production of our farmers is overtaking the home market, which is the best market. As that production increases, the surplus must be sent into the markets of the world to compete with the produce of countries where cheap labour is employed, unless, by encouraging existing manufactures, and creating others, we multiply our consumers. If we do that, we shall increase the markets of the farmers, and in those markets they will be protected, just as the manufacturers and skilled employes will be protected, from the competition of sweated or low-paid labour. If I could have mv will, I would extend the 20 per cent, *ad valorem* duty to the list of articles which it is proposed to admit free. I had something to do with the placing of the duty on combined corn-shellers, huskers, baggers, and other machines used for the marketing of maize. It is sometimes asked why is it, if Australia oan produce a superior article, that that article cannot command the local market? In reply, I should like to give the experience of **Mr. Barbat,** of For one class of machine we used to get £50 from this firm, and their price to the farmer was £75. We thought that, instead' of allowing the firm to have this large profit, we could do better; but on approaching other implement men outside, we found that they would not touch our machines unless we- paid them a commission of from 35 per cent, to 40 per cent. Even then they were prepared to undertake the agency only on the understanding that they handled everything we manufactured. That is one reason why Australian manufactures are not making' the headway which their merit warrants. This is another part of his examination - 91353. You say, on your oath, that they gave as the reason for refusing to handle your goods that they would be foolish if they enabled you to build up an industry which must sooner or Inter cut them out? - Yes. When questioned' as to the superiority of his machine, he gave this evidence - 91441. In connexion with the corn-sheller- to which you' have refeired, could you tell us whether it embodies the original ideas of anyAustralian mechanics? - The whole machine is an Australian invention, and is manufactured solely from Australian material. The only imported material used in its construction is the pig-iron and the raw bar-iron. Everything else is manufactured at our works, or sawn from colonial timbers. 91442. Are the imported corn-shellers different from yours, or are they merely imitations? - They are quite different. 91443. How do they compare with yours in efficiency?- I do not think that they are within 20 per cent, of ours, which is a superior machine. This man cannot get his machines placed on the market on fair and equitable terms, because of the profits insisted upon by the agents. I am satisfied that I shall be justified in supporting these duties for the protection of Australian industries, and that my action will be indorsed by the farmers of my constituency. Whether that happens or not, I am convinced that I am taking the right step, and that in passing this legislation we shall be benefiting the farmers. They may have to pay a little more for their implements until internal competition brings prices down again, but that will not be for long, while they will have the great advantage of a larger home market. The Australian scale of living is more liberal than that of other countries. Heads of families can give their children better food and education than can a great majority of the people elsewhere; and when we have hundreds of thousands of workmen connected with factories settled in the country under reasonable conditions, the farmer and the community at large will gain a great advantage. {: #subdebate-12-0-s114 .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr CHANTER:
Riverina .- Prior to the adjournment for luncheon, the suave and conciliatory honorable member for New England doubted the veracity of my statement that he had voted in favour of certain protective duties in the New South Wales Parliament. I have before me a copy of the New South Wales *Hansard.,* and I now say that the statements which I made were perfectly accurate. At the instance of the late **Sir George** Dibbs, who was Premier of New South Wales at the time, a very mild -protective duty - but one which was of great assistance to the farmers - had been levied upon imported grain and foodstuffs of all kinds. The honorable member for New England assisted the right honorable member for East Sydney, who was his leader, to remove that duty. He also assisted to abolish an impost upon silks and satins which taxed the wealthy classes, and substituted for them taxes upon the necessaries of life. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr Lonsdale: -- What were thev? {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr CHANTER: -- The honorable member voted to impose a protective duty of 3d. per gallon upon beer. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr Lonsdale: -- I have always supported beer and spirit duties. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr CHANTER: -- He also assisted to re-impose a duty upon tea. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr Lonsdale: -- Is that a protective duty ? The honorable member's charge against me was that I had supported protective duties, and I repeat that the accusation is untrue. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr CHANTER: -- As the honorable member has again challenged the accuracy of my statement, I should like to substantiate it by quoting from the New South Wales *Hansard.* {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I cannot see that the action of the honorable member for New England in the New South Wales Legislature has anything whatever to do with the question which is before the Chair. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr CHANTER: -- As the rules of the House will not permit me to confirm my statement upon the present occasion, I wish to tell the farmers that there is no man in the public life of Australia who has more deliberately attempted to gull them by preaching one thing and practising another than has the honorable member. "For partypurposes, he has done everything that he could against the interests of the farmers, and at the same time he has helped those who did not require assistance- For example, he has "helped" the farmer bytaxing his land and his breakfast table, and by imposing a duty upon tea. Yet in a manner peculiar to himself he has the audacity to deny the accuracy of my statements, the confirmation of which is to be found in the New South Wales *Hansard* reports. I do not wish to occupy the time of honorable members unduly, but upon a future occasion I shall embrace the opportunity of showing to the public exactly the type of politician that the honorable member is. {: #subdebate-12-0-s115 .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE:
New England -- I cannot allow the honorable member for Riverina or any other honorable member to make statements concerning me which are not correct. He has produced the New South Wales *Hansard* in support of his charges. If he will hand that publication to me, I- will undertake to show that his assertions are absolutely unfounded. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- Upon a point of order, I desire to know whether there is no limit to a discussion of this kind, which, in my opinion, is entirely foreign to the question before the Chair? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- A good deal of the irregularity is caused by the Committee itself refusing to assist me to maintain order. I would also point out to the honorable member that the question before the Chair opens up the fiscal issue, and that, therefore, it is quite competent for the honorable member to deal with the matter which he is discussing. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- I have been charged with having supported protective duties in the New South Wales Parliament. The accuracy of that statement I absolutely deny. I have never voted in favour of protective duties. The honorable member for Riverina has quoted the duty upon beer as a protective duty. I have always supported levying the heaviest possible duty upon beer and spirits more from a moral rather than a protective stand-point. He also stated that I voted to impose a duty upon tea. That is not a protective duty, and if I had the opportunity to do so again, I would vote for a similar impost. I maintain that all the revenue derived from a duty upon tea finds its way into the Treasury. It is purely a revenue duty. When the honorable member, after a diligent search, can bring against me only such paltry charges as these- {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr Chanter: -- I could quote a number of others, but the Chairman will not permit me to do so. {: .speaker-KIC} ##### Mr LONSDALE: -- It shows that his statements have very slight foundation in fact. When I entered the Chamber, I gathered from the remarks of the honorable member for Moreton that he favoured the imposition of a duty upon cornshellers. I understand .that there are two kinds of cornshellers in use here'. The locally manufactured article is sold at ^75, and the imported at .£128. If the difference between the prices of those articles is not sufficient to enable our own people to manufacture cornshellers, I maintain that a duty of 20 per1 cent, will be of no assistance to them. Amendment negatived. {: #subdebate-12-0-s116 .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby .- I move - >That after the words *"ad valorem,* 20 per cent.," the following proviso be inserted : - : Conditional upon the passage of an Excise Act imposing duties equal to 50 per centum of the Customs duties in this Schedule, and a Bounty Act being passed during this session providing for the payment of a bounty (equal to the amount of Excise paid) to such manufacturers as receive a certificate from the Registrar of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court showing that the wages and general conditions of employment in their factories were not less favorable to the workmen employed therein than the wages and conditions prescribed by awards of Wages Boards and Arbitration Courts lawfully established in the States in Australia." I look upon this proposal as one of verygreat importance. It is infinitely more important than were the duties which we have been discussing. If an industry is worth protecting, it ought to be able to provide for good wages and fair conditions of labour for the workers engaged in it, as well as to return a reasonable profit to the manufacturer. If it will not come within those requirements, it is not worthy of protection. If it is worth developing, then we ought, as far as possible, by legislation, to insure that the benefit of the protection granted it shall extend to the workers as well as to the employers. Difficulty has always been experienced in determining the best way to secure these conditions. I do not suppose that we can arrive at any means of absolutely insuring that, in all cases, the workers shall have a fair share of the advantages derived from protective duties. But the proposal which has hitherto found most favour is that made by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, that the power to pass industrial legislation should be vested in the Commonwealth Parliament, in order that we mav insure to the full the advantage of absolute free-trade between the States, and pass, as the natural corollary of our protective legislation, industrial laws that will make the workmen more confident than they are under present conditions of being able to participate in the benefits of the system. I think honorable members will agree that, while such a scheme is desirable, some time would necessarily elapse before it could be carried into effect, and that meanwhile we might have sweating existing in industries protected bv legislation passed by this Parliament. We have Wages Boards in Victoria, and an Arbitration Court in New South Wales, as well as in Western Australia. But the workers in South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania have absolutely no protection from the sweating evil. In some cases, in order to avoid conditions imposed by Wages Boards for the protection of workmen, the work of Victorian factories has been removed to Tasmania and South Australia. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Whole factories have been removed. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- I cannot speak with authority on that point: but I know that work at one time carried out in Vic toria has been sent to South Australia and Tasmania by persons anxious to evade the humane conditions imposed by the Wages Boards of this State. Such a state of affairs ought not to prevail. It is a barrier to absolute Inter-State free-trade and does serious injury to the States which have humane legislation. In this respect Victoria has set an example which the other States might well emulate. The Government of South Australia sought to copy her legislation, but their intentions were frustrated by representatives of the wealthy sections of the community in the Legislative Council. - It is almost painful to contemplate the fact that these representatives always prevent the passing of humanitarian legislation. That, at all events, has been the experience of South Australia. The wealthiest man in the Legislative Council of that State - one of the wealthiest men in Australia - submitted a motion disallowing a regulation which, if carried, would have prevented some of the worst cases of sweating that have ever occurred there. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- Which is the better system - that of Wages Boards or an Arbitration Court ? {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- I think that the Wages Board system is the better one. The chief consideration at this stage is as to what are the best means to secure the protection of the workers as well as of their employers. I need scarcely say that I think every 'honorable member is anxious that the best conditions shall prevail amongst the workers engaged in our various industries ; but many obstacles blocked the pathway to the protection of the workman. The honorable member for Wide Bay and I have been talking over this matter for some time, and have endeavoured to work out a practical scheme. After careful consideration, we have arrived at the conclusion that the best method to achieve this, object is that adopted by this Parliament in connexion with the encouragement of sugar-raising by white as opposed to black labour - to provide an Excise duty, and to give a bounty on the carrying out of certain conditions. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- Such a proposal would have to be inserted in the Bill. We can-' not add it to the motion now under consideration. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- I quite agree with the honorable member, and I do not put forward this scheme in anticipation that the Committee will at once pledge itself to it. I am not going to ask honorable members to adopt so vague a scheme that it cannot be shown that it would prove effective. We put this forward as a practical scheme - not necessarily the best - but as one which appears likely to bring about the desired result. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- If we adopt the amendment, shall we not be tied down to the scheme. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- We should provide in the Bill itself what, after full discussion, we t'hink is the best means of securing the object we have in view. Let us have something which seems practicable and best fitted for our purpose. The honorable and learned member for Corinella has suggested another method, which is certainly simpler, although I am not satisfied that it could be carried into effect. I should like to hear the honorable and learned member explain it fully. The only point that I ask the Committee to consider this afternoon, however, is whether they cannot see their way to carry this or a similar proposal, laying down a cardinal principle on which the Government must work. The honorable member for Wide Bay and I have adopted the machinery of the Excise Bill and the Bounty Bill for our scheme, and we think it is essential that the Wages Boards and Arbitration Court should constitute part of the machinery by which it may be ascertained whether fair and reasonable conditions are being observed in any industry, instead of leaving the matter entirely in the hands of the Department of Trade and Customs. We shall require some competent authority in order that we may secure official information on these subjects. However efficient the officers of the Customs Department may be, they are not accustomed to t'he work which members of Wages Boards and Arbitration Courts have constantly to attend to. We propose that in South Australia, Tasmania, and Queensland, where there are no Wages Boards or Courts of Arbitration, a certificate of the registrar that the conditions prevailing in the industry to which they relate are no less favorable to the workmen than those prescribed by Wages Boards in other States shall be accepted as sufficient evidence that the conditions have been complied with. There would not be any difficulty in ascertaining the exact conditions- prevailing in any of the industries covered by the schedule now under consideration. I do not ask the Committee, however, to tie themselves down to the exact details of this proposal. I simply ask honorable members to consider this question, if they have not already done so, and I trust that the Government will look very carefully into it. Perhaps the Minister will inform the Committee whether the Government are favorably impressed with the method which I have suggested this afternoon, or whether they have any better scheme to propose. We certainly do not do our duty by the manhood and womanhood of Australia when we simply pass protective duties, the only effect of which may be to fill the pockets of some manufacturer. Whether we be protectionists, free-traders, or fiscal agnostics, returned by the citizens of Australia to legislate in the interests of the people, we shall not do our duty unless we take steps to evolve some scheme that will raise the manhood and womanhood of Australia. {: #subdebate-12-0-s117 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- I would ask the honorable member not to press his amendment. I have already promised the honorable member for Hindmarsh that I will consider his proposal, and others having the same object. I have already consulted the Attorney-General with a view to having a clause inserted in the proposed Bill which will effectively carry out the wishes of honorable members. The whole question will be considered by the Attorney-General before the Bill is introduced. {: #subdebate-12-0-s118 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I agree to a large extent with many of the remarks of the honorable member for Boothby. If we are going to protect the manufacturers in the manner proposed it is only fair and logical that the workers should also have a lock in. I understand that this afternoon the AttorneyGeneral has been unctuously stroking his breast and declaring his undying love for the workers and the farmers and other producers of Australia. In my judgment, I have been acting in the best interests of the primary producers bv trying to reduce the duties proposed by the Government. I have failed in every instance, for the reason that the House as at present constituted is unmistakably in favour of high protection. The majority in this Chamber may fairly reflect the opinions held by the majority of the people of Victoria, but I decline to believe that they reflect the opinion of Australia as a whole, or that their views are in accord with those of the primary producers of Victoria. However, the whole question will be tested very shortly. I have striven merely to reduce the proposed duties. No effort has been made to bring them below the present Tariff level. On the contrary, I and those with whom I have been associated have gone the length of consenting to some increase of the existing duties. I emphasize the fact that no attempt has been made to interfere with the present Tariff, because this is supposed to be a Parliament of fiscal peace. Now, however, considerably higher duties have been imposed upon our primary producers. After having listened to this debate, one almost shudders at the prospect of a general raising of the Tariff. The raising of the Tariff would seem to be synonymous with " raising Cain," and the prospect before us, if it can be gauged by the discussion which has taken place during the last two or three days, is simply appalling. I would call down peace upon this assembly, for the week-end, at any rate. Our proceedings have been conducted, and I hope will end, with the greatest good feeling on the part of the members of the Committee. {: #subdebate-12-0-s119 .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY:
Corinella .- With regard to the remarks of the honorable member for Boothby, I have always held the opinion that it is our duty, when granting protection to manufacturers, to endeavour to secure to their employes fair wages and other conditions of labour. So far as I can see, the most workable method that could be adopted would be to bring in an Excise schedule, providing that where goods have the Commonwealth trade mark lawfully applied to them, they shall be free of Excise, but that where thev do not bear the Commonwealth trade mark they shall be subject to the Excise duty determined upon as a practical penalty for noncompliance with the requirements in regard to labour conditions. I had the privilege of talking this matter over with the AttorneyGeneral, to whom I communicated my ideas on the subject, and I think that, by using the Commonwealth trade mark, we may arrive at a conveniently workable method of carrying out the object which we all desire to attain. {: #subdebate-12-0-s120 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Yarra -- I trust that the honorable member for Boothby will agree to the suggestion of the Minister. The principle for which we have been fighting will be affirmed, and that is all we need concern ourselves about at present. The suggestion of the honorable and learned member for Corinella is an admirable one, and I trust that a workable scheme may be evolved. {: #subdebate-12-0-s121 .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh -- - I have no desire to press an amendment at this stage, but I understood that it would be necessary to amend the resolution in the direction suggested before a provision to give effect to it could be inserted in the proposed Bill. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Oh, no. **Mr. FRAZER** (Kalgoorlie) [3-55J - 1 think that we should exercise some care in dealing with this matter. I should like your ruling, **Mr. Chairman,** as to whether we could include in the Bill which will be introduced to give effect to the resolution any provision that is not embraced in the resolution. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Provisions such as those contained in the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Boothby could be embodied in the proposed Bill. But the amendment of the honorable member for Hindmarsh relates to Excise duties, and must be made the subject of a special resolution before the principle can be embodied in any Bill. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I have promised to go into the whole matter, with a view to giving effect to the views of honorable members. {: #subdebate-12-0-s122 .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr SALMON:
Laanecoorie .- I trust that the honorable member for Boothby will withdraw his amendment, and leave the whole matter in the hands, of the Attorney-General and the Minister of Trade and Customs. When the proposed Bill is introduced we can deal with the question in detail. {: #subdebate-12-0-s123 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- - May I also suggest to the Minister that he should consider whether it is better to provide for an actual distribution among the workers and consumers of Australia of benefits derived from duties collected from other members of the community, or to adopt a straight-out form of Socialism which will carry the responsibility of Socialism with it. {: #subdebate-12-0-s124 .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby .- I feel gratified with the reception that has been accorded to my proposal, and I feel that I can safelv withdraw my amendment, and leave the whole matter in the hands of Ministers. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported. {: .page-start } page 4223 {:#debate-13} ### APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. {: .page-start } page 4223 {:#debate-14} ### CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (STATE DEBTS) BILL {:#subdebate-14-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-14-0-s0 .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir JOHN FORREST:
Treasurer · Swan · Protectionist -- I have great pleasure in moving - >That the Bill bc now read a second time. The object of the measure is to enable the Parliament to take over the whole or any part of the debts of the States now existing, or which may hereafter come into existence. Under the . Constitution only the debts which were in existence on the 1st January, 1901, can be taken over; but in a memorandum prepared by me dated 9th July, 1906, and included in the Budget papers presented to Parliament I made a proposal on behalf of the Government that provision should be made for altering the 'Constitution so as to give us the completest control in this matter ; and the object of the present measure is to carry out that proposal. The debts of the States at the present time aggregate over £236.000,000, while, the debts Ln existence on 1st January, 1901, were only about £202,000,000, so that under the Constitution as it stands there are debts amounting to about £34,000,000 with which the Commonwealth cannot deal. If the Bill is passed by both Houses, and the proposed alteration is approved by the electors in the manner provided for by the Constitution, Parliament .will have the complete control for which I ask. The object of taking over the debts is to place the borrowing power of Australia on the best possible footing, to enable us to borrow to advantage, and to give an opportunity for the saving of a considerable sum of money. We are advised, and believe, " that by having one denomination of stock firmly established on the London market, secured on the consolidated revenue of the Commonwealth, a considerable advantage and saving to Australia must eventually result." The Commonwealth will not gain a penny by the transaction. In the memorandum to which I have referred it is proposed " that all net profits arising from any conversion or redemption of existing loans shall be credited by the Commonwealth to the State concerned, and the annual payment by that State reduced accordingly from time to time." The financial authorities whom I consulted in London were unanimously of the opinion " that it would be disadvantageous to place the Commonwealth brand on State stocks before conversion. They thought that such action would prevent the possibility of any profitable conversion, and would be making to the existing holders of State stocks a present of any increase in price caused bv the additional Commonwealth security." The procedure to be followed, and the conditions to be observed in regard to the taking over of the debts of the States are clearly stated in sub-sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of paragraph 8 of the memorandum which I have placed before honorable members - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. That a law be passed enabling the whole of the State Debts to be converted before maturity, or redeemed at maturity by the Commonwealth (subject in regard to debts incurred since 1st January, 1901, to the necessary amendment of the Constitution), by such successive operations as may be thought fit. 1. That until conversion or maturity of the State Debts, as the case may be, each State continue to pay its own annual interest and sinking fund (if any). 2. That on conversion or at maturity of the State Debts, as the case may be, the Commonwealth become solely liable for the annual payment of interest and sinking fund as well as for the redemption of the Stock. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. That the Commonwealth deduct each year from the amount to be uaid to each State the expenditure made on behalf of that State for interest and sinking fund, and, if such amount is insufficient in any case, the deficiency be paid to the Commonwealth by that State. I am sure that no one desires that we shall continue to have power to deal only with the debts of the States as existing at the establishment of Federation, leaving £34,000,000 undealt with. There seems to be no difference of opinion as to the advisability of taking over the whole of the debts of the States. All the members of the conferences which have been held, the Treasurers of- the States, and my able predecessor in office for so many years, are in favour of the taking over of the whole, and not only a portion of the debts of the States. The country is greatly indebted, as I am personally, to the late Treasurer, **Sir George** Turner, for the foundation which he laid in preparing information and in inaugurating the discussion of this very important matter. Good work was done by the two conferences which he summoned, and although our proposals do not exactly coincide with his, we have been very much assisted by his labours. In asking honorable members to support the motion, I am fortified by the knowledge that the taking over of the whole of the debts of the Stares, instead of a portion, as provided by the Constitution, has been approved by every one who has had the matter under consideration. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Mcwilliams)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 4224 {:#debate-15} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-15-0} #### Order of Business {: #subdebate-15-0-s0 .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist .- In moving - >That the House do now adjourn - I ask the serious attention of honorable members to the state of public business, and to the necessity of so arranging, and, if necessary, extending our sittings that we may be able to cope with the measures upon the notice-paper within the next three or four weeks at furthest. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- Say three weeks. Some of us will have to go away at the end of that time, and the Government may be unable to make a House. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- We shall be sorry to part with any honorable member, because the work to be brought forward during the last days of the session will necessarily be of great importance. There is on the notice-paper no Bill of any length, though all will call for serious consideration. I appeal to honorable members to assist us to deal with these measures satisfactorily. There are two ways whereby Ave can lengthen our sittings Avithout repeating the experience of last night. We can meet on Wednesdays and Thursdays at jo. 30 a.m., as on Fridays. This Avill increase the strain on the Departments, but, under the circumstances, that is unaA'oidable. We mav also have to ask honorable members to sit on Friday eA'enings, but Ave Avish to resort to that expedient only under extreme pressure, because of the inconvenience it Avould impose upon those Avho reside in other States. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- If we meet on Wednesday and Thursday mornings, will there be the possibility of all-night sittings? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- There will be that possibility, but Ave hope to be able to com pose our differences in. time to. adjoum at a reasonable hour. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- What is the Government doing Avith the Postal Rates Bill? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- That is a short measure, and one decisiA'e A'ote will determine its fortune. The Works Expenditure has noAv been authorized by both Chambers, but the ordinary Departmental Estimates are yet untouched, and many important questions may arise in connexion with them. A glance at the Bills on the notice-paper will shoAv that A-e have reached a period of the session AA-hen it has become impossible to pursue further the fiscal revision upon Avhich Ave have been engaged during the last tAvo or three days. It is Avith great regret that Ministers, having carefully considered the position yesterday, concluded that Ave could not, in justice to the Avork or to the country, propose further recommendations in respect to the Tariff. I have this afternoon receiA'ed another report from the Chairman of the Tariff Commission, AA'hich I haA'e not yet opened, and do not expect to be able to ask my colleagues to examine, because recent experience shows that it will not be possible to deal satisfactorily with its proposals, Avhatever they may be, Avithout im'olving the sacrifice of measures on the notice-paper, and causing an extension of the session, seriously encroaching upon the interval Avhdch should separate the prorogation of Parliament from the holding of the elections. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- What is the subject of the report ? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- It is another of the reports relating to metals and machinery. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Will no measures relating to the Tariff be introduced other than those on the business paper? {: .speaker-JUV} ##### Mr Mcwilliams: -- We have dealt Avith the strangled industries. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- Unfortunately, Ave have not. I haA'e read in the neAvspapers that there are more than tAventy reports in preparation by the Tariff Commission. Therefore, even if Ave dealt Avith that handed to me to-day, and Avith tAvo or three more Avhich may, perhaps, be receiA-ed Avithin the next three weeks, Ave could consider but a small proportion of those which will be presented before the Commission concludes its labours. Unless Ave prolonged our sittings for months, it would be impossible for us to do more than make a beginning with- the great reA'ision Avhich the Commission is proposing. But as it has been urged upon all sides that it is highly desirable that the elections should be held either at the close qf November, or as near that time as possible, it would be futile to lay before honorable members now propositions which - as we have proved within the last two or three days - not only concentrate the attention of the House, but demand an excessive strain upon the physical strength of honorable members. That has been necessary to dispose of the important items embodied in the schedule with which we have just dealt. Of course, a Bill has yet to be introduced covering that schedule. That Bill, with the proposals relating to the Reciprocal Tariff Agreement with New Zealand, and the preferences which we propose to extend to the goods of the mother country will probably occupy the greater part of next week. It is, therefore, quite impossible for us to deal further with other Tariff proposals this session, even if we accomplish our present work at that speed. The business for Tuesday will include the amendments of the Constitution that we have proposed. The measure of which I have charge relates to the imposition of special duties for the payment of old-age pensions, and that which the Treasurer has introduced to-day relates - as honorable members are aware - to the transfer of the States debts. We expect to receive later from another place the Bill which provides for an alteration in the date upon which senators will take their seats - an alteration from the spring to the autumn. I should be glad to see our two Bills and the Referendum Bill dealt with upon Tuesday. Upon Wednesday the Reciprocal Tariff Agreement with New Zealand will be considered, and also our Tariff preferences to the goods of the United Kingdom. These will probably engage our attention for at least the remainder of the week. We shall then have only a fortnight or three weeks at most within which to dispose of the remaining Bills and the Estimates. {: .speaker-KLB} ##### Mr Mahon: -- The honorable and learned gentleman is a very sanguine man. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- I admit that I might be considered unduly sanguine if the present session did not mark the close of the Parliament. We shall certainly accomplish a feat if we clear the paper as it stands 'before proroguing. But I trust that our responsibilities to our constituents will not prevent us from dealing with these proposals in an expeditious manner. Their purport 'is thoroughly understood, and by assiduity and self-sacrifice I think that we can clear the business-paper before separating. I rely on the assistance of all parties to enable us to close the session in a manner which will be creditable to us and satisfactory to the people whom we represent. {: #subdebate-15-0-s1 .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS:
Dalley -- I think that the Prime Minister has put before us a verv full dish for the next few weeks. The desire of the Opposition to dispose of the remaining business of the session is quite as strong as is that of the Government. The latter cannot complain of anyfactious opposition upon our part. There has been no obstruction and no waste of time. The greater portion of last night was occupied by the Prime Minister's own supporters. I think that the honorable and learned gentleman is acting very wisely in deciding that the House shall meet in the mornings, and that we shall do our work upon four days of the week instead of six. It is inconvenient, especiallly to the representatives of distant States, to be obliged to remain in Melbourne over the close of the week. I wry much regret that the Prime Minister has left the consideration of the Tariff until such a late stage in the session. I certainly thought that the Government, having received the Tariff Commission's report regarding metals and machinery, we should at least have been, called upon to deal with that. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- I have only received it within the last hour or two.. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr WILKS: -- But it was known that the report was to be presented. I maintain' that the claims of those interested in the iron industry should receive just as prompt consideration as the claims of those engaged in our primary industries. I regret exceedingly that the session is to close without honorable members being afforded an opportunity for giving them that consideration. The Prime Minister is indeed a sanguine man if he expects to carry all the measures which he has outlined. He must have some slaughtered innocents at the end of the session. To my mind, the subject of preferential trade might well be put upon one side until the report of the Tariff Commission regarding metals and machinery has been disposed of. The Prime Minister is evidently endeavouring to compress a session's work into three or four weeks. The result of his action will probably be that the next Parliament will be kept busy for some time in repealing the legislation which will be hastily enacted during the next few weeks. It is our duty to see that Commonwealth legislation is an exemplar to the States Parliaments, and that the introduction of amending Bills is not necessary to remedy its defects. I do not believe in any Ministry attempting to put up a legislative record. It is the effectiveness of our work which we should consider rather than the number of Bills that we pass. Without having .any strong authority from the Opposition to say so, I think I can promise that after fair criticism of the Government proposals, members upon this side of the House will endeavour to expedite the transaction of the remaining business of the session. {: #subdebate-15-0-s2 .speaker-KRO} ##### Mr McLEAN:
Gippsland -- I quite approve of the proposal of the Prime Minister to extend the hours of sitting in order that we may get through as much business as we can during the remainder of the session. But I extremely regret to hear the announcement that the Government intend to proceed no further this session with the amendment of the Tariff. Every section of the House - except the Ministry themselves - foresaw what would happen months ago. We realized that Tariff revision was being postponed to such a late stage of the session that we should have no opportunity to deal intelligently with it. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- We have dealt with all the reports which have been presented by the Tariff 'Commission. {: .speaker-KRO} ##### Mr McLEAN: -- If those reports had been dealt with earlier, others would have been presented. I had that assurance from the Chairman of the Commission a little time ago. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- What has occurred has not prevented the reports of the Commission from being presented. {: .speaker-KRO} ##### Mr McLEAN: -- If there be any honorable member in the House who should have endeavoured to push forward the question of Tariff revision,, it is the AttorneyGeneral. We all recollect the attitude which he and his colleague, the Minister of Home Affairs, took up some two years ago regarding strangled industries. We know perfectly well that every hour that the Attorney-General could spare from the Law Courts was devoted to castigating the late Ministry for neglecting to deal with them, in the absence of any information. He at least should have seen the necessity for proceeding with Tariff revision at a much earlier stage of the session. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- We did all that we possibly could. {: .speaker-KRO} ##### Mr McLEAN: -- If the country will believe that statement, it is very credulous. The need for bringing forward the subject was rendered all the more pressing in view of statements made by the Prime Minister at Maryborough. In addressing the electors there, he declared that all the concessions that could be obtained from freetraders would be secured this session, because nothing could be expected from them next session. But despite the fact that every section of the House was anxious to deal with this matter as expeditiously as possible, the Government have postponed its consideration. It is too late now, I know, for recrimination ; but I do feel that we might have done a great deal more than we have in, the way of Tariff revision, had the Government been so disposed. I heartily indorse the concluding remarks of. the Prime Minister, and I hope that the session will close in a manner which will reflect credit upon Parliament and the country. {: #subdebate-15-0-s3 .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH:
Corio .- It seems to me that the difference between the present Government' and their predecessors in regard to Tariff reform lies in" the fact that the latter used the Tariff Commission as a means of postponing Tariff revision. The present Government, on the other hand, have dealt with the reports of the Commission as early as they conveniently could, in view of other pressing business. I wish to point out to the Prime Minister that, at the forthcoming general elections, the Government propose to submit three Bills to the electors for their approval. What I fear is that the submission of so many proposals regarding amendments of the Constitution will lead to ai tremendous number of informal votes being recorded. I believe that in every constituency there is to be a contest for the House of Representatives. The elector will also be called upon to vote for the return of candidates to the Senate, as well as upon three referenda. In other words, he will be required to mark five ballot-papers, and, even though they may be printed in different colours, I am satisfied that an immense number of informal votes will be cast. The success of the referenda will be mailed if voting papers relating to Bills which they have not had an opportunity to study are placed in the hands of the electors. I hone that the Government will either cause the several Bills to be bound together or allow some of them to stand over. {: #subdebate-15-0-s4 .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr BROWN:
Canobolas -- I was not present when me Prime Minister announced the remaining business for the session; but I would urge him to bring forward the Estimates as speedily as possible. If they are left over until practically the last moment, a number of matters, which might be discussed with advantage to the different departments, must necessarily receive but scant attention, whilst it is a long-standing grievance with the Senate that the time allotted to it to deal with ' the- Estimates is far too limited. I understand that there are some matters relating to Papua that need to be dealt with in connexion with the Estimates, and I think it would be well if the Government would arrange to push on with them next week, so that they may reach the Senate without delay. {: #subdebate-15-0-s5 .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist -- If the honorable member for Canobolas had been present he would have heard my announcement of the business for next week. I hope to ask the House after that business has been disposed of to take up the Estimates - as opportunity offers, and to deal with them as quickly as possible. In reply to the honorable member for Gippsland, let me say that I am quite satisfied that no action that could have been taken by the Government would have expedited the reports of the Tariff Commission. {: .speaker-KRO} ##### Mr McLean: -- I was assured by the Chairman of the Commission two or three weeks ago that it could. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- I have been in informal communication with the Chairman of the Tariff Commission from time to time during the whole of the session, and the question of . the presentation of reports has been mentioned on several occasions in the course of our conversations. I have always urged the Commission to press on with the preparation of its reports, and to present them as early as possible. I wish to make it perfectly clear that the fact that other reports have not been presented earlier is, in my opinion, no reflection whatever on the members of the Commission. Their task is enormous; the detail with which they are coping, as the evidence before us shows, presents serious questions of the most 'intricate character. I am fully assured that, while draft reports have been in some stage of preparation for weeks, and in some cases for months, the natural complexity of the circumstances involved in them have prevented their earlier submission. To-day, when presenting the report to which reference has been made, the Chairman intimated that he hoped, although he could not be sure, that another report would be ready by the beginning of next week. When a third report would be presented he could not say ; it might be in a comparatively short time, or a longer delay might necessarily occur. The Commissioners needed time for the full discussion of points of difference, and for the elucidation ' of problems that arose as they pursued their investigations. In these circumstances, the Chairman said, quite fairly, that it was not possible for him to hurry the Commission more, than he had done. I am able to say, from the Chairman's own statement, that the Commission has been working - and I know it also as a fact - at high pressure for weeks, and, indeed, for months. Nothing that might have been done in this House could have hastened the presentation of further reports. We have now disposed in this House of every report submitted to us with the exception of that which has just reached me, and which I have not yet had an. opportunity to read. The Department has not yet had time to scrutinize it, and we feel that we should be unable to deal with it this session, as it deserves, in view of the work already in hand. {: .speaker-KRO} ##### Mr McLean: -- Would it not be possible to deal with one part of it? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- I have not had an opportunity to read it. It relates to a section of one of the largest and most important divisions in the Tariff - that of metals and machinery. I cannot say with what particular part of the division the Commission have dealt in this report. {: .speaker-KRO} ##### Mr McLean: -- Doubtless, the report relates to the part concerning which the most complaints have been made. ' {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- We have dealt with one part of the division ; there is now another in hand. Calm inquiry and a study of the facts will show that a Commission constituted as this is could not have presented their reports earlier ; that no action of ours could have expedited their reports, and that as we are within three or. four weeks of the close of the session, it is really impossible for honorable members during that already overcrowded time to give another report that close study which is necessary in order that our revision of the Tariff may be properly carried out. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 4.36 p.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 6 September 1906, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1906/19060906_reps_2_34/>.