View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
21 September 1906

2^nd Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- MAIL SERVICE TO EUROPE
CUSTOMS TARIFF (BRITISH PREFERENCE) BILL
QUESTION
- TARIFF :
CUSTOMS’ TARIFF (AGRICULTURAL” MACHINERY) BILL
EXCISE TARIFF
- In Committee of Ways and Means -
- Ordered -
CUSTOMS TARIFF (AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY) BILL
EXCISE TARIFF (AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY) BILL
PAPERS
ADJOURNMENT
- Order of Business : The Mace : Date of Elections : Prorogation

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 5120

QUESTION

MAIL SERVICE TO EUROPE

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Has the agreement entered into by Mr. Croker on behalf of Sir James Laing and Sons been confirmed, as was indicated by the Prime Minister on the 24th July?
Have the plans and specifications of the new steamers been submitted to the representative of the Commonweath in London in terms of article 9 of the contract?
In view of the assurance of Senator Playford, on the 3rd August, that an expert would be appointed to consider the plans and specifications of the new steamers, will the Government inform the House of the name of such expert?

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

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : - :. Mr. Croker’s authority to sign the contract has been confirmed by letter from the secretary of Sir James Laing and Sons Limited, dated 28th July last.

Not yet. The representative of the contractors has advised that the plans are in course of preparation, and will, on completion, be forth with submitted to the representative of the Government in London.
There will be no objection as soon as arrangements are completed.

page 5120

CUSTOMS TARIFF (BRITISH PREFERENCE) BILL

Bill presented, and (on motion by Sir William Lyne) read a first time.

That the second reading be an Order of the Day for a later hour.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister is not proposing to proceed with the Bill immediately ; he is merely seeking an opportunity to move the second reading later in the day.

Sir William Lyne:

– It only means’ blocking business.

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

– The Minister tells us that, because we ask to see the Bills brought down, we are blocking business. It is about time that he ceased speaking like that when honorable members are performing their constitutional duties.

Sir William Lyne:

– I am not going to be lectured by_ the honorable member.

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

– I shall lecture the Minister as much as I please. He cannot be permitted to do what he is now doing. We have a right to be informed of the contents of these measures.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I did not hear the Minister’s remark.

Sir William Lyne:

– The Bill is merely a formal one. What I said was that the business of the day was being blocked’; I did not say that the honorable member was blocking it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 5120

QUESTION

TARIFF :

Duties on Agricultural Implements and Machinery.

Motion (by Sir William Lyne) proposed -

That the resolutions reported from Committee of Ways and Means be adopted.

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

– I move -

That all the words after the word “be” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ recommitted for the purpose of eliminating from the schedule fertilizers and seed drills.”

.- As one keenly interested in agriculture, I heartily support the proposal of the honorable member for Parramatta. I need hardly point out that the bulk of the grain produced in Australia has to be sold in outside markets, and that we should do everything in our power to assist our farmers to produce their crops as cheaply as possible. The honorable member for Laanecoorie informed us that Melbourne manufacturers were making seed drills, but I am informed that they import the parts and merely. put the machines together.

Mr Salmon:

– Only some of the parts are imported.

Mr CAMERON:

– At any rate, the manufacturing operations here have not reached such a- stage that everything required for. the construction of the machines can be made here, and therefore we should not place any obstacle in the way of importations. It is owing to the inventive genius of the Americans that our farmers, instead of sowing 2 bushels of wheat per acre broadcast, are now able by means of seed drills, to perform their sowing operations with three-quarters of a bushel per acre. Practically everything that the farmer needs is subject to high protective duties, and I think that we should show more consideration for our heavily-burdened agriculturists. Only last night the representatives of the gold miners of Western Australia, and of the coal miners of New South Wales, challenged the proposal of the Government to extend a’ preference to fuse and blasting powder imported from the United Kingdom. -They rightly contended that those articles are the tools of trade of the miner. Surely the tools of trade of the farmer are equally entitled to consideration. Honorable members must realize that the prosperity of the country depends upon the agriculturists and the miners. By so much as we levy duties upon their implements, bv so much do we reduce their profits. We have been told that at various times in our history the States Parliaments have recognised their obligations to our primary producers. That fact, however, does not lessen’ our responsibility in that connexion. I, therefore, ask honorable members to assist the deputy leader of the Opposition to remove the duty which it is proposed to levy upon seed drills and fertilizers.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

.- It is quite true that the protectionist members of the Tariff Commission, in their report upon agricultural implements, did not recommend any alteration in the exist ing rate of duty upon seed drills and fertilizers. This is one of those questions which I feel justified in leaving to the deliberative judgment of the House, without attempting to influence honorable members either one way or the other. I shall content myself with reading from page 15 of Progress Report No. 5 of the Tariff Commission. Under the side heading of “Drills,” I find the following:-

Seed drills have been in general use in Australia for about thirty years, but in the year 1900 the manufacture of grain drills, grain and fertilizer drills, ,was commenced by a Victorian implement maker, Mr. John Mitchell. For the first two years he fared very badly ;! then he took up an agency for bidders, and put on a large staff of travellers, with the result that, since igo2 his drill sales have been improving. At the present time about 5,000 drills ore imported into, and sold in, Australia every year. If all these drills could be manufactured in Australia instead of being imported, it would mean a tremendous increase in the number of hands employed. At present only between 500 and 600 drills are made in Australia every year. There is, however, every prospect, under better fiscal conditions, of the number increasing. Victorian drills vary in price from ^34 to £v>, and ^47, according to size.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Can the honorable and learned member tell us what is the price at which imported drills are sold?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– As it was not represented to the Commission- that this branch of industry was being strangled - as was the case with harvesters - no recommendation was submitted by the Tariff Commission upon the subject of the duty which should be levied upon seed drills. The recommendations of that body in respect of agricultural machinery and implements are divided into three .groups.

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

– The honorable and learned member has not read the whole of the evidence bearing upon these implements.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I do not propose to do so, because it would occupy too much time. The Commission reported : -

That in accordance, as we believe, with the foregoing principles we propose to recommend that the duties be readjusted and distributed in the following groups : -

First Group.

– He read only one section, which supported the protectionist view.

Mr JOHNSON:

– That statement is perfectly true. He omitted to read other portions of the report, which support an entirely different view. Upon page 16 of that report I find the following: -

At present the demand for Australian-made drills is not big enough to warrant manufacturers laying down expensive plants and going in largely for their production.

Sir William Lyne:

– That is owing to the importations.

Mr JOHNSON:

– No, it is because the demand is not large enough.

Sir William Lyne:

– The demand would be large enough if the 5.000 drills which are annually imported into Australia were manufactured here.

Mr JOHNSON:

– No. The report proceeds -

It is admitted that the American manufacturers have made some improvements in the making of seed drills, in the shape of malleable castings, which are superior to grey ordinary castings ; a malleable casting is stronger and tougher.

That statement shows that the imported drills are used because of their superiority. That is why they are in greater demand than is the locally manufactured article. The report continues -

It is alleged that, owing to deficiency in local supply, Australian manufacturers have at present to import these castings to use in connexion with Australian-made drills.

– The Chairman of the Tariff Commission stated that that body did not regard this branch of industry as a strangled one.

Mr POYNTON:

– Exactly. If, as has been alleged, the Australian manufacturer has been the means of reducing the price charged for these implements by manufacturers in America - some of whom turn out as many as 20,000 machines a year - that is not an argument .in favour of an increased duty. There seems to be no doubt that the parts of these machines must be imported.

Mr Salmon:

– Who says so?

Mr POYNTON:

– There are all sorts of charges, for which allowance must be made.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– It has been stated that, owing to the operations of the importers, the local manufacturers incur a heavy cost in selling their machines. That may be so, but if the market is practically secured for them, they will have no competition on the part of . sellers of imported machines. Consequently, their selling cost would be reduced, arid the greater proportion of the margin between the cost and the selling price would represent a profit, I repeat that the local manufacturers of a standard machine would find a substantial reduction in price the best stimulus to trade. We are asked to recognise by legislation that something must be done for the manufacturers, who can show a margin of £16 between the cost and the selling price of their machine. I think that the principle is wrong. We are asked by the Government to impose on the community a tax which is unnecessary, and I shall therefore support the proposal of the” honorable member for Parramatta.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolutions adopted.

page 5133

CUSTOMS’ TARIFF (AGRICULTURAL” MACHINERY) BILL

Ordered -

That Mr. Deakin and Sir William Lyne do prepare and bring in a Bill.

Bill presented, and (on motion by Sir William Lyne) read a first time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is it the pleasure of the House that the second reading be taken to-day ?

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

– Only if copies are available to honorable members to study. I decline to allow business to be put through unless honorable members are in a position to know what is being done.

Sir William Lyne:

– I shall not proceed with the Bill unless I have a sufficient number of copies to circulate among honorable members.

Ordered -

That the second reading be an Order of the Day for a later hour.

page 5134

EXCISE TARIFF

Duties on Agricultural Machinery and Implements.

In Committee of Ways and Means -

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

– I move -

That duties of Excise shall from the day of 1906, at Victorian time be imposed on the dutiable goods hereunder specified as follows : -

(/) In the case of goods manufactured before the thirty-first day of March, One thousand nine hundred and seven, are either as advantageous to the workers as the standard conditions at the place of manufacture, or are declared by the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, or bv a Judge of the Supreme Court of the State in which the goods are manufactured, or *by* the Minister... to be fair and reasonable. With regard to the provisos, paragraph *a* speaks for itself. Paragraph *b* prevents the duties from applying to goods manufactured in accordance with an industrial award under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act; and paragraph *c* to goods manufactured in accordance with the terms of the industrial agreement filed under it. These are alternatives. Paragraphs *d* and *e* speak for themselves. Paragraph / is an interim provision., to be used until the other provisions, or any of them, can be brought into operation. I should have liked to provide for a Commonwealth label, but the Atttorney-General informed me that that cannot be done, because under the Constitution there can be no discrimination in regard to matters of taxation. {: #subdebate-4-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I understand that the Minister desires that the schedule should be dealt with before the preliminary enacting paragraph. Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the schedule be taken first? Leave granted. {: #subdebate-4-0-s2 .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON:
Bland .- In regard to the exemptions, I should have preferred the method suggested by the honorable and learned member for Corinella to some of those which have been adopted. I should prefer that the Commonwealth label should be attached to the goods. I understand, however, that the AttorneyGeneral holds that that would be discrimination in taxation, within the meaning of the Constitution. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- I cannot see that. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- No; I am not at all satisfied, as a layman, that it would be discrimination, within the meaning of the Constitution. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I cannot do other than rake the advice of the AttorneyGeneral. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I quite understand that, but it seems to me that the Commonwealth label might be used by persons in all of the States, and that there need be no necessity to insist upon the payment of uniform wages. It would be left to the people in each State to regulate the wages as they might think fit in accordance with climatic and other conditions. That could not be considered discrimination within the terms of the Constituton {: #subdebate-4-0-s3 .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist -- Perhaps- this may be a convenient opportunity for calling the attention of honorable members to the nature of the provisions which it is thought will enable the expressed wishes of the Committee to be carried out without imposing any undue hardship upon those affected. "The provisions offer various means by which makers of these implements may be relieved from the necessity of manufacturing excisable goods. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- Why not recognise the Wages Boards decisions? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- I shall come to that presently. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- It is proposed to create new authorities to determine wages. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- I shall deal with that also. The first proposal is one which I think it may be assumed will, if it is ever used, be brought into requisition only under exceptional circumstances, such as one cannot foresee, when it would be necessary to obtain a declaration from both Houses of the Parliament that certain wages were fair and reasonable. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- Paragraph *a* seems to be the only one that could apply to any extent to the manufacturers of the Commonwealth. Paragraphs *b, c, d,* and *e* could not be applied except within the limits of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which relates only to disputes extending beyond the limits of more than one State. x {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- An industrial award made under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act might practically settle the whole question. Then take the case of an industrial agreement filed under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- That would be limited by the scope of the Act. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- But even if so manufacturers of these implements and machines exist in at least four States, and those in any two of the States could, by arrangement, enter into an industrial agreement which could be filed. This could be applied afterwards to any manufacturers in other States who might desire to come under it. All that the provisions do is to impose the same responsibility that exists in connexion with industrial agreements made under the Commonwealth Act, namely, to register the consent of both parties in any industry to prevent disputes extending over more than one State. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- That seems like a device to force the parties on both sides to bring themselves under the operation of the Commonwealth Act. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- If once an agreement were registered by the employers in any two States, it would be possible for the manufacturers in other States to bring themselves under its operation. Suppose, for instance, that an industrial agreement were entered into by the manufacturers of Victoria and New South Wales, or between those of New South Wales and Queensland, the manufacturers of other States could come under it, because it would be a Federal agreement registered in a Federal Court. If they did so, they would be relieved of any further difficulty, because a standard wage would at once be established. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- That very question is now the subject of dispute before the High Court, and a decision has not yet been given. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- No; a decision has not yet been given, but the advice upon which wo are acting, and which I believe to be sound, is that it would be practicable, by registering industrial agreements, to meet the purpose we have in view. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- But suppose that the manufacturers in one State entered into an industrial agreement, and could not induce the manufacturers in another State to join them - what would their position be? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- An individual agreement under the Commonwealth Act can be registered by manufacturers in any one State. Then, the honorable member suggests an almost impossible contingency. Supposing that such a thing did occur, there would be an alternative. This is a comparatively short and simple method of bringing the manufacturers and employers in all the States together, and I believe that they will take advantage of it. It follows the lines of our Arbitration Act, and, if used, will at once relieve manufacturers from the necessity of manufacturing ex cisable goods. If there should be a special outlying case, such as the honorable member indicated, advantage could be taken of paragraph *d,* under which it is only necessary to satisfy the Minister that the wages are in accordance with the terms of a proposed industrial agreement which is fair and reasonable, and into which the manufacturer is willing, but his workmen refuse to enter. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- Suppose that the workmen were agreeable. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- Such a case would come under paragraph *c.* {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- If the manufacturers in one State could not induce others to come in under an arrangement arrived at by them, they could not register it as an industrial agreement under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- Then the agreement could be filed with the Minister. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- As I understand, an industrial agreement cannot be filed under the Commonwealth Arbitration Act unless it affects an, industry carried on in more than one State. If the manufacturers and workmen in one State come to an arrangement, their agreement could net be filed under the Arbitration Act, but there is no reason why it should not be accepted if it is fair and reasonable. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- That could be done under paragraph *e.* All they would require to do would be to obtain a declaration from the President of the Commonwealth Court of Arbitration, or a Judge of the Supreme Court of a State that the wages were fair and reasonable. That would suffice. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- But COUld the President of the Commonwealth Court of Arbitration deal with an application of that kind in regard to an agreement which did not come within the Commonwealth jurisdiction ? {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- Are not the application of paragraphs *d* and *e* limited by the scope of the Arbitration Act under the Constitution ? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- I should say that POS,sibly the operation of *d* would be limited, because it relates to a " proposed industrial agreement," which would be a Federal agreement. Still, that is only a possibil itv {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- Obviously the application of provision *e* would be limited. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- I doubt that. The President of the Arbitration Court can only act under the constitutional powers given to him whilst he* is discharging his functions as President of the Court in arbitration ; but, under the provision referred to, he would merely be called upon to give a certificate. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- You would, raise the whole question of discrimination between the States in regard to taxation the moment that you went beyond the powers conferred under the Arbitration Act. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- Yes, if the President gave one certificate in one place, .and another inconsistent certificate in another. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- That is what the Arbitration Act provides for, namely, different rates of remuneration. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- But. a certain proportion or standard must be observed. I am referring to haphazard certificates, fixing upon a certain rate of wage for one State, and upon rates 50 per cent, lower or higher in another State under similar circumstances. Personally, I do not apprehend any difficulty whatever in dealing with this as a Federal matter. For the purposes of argument, I have been speaking of cases which might arise in a single State. We must remember, however, that all the employers and employes in this industry throughout the Commonwealth will have a common interest, and the natural and obvious means of protecting that interest will be by joint action all round. Simple means are provided for dealing with agreements entered into in more than one State. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Would it not be more simple if the Government manufactured these things themselves? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- I believe that the honorable member has, in his time, supported proposals of that kind, but am not prepared to take action in that direction until I. have some assurance as to his present attitude. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- What about the awards of the Wages Boards? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- They will be of value as guides to the Minister, the House, or the President of the Court, as the case mav be. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- - What is the objection to specifically accepting them? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- They may vary in different States. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- Probably they will, because of climatic and other conditions. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- Put if, under similar conditions, the industrial authorities in two States adopted different standards of wages, the President of the Court, or the Judge, might then be bound by two different findings. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- The President of the Court would be discriminating between two States if he set himself up as a judge ofthe conditions which should be applied to them. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- It is one thing to endeavour, under our Act, to enforce local regulations, and another thing to vest authority in the President of the Court, or a Judge, who must be influenced by the decisions of the Wages Boards, so far as they seem consistent with one another. They will eagerly look for them, and be generally guided by them. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- One tribunal will declare the wages to be reasonable, and another will give an opposite pronouncement. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN: -- I should think that would be impossible *Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m.* {: #subdebate-4-0-s4 .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY:
Corinella .- Before the sitting was suspended, it was suggested to the Prime Minister that honorable members might be' granted at least till two o'clock to think over these important proposals. Although I have given them what attention I could during the adjournment, I do not feel that I am in any better position to discuss them now than I was previously. To my mind protective duties which benefit only the manufacturer fall far short of conferring any real advantage upon the community. It is desirable that some portion of the direct benefits derived from the imposition of duties should, if possible, go to the employes, and there are also considerations relating to the consumer which have to be taken into account. Looking at the duty side of the matter for the present, I recognise that these proposals represent ah effort to insure that the increases of duties which we have recently been considering in connexion with agricultural- implements and machinery, shall be accompanied bv proper wages conditions for the employes in the industries concerned. But in considering any such proposals, we have to be reasonably satisfied of two things - first, that they will achieve the 'desired result, and. secondly, that they will not work an unanticipated injury to those whom they are designed to benefit. As I understand the position, the great difficulty which has arisen is due to the limitation of our powers under the Constitution. I understand that the AttorneyGeneral has advised that in dealing with this matter it is necessary to be constantly on our guard lest we infringe that provision of the Constitution which declares that taxation shall not discriminate between States or parts of States, because various methods which might be effective and which might work without any accompanying injury of substance, are inadmissible owing to that constitutional provision. I must confess that, so far as I have been able to give very hasty consideration to the question, it appears to me that if the view of the Attorney-General be correct, that the freeing of manufacturers from excise on compliance with State industrial conditions of any kind - whether they be in the nature of the decisions of Wages Boards or of State Arbitration Courts - would be an infringement of the provision relating to non-discrimination in matters of taxation, we have arrived at an *impasse* from which, at the present moment, I can see no escape. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade 'and Customs are aware that in this regard my desires are exactly the same as their own. I have previously made suggestions in this connexion. But I do feel that we are not ready to settle a matter of this importance to-day, and I think that time would be saved if we were afforded a further opportunity of considering it. I do not make this suggestion with a view to bringing about delay- {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- What is the suggestion of the honorable and learned member? {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- It is that we should adjourn the discussion of this matter, and allow honorable members a further opportunity to consider it. Although the Cabinet has been engaged in considering it very fully from all stand-points, members of this Committee have not had an opportunity to do so. I must confess that the taxation aspect of the question had not occurred to my mind, and with every respect to those who entertain the view to which I have alluded, I am not prepared to givemy adhesion to it. But understanding, as I do, that it is the view which is entertained by every legal member of the Cabinet, as well as bv the permanent Crown law officers, I am compelled to give it the weightiest consideration. If their view be correct, I fear that the way out of the difficulty is not visible just now. Personally, I am not in a position *to discuss the* matter with the clearness of. view that I ought to possess. I should like to know whether the Prime Minister does not think that we should be more likely to save time if our ideas upon it were allowed to clarify. It is a matter of first-class importance. Under ordinary circumstances, there would be an adjournment extending over several days after it had been introduced. It is at east as important as is a Bill of magnitude, involving fundamental principles. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- If honorable members will proceed with the consideration of other matters, I do not object to postpone the debate upon this proposal. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I can assure the Minister that I am merely asking for time to allow my ideas on the matter *to* clear. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- We will give the honorable and learned member an hour or two whilst we proceed with other matters. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- That is scarcely fair. If the Prime Minister wanted to form a definite opinion upon a matter of great importance, he would not like to be compelled to do it upon the same day that it was submitted to him. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- If honorable members will proceed with the consideration of other matters, I am prepared to postpone this proposal. I have done allthat I can to distribute the Bills. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- Even this schedule has only been distributed since we adjourned for luncheon. In their present form, I fear that the proposals of the Minister will mean injury to consumer, employe, and manufacturer alike. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- In what way? {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I am afraid that they will boil down to the manufacturers paying the Excise, the employe's deriving no benefit, and the consumers failing to get any reduction in price. In other words, I fear that the whole thing will mean a hampering of Australian industry without benefit to anybody except the manufacturers abroad. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- What does the honorable and learned member suggest? {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I desire only an opportunity to think the matter over. I recognise thedifficulties of the position. How can honorable members, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, be in a position to discuss a matter of first-class importance which was brought before them only at half -past 12 o'clock ? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- The subject was discussed some days ago. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I am aware of that. I fear that these proposals will not work out in the way that is anticipated. Under them, the small man will suffer enormously. The difficulty which occurs to my mind is that if we omit paragraph *a* and paragraph /, I fear that no manufacturer in Australia - unless he had an Inter-State manufacturing industry - would be able to get the benefits which would be conferred bv paragraphs *b. c, d,* and *e.* {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- Could he not come under paragraph *e?* {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- - No. My idea is that the application to the President of the Arbitration Court must be within the limits of the arbitration powers granted by the Constitution. It all depends upon the authority to whom this Parliament can delegate its powers of determination. If it can delegate them to the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration as an individual, and not in his official capacity, and limited by our constitutional powers, why can it not delegate them to John Brown, and if it can delegate them to John Brown, why can it not delegate them to the Wages Board of a State ? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- Would not the Wages Boards be acting in a Federal capacity ? {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- If that be so, what is there to prevent us going a step further and accepting in a Federal capacity what is declared by somebody else? Then we have been told that such, a proposal would be a contravention of the provision in our Constitution relating to our powers of taxation. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- I think that the honorable and learned member's argument- that we might accept the decisions of Wages Boards would involve a discrimination, because it is based upon the idea that those Boards would retain their status as State authorities. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- Why cannot this Parliament declare that it will exempt from excise anybody who is complying with anybody else's decisions? The decisions might be those of the British Board of Trade, for example. Why cannot we adopt federally what has been done in a State capacity? If we cannot do that, it appears to me that paragraph *e* is limited in exactly the same way. I take it that that provision really refers to the President of the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration within the constitutional limits of the powers of conciliation and arbitration bestowed upon us. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- That paragraph says - " On an application made for the purpose ' ' - it does not provide for an application under the Arbitration Act. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- That is just what I have been endeavouring to make clear. The fact that I have not succeeded in making it clear to a man who is so capable of understanding a non-lucid argument as is the AttorneyGeneral, shows' that I require more time to consider this matter. Usually - irrespective of whether I am right or wrong - I succeed in making mv views clear. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- We know it. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- My views are usually understood, altogether apart from the question of whether honorable members agree with them or not. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr Higgins: -- What harm will be done if the manufacturer cannot show that he is complying with paragraph *c* or paragraph *el* He can comply with any of the paragraphs of title proviso. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- Take paragraph a as an illustration. He cannot show that he is complying with that before next session. The, Prime Minister has said that paragraph *a* merely represents a reserve power. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- That is to say, it is the most difficult of all of them. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- Paragraph / is merely a temporary provision, which is intended to tide us over the next few months. {: .speaker-KHC} ##### Mr Higgins: -- That is what we want. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- But if we can disregard paragraph /, I desire to see how paragraphs *a, b, c, d,* and *e* will work after the 31st March next. Paragraph a is a reserve power, while paragraphs *b* and *c* will certainly apply only to cases coming within our constitutional powers in regard to conciliation and arbitration. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- I have been looking at the language of the Act, and I think that the words "industrial agreement" might be given a slightly wider interpretation. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- Does the Prime Minister say that under paragraph *c* an industrial agreement made between an employer and employe engaged in one State only would be lawful? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- Certainly. Why should it not be? {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I am very dubious about it. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- There is nothing in our own Act to prevent its being lawful. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- But there is a good deal to be said as to our constitutional power. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- It is only a dispute which must extend under an agreement. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I am assuming the facts that we all know. I am not tracing the steps which lead me to the conclusion I have formed. Then paragraph *d* relates to conditions that are in accordance with the terms of a proposed industrial agreement. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- There is no limitation there. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- There is a very curious limitation. It relates to an agreement into which a manufacturer is willing to enter, although his workmen are not. There is an assumption that it relates to an agreement that is not fair. Why is it not provided that the industrial agreement should be one which, in the opinion of the Minister, is fair and reasonable? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- Because that is covered by paragraph *c.* {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- That is the reason. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- Was it not put in that form for the reason that it was thought that it might be beyond our competence? It does not matter how a discrimination in taxation arises - whether it arises from the doings of a State tribunal or those of the Federal Parliament. If the Minister approved of an agreement in one State, but not in another, would not a discrimination in taxation immediately arise? Discrimination in taxation may arise from our act as well as from that of others. If paragraph *d* were put in the simple form I have mentioned, it would offend against the canons of taxation which have been laid down. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- The honorable and learned member means that it might do so. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- It might. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- In the last Sugar Excise Bill passed by us we insisted upon the payment of a standard wage. The rate might vary in different districts, and the Minister is to be satisfied in the matter. According to the honorable and learned member's reasoning that provision must be unconstitutional. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- At present I am unable to see the distinction which the AttorneyGeneral would draw between the two cases. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The honorable and learned member may rest assured that it is all right. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I am responsible, not to the Minister, but to my constituents. It is my duty to satisfy myself that the provision is all right, and not to accept even the assurance of the Minister that it is. I generally give him the benefit of the doubt - foolishly, it may be - and accept his view. But I cannot do so in this case. Paragraph *e* might also give rise to discrimination. If the fears that I entertain have any reasonable foundation - if this provision will not be easily and conveniently operative - the Excise duty may have to be paid by people who should not be called upon to pay it. If those who were employing labour under proper conditions of all kinds - who, for example, were complying with all the provisions of an award of the Arbitration Court of New South Wales, or whose employes were working under Wages Boards' conditions in Victoria - came under these Excise provisions, the result might be disastrous to employer, employe, and consumer alike. When an honorable member honestly entertains apprehensions of this kind, he has very good reason for urging that the question demands careful consideration. I cannot understand why the Government should not at once agree to give us time to think over this proposal. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- It will come up again when the Bill is before us. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCAY: -- I have heard that cry before. In the Victorian Parliament, there prevailed the bad practice of allowing amendments in a Bill to be moved upon the third reading. Honorable members without much experience of the procedure were often told in Committee that if the clause to which they obiected were allowed to pass it could be dealt with at the third reading stage, but those who once acted on that information required no further experience to induce them to say that the Committee was the proper place in which to thresh out their difficulties. I hold the same view in regard to this question. The passing of the Bill itself should be a mere matter of form. My present feeling is that this proposal will destroy Australian industries, and I am not going to assist to agree to anything that will have that effect. I desire time to consider the motion. In its present form it seems to me that it will be disastrous to Australia, and I refuse to join in the passing of any proposition that might have that effect. {: #subdebate-4-0-s5 .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- The honorable and learned member for Corinella has dealt with some of the legal and constitutional difficulties associated with this proposal, and I desire now to point out several of. the practical difficulties. It is proposed in an extraordinary manner to extend the tribunals that may deal with the industrial conditions prevailing in the Commonwealth. We are creating a complicated set of laws, which, if they have any effect at all, must hamper the industries of the community. I have no faith whatever in the capacity of some at least of the new tribunals named in this motion to deal with industrial matters. In two paragraphs of the motion the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act is recognised, but apart from those provisions we are proposing to allow the Parliament to decide whether the conditions prevailing in a particular class of industry or, it may be, a particular business, are fair and reasonable. How could we separate from the decision of such matters the prejudices arising from fiscal opinions or associations? {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- The same question might be asked in regard to the greater part of our work. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- But I arn referring to a proposal to give the Parliament power to deal with matters which have hitherto been delegated to a specially constituted tribunal outside. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- There is nothing in this motion to force a manufacturer to come to Parliament. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- It is immaterial whether a manufacturer or his employes are to be forced to do so. The point is that, under this proposal, an opportunity will be given them to appeal to Parliament. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- The manufacturers alone would come. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- I have no hesitation in saving that the Parliament could not be relied upon to give a judicial decision in regard to these disputes. Its decision in relation to the industrial conditions prevailing in a certain employment might vary according to the firm whose affairs were brought under consideration. I am not referring to the attitude likely to be taken up by either one side or the other, but I repeat that Parliament might be induced to give a decision against a firm because of the policy which that firm had been supporting. If the same question were brought forward by another firm, a different decision might be given. We have so fully recognised the inability of Parliament to deal judicially with matters of this kind, that we have appointed a special tribunal to decide them. A still more objectionable paragraph in this motion is that providing that the Minister may be the tribunal to decide whether a proposed industrial agreement is reasonable and fair. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr Crouch: -- Under our present system of government, does not paragraph *a* really amount to the same thing? {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- That may be so. I contend that the power proposed to be conferred on the Minister under paragraph *d* is an -improper one. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- How would the honorable member deal with the difficulty which we endeavoured to meet in that paragraph ? {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- I shall show later on how I think it might be overcome. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- How much longer is this debate to continue? {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- Are we not to be allowed to discuss a motion providing for the most important and unusual proceedings in regard to industrial matters ? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Unfortunately, and the Opposition are taking full advantage of the opportunity. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- I would recommend the honorable gentleman to go to Russia, where his special qualifications would be in request at the present time. He would find his proper sphere there. He brings forward a drastic proposal like this, and objects to its discussion for a few minutes. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Nearly all the legal talent in Australia has been employed in connexion with it. What more can be wanted ? {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- I am going to discuss the matter, not from the legal, but from, the practical stand-point. The Minister is the worst tribunal for dealing with questions such as will be raised under these provisions. Is it maintainable that we shall always have in office Ministers whose honesty, fairness, impartiality, clearness of judgment, and other qualifications will be such that they can be trusted to decide these questions? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- We have one now. That should be enough. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- The Minister may have the fullest confidence in himself, and the fact that he holds his present position is evidence that Parliament has confidence in him ; but, even assuming him to be an angel of light, and infallible, he must sooner or later have a successor, and ten to one he will say of that successor that he cannot trust his impartiality. It would be absurd to contend that the fact that a man holds office is evidence of his qualifications to decide a matter of this sort. Besides, we cannot tell who our future Ministers will be. If the House had to select some person whose business it would be to decide these questions, we should have the greatest difficulty in choosing one who would possess the special qualifications needed, and there is certainly no guarantee that any man who, in the hurly-burly of politics, may obtain a portfolio, will have these qualifications. Coming now to the working, of the provisions, I would point out that there is no recognition of the States Wages Boards and Arbitration Courts. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- That recognition cannot be given without discriminating between the States. The rates sanctioned by these authorities may differ. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- Under our Arbitration Act it is recognised that rates may differ in the various States. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- lt is only in regard to matters of taxation that there must be no discrimination between the States. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- That admission destroys the honorahle and learned gentleman's position. Parliament recognised, in passing the Arbitration Act, that it would be unfair and improper to insist on the same rates in ever)' State. But the Attorney-General says that, under this legislation, we must insist on the same rates. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- No. What I say is thaf we cannot adopt State lines of discrimination. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- Can we fix different rates for different States? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- No. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- Then the Attorney-General virtually admits the truth of my contention. In passing the Arbitration Act it was specially recognised that it would be unjust, unfair, and un equal to fix the same rates for all the States. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- Certainly. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- Yet it is now proposed to do so. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- No. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- Under these provisions, could different rates of wages and different conditions be accepted as reasonable and fair? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- We can recognise different rates in different parts of Australia, but not as different State rates. State lines must be blotted out. We must forget, in dealing with matters of taxation, that there are States. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- Then there can be different rates and conditions. There may be factories of whose productions the items in the schedule form only a part, and perhaps a very small one. These factories may be under State Arbitration Acts or State Wages Boards, but in regard to the production of the articles mentioned in the schedule they will be under quite another tribunal. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- Whose decisions will supersede those of the local authorities. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- How can they carry on in that case? The manufacture of the articles in the schedule may be only part of the work of a factory, and the men employed there may be engaged sometimes in this work and sometimes in other work. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- They may be part of their time making locomotives, for instance. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- In respect to the employment of such men we shall have conflicting jurisdiction, and consequently conflicting decisions. Although the decisions of the States Courts are to be recognised as fair and reasonable, the decisions of the States Wages Boards are not to receive similar recognition. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- The States Courts are temporarily clothed with Federal power, while the State Wages Boards are not. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- Then why not clothe them with Federal power? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- We cannot do so. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- What is the difficulty? The honorable and learned gentleman has clothed all sorts of State institutions and persons with Federal power; why cannot he. for the purposes of this legislation, so clothe the States Arbitration Courts and Wages Boards? As matters stand, there will be conflicting jurisdictions and conflicting decisions. Men when engaged in making some article cognate to those in the list will be subject to a State Wages Board, and when making an article in the list, subject to a Federal tribunal. I am very doubtful about the success of a lot of legislation of this kind. But those who are in favour of it should try to make it workable and simple. As it stands at present, it will create most serious and absurd situations. Contrary decisions will be given, which will destroy the effective working of our industries. The request of the honorable and learned member for Corinella, that we should have more time for consideration, is a reasonable one. We should be given an opportunity to determine whether the difficulties which have been pointed out cannot be removed, and if they can be removed, to find means of removing them. Every honorable member must recognise that the complications surrounding the carrying on of an industry will be very great if the men employed in a factory are subject during the time that they are working on one set of articles to one tribunal, and during the time that they are working on another set of articles to another tribunal. A man engaged in making wood-work might be subject to a State authority when that wood-work was intended for one set of machines, and to a Commonwealth authority when it was intended for another set of madhines. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- It would not be necessary to keep arecord of the work actually being done by the employes. All that the employer will have to do will be to prove that he is paying wages which are up to the standard. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr Harper: -- How can (he do that, except by proving that he is complying with the requirements of a Wages Board or some similar tribunal ? {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- The list of articles mentioned in the schedule mav form only a comparatively small part of the output of a certain industry. In regard to the rest of the output the States Wages Boards or Arbitration Courts will decide what are fair and reasonable conditions, and their decisions are the best evidence obtainable on the subject. An employer may be working his men under these conditions, and a question may arise which will have to be settled by some other tribunal, perhaps bv Parliament. We know that the deci sions of Arbitration Courts and Wages Boards do not always give satisfaction to those to whom they apply, and thus questions in dispute may be brought before Parliament, and 'their consideration complicated with a number of side issues. If the determination varies from the original decision, we shall have nothing but confusion, because operatives for a portion of their time will be subjected to the control of the State authority, while, in regard to another portion of their time, that control will be overridden by the Federal authority. It may be said that the manufacturers, with all their men, should come under the Federal authority if it has decided on higher rates of wages than those required by the State authority; but thy cannot be expected to do that. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- They will not be expected to do it. Manufacturers are not to be liable for the payment of Excise unless their men are working under conditions which are not as good as those prescribed. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- That is not the point. The tribunals 'provided for may come to decisions inconsistent with the decisions of the Wages Board ; Parliament may do so, the Minister may do so, and a Justice, acting, not as president of the Arbitration Court but in an independent capacity, may do so. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- A manufacturer has to get only one decision in his favour to be {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -Is he to range through all these tribunals untilhe can get a decision in his favour? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- No : he can select. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- In my opinion, there is no occasion to get away from the decisions of the Wages Boards and Arbitration Courts. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- The honorable member has presented a somewhat different view of the matter, and if I may say so, a more promising one' than that previously offered . {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- Of course, I am not criticising the proposal from the legal stand-point, but from the industrial point of view. We ought to endeavour to meet the industrial necessities of the case, and personally I can see no difficulty. I do not see why we should not make use of the States bodies to which I have referred as Federal tribunals, for the time being, and for a particular purpose. If we do not adopt this course, we shall bring about all sorts of complications and difficulties. It may be said that where higher rates of wages and shorter hours are fixed by our Commonwealth tribunal, as reasonable and fair, t*he manufacturer can free himself from the Excise by carrying on all his operations under the specified conditions. But just consider the difficulty that might arise. The manufacture of implements might ' constitute only a minor portion of his work. The manufacturer might engage in other lines of business, and whilst he might be compelled to pay throughout his establishment the higher wages stipulated by the Commonwmealth authority, his competitors in other lines of business, who might not be manufacturing implements, could carry on their operations under the more favorable decisions of the States tribunals. I do not think that we ought to pass the proposals in their present form. Whatever time is needed for the purpose of effecting an improvement should be granted. As the result of the partial criticism - I could carry my criticism much further - which has been directed to the proposals, new considerations have arisen, and it is important that in a matter of this kind, which may affect our industries very considerably, we should have the fullest time for consideration and for making good any shortcomings that may be exposed by criticism. {: #subdebate-4-0-s6 .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON:
Bland .- I quite agree with the honorable member for North Sydnev that the. step now being taken is a very important one: From 'the stand-point of protectionists, I think that it marks an era in our legislation. No previous attempt has been made in the manner now proposed to secure some definite proportion of the benefits of protection for the employes. Therefore this proposal, combined with the provision which is intended to protect the consumers . by limiting the selling price of the article, marks a step of great importance. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- It shows how you have to bandage up protection. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Unfortunately, it is very often impossible to achieve the .object aimed at without bandages. Judging from the tottering condition of free-trade, even bandages would not be of much avail. It is in the highest degree desirable that we should provide the simplest possible machinery for making this proposal effective. There is some force, in the criticism offered by the honorable member for North Sydney with reference to the difficulties that confront the manufacturer who has to comply with both State and Common wealth requirements. I can quite understand that it is difficult, especially in view of the constitutional limitations, to arrive at the easiest way of giving effect to these conditions. If we. were prepared to go to the expense of providing the same machinery that we use in connexion with the sugar bounty system, we should have comparatively little trouble. That is to say, we could levy an Excise duty all round, and provide for a bounty by way of rebate to those manufacturers who complied with certain conditions. I can see that the constitutional difficulty would be at once avoided if we could adopt this course. But the machinery required would be considerable, and Excise officers would have to be stationed in every factory. If there is any effective method short of that cumbrous plan, we should adopt it. As I indicated before lunch, I do not see how the use of the Commonwealth label would constitute a discrimination in taxation such as would be contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. But, upon that point, I am prepared to accept the assurance of the Attorney-General and the law officers of the Crown. It does not seem to me that the same objection would apply to clothing with Federal power some of the States authorities, such as the Wages Boards or Arbitration Courts. I do not know whether the interjection of the AttorneyGeneral a few minutes ago indicated that he perceived the distinction between accepting the determinations of States Wages Boards as such, and accepting, for this purpose, the decision of a State Wages Board clothed with Federal authority. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- I do. That is why I said that the suggestion of the honorable member for North Sydney was more promising. I am endeavouring to frame an amendment to meet the case. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I am very glad to hear that. The criticism of the honorable member for North Sydney, aided by interjections by myself and the honorable and learned member for Corinella, and others, have at least achieved something. It would be preferable from every standpoint to recognise a standard established by an outside authority rather than depend upon any Ministerial or parliamentary determination. Without for a moment SuK gesting anything beyond a lack of practical knowledge on the part of Parliament, and Ministers, I think that it would be undesirable to leave too much to the option of the Minister. The authorities of whose services it is proposed we shall avail ourselves, exist in four of the States- New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Thev are not of much use in South Australia. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I am assured by the honorable member for Boothby that there is every prospect that, in a month or two, the factory legislation in South 'Australia will become operative. In three of the States, the necessary machinery is actually in operation, and there should be no difficulty in making use of it in South Australia. With regard to Queensland and Tasmania, we should still require to leave some power in the hands of the Minister, or of Parliament. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- I think that we can deal with those cases by means of a Judge of the Supreme Court. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I certainly prefer the idea of accepting the decisions of the States authorities wherever it is possible. If we adopt that course, we shall minimize complications, and lead to much less friction. {: #subdebate-4-0-s7 .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- - It nas Deen urged that more time is required for the consideration of the matter now before us. but I am prepared to vote upon it at 'once. It seems to me that we are introducing an entirely novel and most complicated principle, which, if it has anything to recommend it, should be applied to all our industries. If we are doing right in regulating the wages paid in certain branches of manufacture, we are doing wrong in not extending the same principle to other branches of industry We have to look at the genesis of this proposal. Only a short time ago, the Government proposed to impose abnormally high duties upon certain agricultural machinery, and it was then suggested that we should simultaneously impose an Excise duty, and associate with it the principle of giving relief from Excise duties to those manufacturers who complied with certain labour conditions, and sold their goods at certain prices. I am not prepared, at a moment's notice, to apply a new set of principles, not only to taxation, but to the regulation of the social condi tions of the people. I was not able to obtain a copy of the proposals until after the luncheon hour, and I do not think that we should, at short notice, be called upon to deal with the most complicated system of Excise of which I have ever heard. The Attorney-General appears to think that he can softsoap us into accepting the proposals by adopting ihe suggestion of the honorable member for North Sydney. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- Does not the honorable member agree with that? {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- I a I agree with some of the honorable member's criticisms, which were of the most destructive character. He spoke as the result of his wide acquaintance with commercial undertakings, and furnished the best of reasons why the Government proposals should not be adopted. It is impossible for anybody to predict what the ultimate effect of these proposals will be. This Excise duty is not imposed for the purpose of producing revenue. It is levied for the purpose of levelling down a protective tax which has been imposed upon stripper-harvesters. Could we not achieve our purpose in a much easier way by lowering the import duty ? The Government have been compelled to accept a suggestion which emanated from the Labour corner, and to adopt what is known as the "new" protection. That "new" protection is intended to improve the social conditions of the operatives who create wealth. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- What is the honorable member's objection to that? {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- I stated the other night that if a new fiscal policy of that character is to be introduced, I shall be obliged to review my position as a freetrader. My objection to protection has never been based upon the assumption 'that it would result in better conditions for the worker, but rather upon the fact that under it the worker is robbed, for the benefit of a small number of individuals. If we are going to introduce a system of protection under which we seek to improve the condition of the workers. T shall have to reconsider my position. But a Parliament which seeks to bring into operation a great principle like that for the _ sake of a few units in the community, is manifestly doing an injustice to the great majority. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Mr Salmon: -- The honorable member must not imagine for a moment that it was the Labour Party which originated the " new " protection. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- I did not suggest that. I merely say that this is the first occasion upon which we have had a practical proposal' of this character. No man can look at these proposals without viewing them in the light of their effect upon the whole body of consumers. If we are to have the "new" protection under which the workers will be considered, let us have the "newer" protection under which the consumer shall be considered. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- The present proposals limit the price of the article. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- But we shall need to go further than that. We shall require to add the following proviso : - >Provided further that if, in the opinion of the Minister of the day, a higher price is being charged to the consumers of these articles than ought reasonably to be charged, the proviso immediately preceding shall not apply. We might then go further and provide for the social habits of the people, for the sobriety of the workers, and for manufacturers paying their debts. In short, we might complete the circle and end up by leaving everybody in relatively the same position that they now occupy. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- The honorable member would make the position more complicated. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- Having in view the complicated nature of these proposals, and the fact that the few commercial men in the House cannot predict their ultimate effect, it is only fair to ask the Minister to allow honorable members a few days in which to consider them. It has been frequently said that these novel proposals seldom fulfil either the predictions of their opponents or of their supporters. I think it behoves us to look at the, matter more carefully before agreeing to propositions so novel in character and likely to be disastrous in their effects. As the honorable member for North Sydney has pointed out, the Clyde Engineering Company in New South Wales manufactures a number of the articles which will be subject to these. Excise duties, and also turns out locomotives. Their workmen are frequently moved from one branch of the establishment to another. A man may perhaps be engaged upon a locomotive to-day and up a stumpjump plough to-morrow. Under these proposals we should compel that firm to comply with all the conditions relating to the employment of their men, if. they wish to escape the payment of the Excise duty. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- When the Bill was going through, I agreed that an Excise duty' should be levied, and I am merely giving effect to my promise. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- When the suggestion came from the Minister's friends in the Labour corner, it was taken up very readily indeed. I do not think it is fair to expect honorable members, at such short notice, to agree to these proposals. For my own part, I am prepared to vote against them at once. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- Is the honorable member opposed to any provisions of this character ? {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- No. When I voted in this House in favour of the establishment of an Arbitration . Court, I thought I was providing a means for regulating the wages of industrial employes. Have we failed to do so? If we have not, these provisions are not required. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- In some States, as the honorable member knows, there is no machinery of that kind. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- But we have provided Federal machinery. Until it is announced that our attempts to regulate wages are a failure, we have no right to tack on to Excise duties provisions relating to the social condition of the workers. {: #subdebate-4-0-s8 .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS:
Attorney-General · Indi · Protectionist . ' - If the honorable member for South Sydney will permit me to say so, without disrespect, his concluding remarks were based upon a fallacy. He said that we had endeavoured to place upon the statute-book provisions to regulate the wages of industrial workers, and that, if we had been successful, these proposals were not required. I would point out to him that the Federal Constitution - great as it is - is not altogether symmetrical. It is the result of a good many compromises, and provides that taxation must be levied without regard to States. Conciliation and arbitration have their foundation in the States. We have no power to legislate concerning conciliation and arbitration in respect of industrial disputes unless those disputes extend beyond the limits of any one State. Therefore, we have two conflicting principles, and that is how the difficulty arises. In regard to taxation, we must exclude from our minds all considerations of States. We must deal with Australia as a whole, without discriminating between State and State, or between parts of States. That is the awkward feature of the situation. That is why, in my opinion, we can- not take up State laws as such, and declare that, to' exempt a manufacturer from taxation, the Victorian laws shall apply in Victoria, and that the New South Wales laws shall apply in that State in the same way. We cannot recognise State laws which alter the incidence of taxation. The Government have given very anxious consideration to this matter, and I take it that every member of this Committee acquiesces in the idea that we do not wish to impose duties merely to enrich manufacturers. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- Why not regulate the wages of the boot operatives or of the jam operatives? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- We could not do that under a Harvester Bill. If we are dealing with ploughs and stripper-harvesters, we cannot go so far as to deal with the wages of bootmakers. I should be very glad indeed to see our way constitutionally to recognise the State laws in this matter. We did so in the Trade Marks Act, but, in my opinion, we cannot do so under any taxation proposal, because the Constitution expressly forbids discriminations. To say that a manufacturer in Victoria shall be exempt from the payment of the Excise duty if he complies with the Victorian law, and that a manufacturer in New South Wales shall be exempt from the payment of Excise duty if he complies with the State law there, which may be quite different, would be to discriminate between the States. It would give a man an advantage, according to whether he was resident in one State or another. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- What about the Excise ? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- That is a totally different question. {: .speaker-KDD} ##### Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT -- - If is the basis of this question. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- If we cannot do it effectively in an Excise Bill, why do it at all? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- We can do it effectively,, though not in the particular way that we have been asked to do it. What we say is that we are going to provide various methods by which manufacturers may deal reasonably with 'their employes, and so avoid the payment of Excise. We say_. in effect, that so long as a manufacturer treats his employes reasonably, he shall be freed from the payment of Excise, and we give him the choice of several means of proving that he is dealing reasonably with them. In. the first place, we say to him -that, if he comes to Parliament and establishes his claim that the remuneration of his employes, aand their conditions of labour are fair and reasonable, he shall not be liable to pay the Excise. No doubt that is rather a cumbersome method. We further say to him that if he complies with an industrial award of the Commonwealth Conciliation ' and Arbitration Court, that will suffice. We say that if he does not feel himself called upon to take either of these courses, he may adopt an industrial agreement. Then we provide in paragraph *d* that if he is willing to enter into an agreement, and his employes are not, he shall not be debarred from participating in these advantages, but shall have an opportunity to go before the. Minister, and prove his willingness. Thereupon the Minister, if he thinks that the terms offered by the manufacturer are favorable, may exempt him. These provisons are all in favour of the manufacturer. We go on to provide that if application is made to the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration - not under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act - the learned Justice may refer the matter to a Judge of the Supreme Court of the State, and that if either he or the Judge of the Supreme Court declares the terms to be reasonable the manufacturer shall be exempt. Some provison of the kind is necessary to meet the position of those carrying on businness in States where, there is no industrial authority. Paragraph / contains a provision designed to meet the exigencies of the situation - a provision with which no one will quarrel. The honorable member for North Sydney made a reference to State industrial authorities, which I thought at the time suggested a way by which we could meet his views without contravening the provisions of the Constitution. While we cannot in my opinion adopt a State law, as such, w'e might utilize the services of gentlemen who are acting as State industrial authorities by asking them to determine the question of fairness and reasonableness. No doubt in deciding such a question they, would be guided by the considerations on which they base their determinations under the State laws, but that would not mean our adoption of the State laws as such. We could make the same use of these industrial authorities as we could of a Judge of the Supreme Court of a State. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- That is what I thought, but I understood the AttorneyGeneral to say it could not be done. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- I did not say that. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- Is paragraph *d* an intention to discriminate or a discrimination in fact? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- I should think it means either. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- So should I. Does not this proposal mean- {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- There is no prohibition against doing anything that is reasonable or fair in any part of Australia. Local conditions may be taken into consideration ; but for the purposes of taxation we cannot draw a hard-and-fast line according to State boundaries. That is the position. What might be fair and reasonable in one town might not necessarily be fair and reasonable in another in the same State. It might be quite fair and reasonable to have in Albury different conditions from those prevailing in Wodonga, but that difference would not be determined merely by the fact that the two towns are separated by the Murray. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr Batchelor: -- It would be determined by the conditions in the locality. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- According to the conditions. It would not be determined by the fact that the town in question was in one State or another. I would suggest to the Committee that we should give an opportunity to the manufacturer to adopt whichever of the methods mentioned in the proposal is most advantageous to himself. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- In my opinion some of them are not good. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- I suggest that paragraph *d* should be altered so that it would provide that the conditions shall be in accordance with terms which in the opinion of the Minister are fair and reasonable. I shall show presently why I think the provision as to the Minister being allowed to deal with these matters should be retained ; although, ' of course, the question is one for the consideration of the Committee. My suggestion is that paragraph *c* should be 'amended to read as follows: - are on an application made for the purpose to the president of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration declared to be fair and reasonable - I am now merely transposing the last words of the paragraph as it stands - by him or by a Judge of the Supreme Court of a State, or any person or persons who compose a State industrial authority to whom he may refer the matter. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- If the paragraph were so amended, it would cover Wages Boards and like institutions? {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- It would. We know that in two or three of the States there are practically no industrial authorities. Queensland and Tasmania ought not to be placed in a worse position in this regard than any of the other States. South Australia; too, at present has not a substantiallyconstituted industrial authority. That being so, we desire an opportunity to allow a Judge of the Supreme Court to deal with these matters. If any of these States should at any time have a properly constituted industrial authority, a question under these provisions could be referred to that authority. I think that the provision giving the Minister power to decide whether the terms of an agreement are fair and reasonable ought to be retained, because in some distant parts of Queensland or South Australia, or even Tasmania, if might be found inconvenient to refer the' question to the State industrial authority in another part of that State, or to a Judge of the Supreme Court, or the President of the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- It might be just as inconvenient to refer the matter to the Minister, who might be still further aw,av {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- The Judges go on circuit. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- It might be found far more convenient to refer the matter, through a Customs officer, to the Minister for determination. I think that it would be wise to give manufacturers an opportunity to do that which may be found best suited to their convenience. The only desire of the .Government is to facilitate the settlement of these matters, so as to avoid any block in industrial occupations. That is the position of affairs. I think we are all agreed that some provision of the kind should be made. The only point in dispute is as to the way in which we should secure the object we have in view. I have detailed the considerations which have animated the Government, and with these observations would ask the Committee to deal with the motion at once, more especially as the Bill itself will have to be considered in Committee. Mi. Dugald Thomson. - But this is the stage at which we should consider these matters. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr ISAACS: -- I think that we ought as far as possible, to deal' with, the question now, but I am merely pointing out that honorable members will have still another opportunity of considering it in Committee. Mi. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta) [3.24]. - 1 am one of those who agree that if we have protective duties of the character contained in the schedule, the workers ought certainly to receive some advantage from them. At the same time, I do not think that this proposal is fair or reasonable. The question now before us is not the only one incidental to high protective duties. We have been dealing with two schedules - one of which has not yet been finally disposed of - providing for the imposition of much higher rates. What is to be done in regard to them? Are we going to deliberately set up an anomalous condition of affairs? Are we going to agree to the anomaly that one section of the manufacturers shall subscribe to these new conditions, while others go free? I differ altogether from the view that it is impossible to treat them upon some common ground, and in accordance with some common principle. It occurs to me that the best course for the Government to pursue would be to bring down a set of industrial propositions which would apply to all manufacturers whom we are proposing to treat in this favoured way. What is to be the position in regard to the duties imposed under the reciprocal agreement with New Zealand and the British preferential proposals ? In both cases duties are increased very considerably. I find, for instance, that the duty on the bulk of our importations of furniture from foreign countries is to be increased 'by 10 per cent. That concession to local furnituremakers is almost as large as that which we are making to the manufacturers of these agricultural implements. Then, again, the duty on engines, cutlery n.e.i., drawing, mathematical, and surveying instruments, plated ware, and plated cutlery is also to be increased by 10 per cent, in respect of importations from foreign countries, whilst the duty on boots and shoes from foreign countries is to be increased from 30 to 40 per cent. In other words, the bootmakers of Australia are to have a 40 per cent, protective duty, and to remain exempt from the conditions to be imposed upon the makers of the agricultural implements now under consideration. Is there any sort of justice in this proposal? Will any one, no matter how strongly he may favour protective duties or industrial conditions such as are contemplated in the proposals now before us, defend the exemption of bootmakers enjoying protection' to the extent of 40 per cent., '.from the conditions that are to be imposed upon agricultural machine-makers, who enjoy a protection of from 20 to 25 per cent. ? {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- The vast majority of bootmakers are working under Wages Boards or Arbitration Court awards. {: #subdebate-4-0-s9 .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I presume that these implement-makers are also subject to such awards. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- No. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- I think that they are in out State. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- No. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The question of whether they are or are not is immaterial when we are trying to apply laws of taxation equally to all classes. What we do for one set of manufacturers we ought to do for the others. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- The manufacturers of boots and shoes are, in most cases, working under the awards of Wages Boards or Arbitration Courts. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- There is only a very small section working under such awards. I am afraid that the honorable member is thinking only of the position in Victoria, where Wages Boards' are in operation, and, I am told, work very well. There are bootmakers in all the States who are not subject to these industrial provisions. They enjoy, a protection of 40 per cent., and should comply with the same industrial conditions that are imposed on implement-makers having a protection of 20 or 25 per cent. This proposal is one to differentiate in a way which we were told the Constitution was designed to prevent. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- Would not the honorable member's argument apply to the position created when the Wages Boards were first appointed? A start must be made somewhere. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable member would be on sound ground if ic were intended that these conditions should have general' application. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- They could not be made general. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I hold that they could. There are two other schedules before us, which cover a much wider range of duties than those immediately under discussion, but it is not proposed to attach to them the provisions which we are now considering. Although we are going to increase the protection enjoyed by a number of manufactures, it is proposed to apply industrial conditions in regard to the manufacture of agricultural machinery only. A Federal Parliament, working under a Constitution which forbids discrimination, has no right to differentiate in this way. With every desire that the labour conditions applied to manufacture shall bc as liberal as possible, I am unable to see that these provisions will be anything but unworkable. Apart from that, whatever is done should apply to the whole range of protected industries. I suggest, therefore, the withdrawal of these provisions for the present, in order that a Bill may be framed which will apply equally and universally. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- ls it not well to test the efficacy of these provisions by giving them only a small scope at first? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- If that is what is aimed at, they should be applied to the industries which are most highly protected, not to those whose protection is low. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- We are not dealing with the whole Tariff. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I am speaking, not of the whole Tariff, but of the schedules of duties with which we have dealt in connexion with the preferential proposals relating to Great Britain and New Zealand. Why should we not apply to those duties, which mean more protection to local industries, the conditions which we are applying to the duties on agricultural machinery, and thus do justice between one set of employers and another? {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- Does one man negatively suffer injustice because justice is done to another ? {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- It would be unjust for the honorable member if, though able to do justice to two persons, 'he did justice to one only. We can make these provisions apply to all the industries affected by the duties which we have been considering during the past week or two. {: .speaker-KXK} ##### Mr Webster: -- The honorable member's argument is a very adroit one. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I am arguing for the equitable treatment of the industries affected. We have it in our power to deal with them all alike. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- We must make a start somewhere. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Why make an unequal start ? {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- A similar objection was raised in this Chamber when the establishment of the first Wages Board relating to the clothing trade was proposed. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- We are laying it down as one of the principles of the new protection that, when duties are imposed, consumers and employes, as well' as manufacturers, shall benefit. But that principle is to be applied only partially, although we are in a position to apply it generally and equitably. We deny justice to employes in industries which are being protected by duties of 40 per cent., although we are ready to impose these conditions on industries protected by duties of only 20 per cent, or 25 per cent. {: #subdebate-4-0-s10 .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby .- I. congratulate the Minister upon the introduction of these proposals, which I think embody the wishes expressed by honorable members generally last week. The criticism which has been levelled against them must be regarded with satisfaction by those who believe in the principle of the proposals, since no one has been able to raise objection to it. The objections taken have been directed almost solely to the form adopted, while the honorable member for Parramatta complains that the proposals are not sufficiently far-reaching. It is refreshing to hear that complaint coming from the Opposition. Any proposal to extend the scope of this legislation will have my hearty support. A beginning must be made in all 'things, as the honorable member for Melbourne Ports has pointed out. The establishment of Wages Boards was objected to on the ground upon which . the honorable member for Parramatta objects to the proposals before us, that it would be unfair and inequitable to single out any single industry. But it has been found that those who make the most of that objection always seek to limit the Wages Boards to the smallest compass. If we are going to adopt the principle that when protective duties are imposed, the workmen engaged in the protected industries shall be given better conditions, we must carry into law some such proposals as these; and we must make a start somewhere. I do not think that we can reasonably be blamed for taking in hand the particular indus- tries now affected. We are not now engaged i!n any general revision o'fl the Tariff. That, I suppose, will be one of the first duties of the new Parliament. When it is entered upon, I shall endeavour, if I am here, to have conditions such as are now under discussion applied wherever possible, and I hope that the honorable member for Parramatta will lend his assistance. The honorable member for South Sydney has stated that the introduction of these proposals amounts to a declaration that our Conciliation and Arbitration Act is at fault. ^Nothing of the kind. That Act passed, not merely to regulate wages or conditions of labour, but to appoint a tribunal for the settlement of industrial disputes, with a view to the prevention of strikes. Seeing that the honorable member is prepared to vote for Australian rates of wages, I am surprised that he intends to oppose these proposals. The legal difficulties surrounding the whole matter must be admitted. They are due chiefly to the fact that we are working under a written Constitution which expressly provides against discrimination between the States. It is admittedly difficult to apply general principles when conditions are dissimilar, unless exceptions are made, and 1 do not think that it is possible to suggest any simple plan. The Government have made a very fair attempt to do what is desired, and we shall, soon be able to see how their proposals will work. In regard to the Conciliation and Arbitration Court, we must wait until a dispute coming within the meaning of the Act arises before we can know whether our legislation is likely to be successful, but if we put these proposals into effect we shall very scon see how they will work. {: .speaker-KJI} ##### Mr Isaacs: -- It is an advantage for them to be limited. {: .speaker-JOC} ##### Mr BATCHELOR: -- Quite so. There will be no difficulty' in finding out whether the proposals are workable if they are once carried into effect, and, at the worst, if found to be unworkable, they can be remedied by the new Parliament two or three months hence. Honorable members will admit that if the scheme does not work, it can only delay the operation of the duties. Therefore we shall not expose the community to any risks. The present conditions would prevail until we could bring a workable scheme into operation. I can quite conceive of complications arising; but I do not anticipate that insuperable difficulties will be met with. I trust that the Committee will pass the resolution. We shall have ample time before the Bill is introduced to consider any objections, and to endeavour, if possible, to devise a better scheme. Personally, I should have preferred to adopt the method suggested by the 'honorable and learned member for Corinella, and I am sorry to learn that there are constitutional difficulties in the way. {: #subdebate-4-0-s11 .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr HARPER:
Mernda .- When I first saw this novel proposal, I felt that I could not support it. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- We did not expect the honorable member to do so. {: .speaker-KNI} ##### Mr HARPER: -- Perhaps so; but my reasons may be different from those which the honorable member imagines. It seemed to me that it was proposed to enter upon a course of action entirely different from that which Parliament had hitherto adopted, namely, that of intrusting the settlement of industrial matters to tribunals altogether dissociated from politics. It also seemed to me that the proposals were calculated to encroach! upon the autonomous right of each State to regulate its own industrial affairs. Under the Constitution, we have no authority in industrial matters, except in regard to disputes extending beyond any one State. Therefore, I thought we should be invading the State domain. The amendments suggested by the AttorneyGeneral, to a certain extent overcome both of my objections, because hie presents the alternative of an appeal to the President of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court or a Judge of a State Supreme Court, and through them to any person or persons in whom may be vested the authority to deal with State industrial matters. Therefore the decision would be left to the local authorities. My third objection is of an entirely different character. I disapprove entirely of the application of Excise duties to businesses such as that with which we are now dealing. I quite agree with the observations of the honorable member for North Sydney. Both He and I have had considerable experience with regard to the operation of Excise duties. There is no more embarrassing ot unsuitable means of raising taxation or attaining any object through taxation, and in other parts of the world Excise duties are levied in few cases except those of spirits and tobacco. I wish to place on record my opinion that if a system of Excise is to be applied to all industries which are the subject of protective duties, it will have the effect of impeding their development. Honorable members who have not a practical acquaintance with business cannot conceive of the difficulties that will be created. I do not see how the authorities are going to carry on their work without greatly impeding the operations of those engaged in the manufacture of implements. The work must be conducted in bond, under the supervision of lockers, and this seems to be the most clumsy expedient that could be adopted. Ministers will have to discover some better means of accomplishing their ends than that of imposing Excise duties. {: #subdebate-4-0-s12 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON:
Lang -- I think that the honorable and learned member for Corinella made a reasonable request when he asked that time should be afforded for the further consideration of these proposals, with wihich honorable members were not acquainted until just prior to the adjournment for luncheon. I cannot understand why the Minister of Trade and Customs should endeavour to press this matter, unless he wishes to maintain his reputation for "bullocking" things through. We are asked to pass legislation without being afforded any opportunity to properly comprehend its purposes or probable effect. I think that the best way to awaken the electors to a true sense of the position is by allowing the Government measures to be passed in the crude state in which they are presented. When we direct our best efforts to making them less objectionable, we do not obtain proper credit for it, because ' Ministers claim the improved measures as their own. Only two honorable members on this side had criticised these proposals when we found all the legal luminaries in the Ministerial ranks were engaged in drafting amendments with a view to improving them. The Attorney-General has admitted that they are defective, and should be amended. There has not been a single measure submitted by this Government which they have not found themselves forced to ask the House to give them leave to amend. I should prefer to see the whole of the provisions knocked out, because then the Excise duties would counteract to a large extent the effect of the Customs duties. If these paragraphs be agreed to the Ex cise duties will have no effect and the manufacturers will reap the full benefit to be derived from the increased Customs duties which have been imposed. As a free-trader, I strongly object to that. {: #subdebate-4-0-s13 .speaker-L0R} ##### Mr LEE:
Cowper -- I think that the Minister is to be commended for having introduced proposals of this character. I claim that it is our duty to see that the workers secure a fair share of the protection which has been extended to the manufacturers. They should receive increased wages, and to my mind, it would be a pity to eliminate the conditions under which those wages will be paid. At the same time, I believe that great difficulty will be experienced in collecting the Excise duties. The Minister will encounter more trouble in that connexion than he experienced in framing regulations under the Commerce Act. Schedule agreed to. Paragraphs *a, b,* and *c,* agreed to. Paragraph *d -* are in accordance with the terms of a proposed industrial agreement, which, in the opinion of the Minister, is fair and reasonable, and into which the manufacturer is willing but his workmen refuse to enter ; or Amendments (by **Sir William** Lyne) agreed to - >That after the word "with," the word "the" be left out; that the words "of a proposed industrial agreement " be left out ; that the word " is," be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word " are," and that all the words after "reasonable" down to and including the word "enter" be left out. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to, Paragraph *e -* are, on an application made for the purpose to the president of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, declared by him or by a Judge of the Supreme 'Court of a State to whom he may refer the matter to be fair and reasonable ; or Amendments (by **Sir William** Lyne) agreed to- >That after the word " declared," the words " to be fair and reasonable " be inserted ; that after the word "State," the words "or any person or persons who compose the State industrial authority " be inserted ; and that the words " to be fair and reasonable," be left out. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. Paragraphf agreed to. Introductory paragraph (on motion by **Sir William** Lyne) amended to read as follows, and agreed to: - >That duties of Excise shall from the rst day of January,1907, be imposed on the dutiable goods hereunder specified as follows : - Resolutions, as amended, reported and agreed to. {:#subdebate-4-1} #### Ordered - >That **Sir William** Lyne and **Mr. Deakin** do prepare and bring in a Bill to carry out the foregoing resolutions. {: .page-start } page 5153 {:#debate-5} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF (AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY) BILL Bill read a second time. *In Committee:* Clause 1 (Short title). Mir. DUGALD THOMSON (North Sydney) [4.15]. - I wish to mention, **Mr. Chairman,** that honorable members .of the Opposition refrained from calling for a division on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, not because they assent to its provisions, but because of the agreement made with the Government that it should be dealt with to-day. We have already pointed out our objections to it, and those objections still remain. Clause agreed to. Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to. Clause 4 - >If the Governor-General is satisfied that the cash prices at which stripper harvesters manufactured in Australia are sold exceeds the prices hereunder set out he may by proclamation reduce the rate of duty specified in the schedule in respect of stripper harvesters but so that the reduction shall not reduce the rate of duty below one-half the rate of duty imposed by this Act. > >Prices ok Australian Stripper Harvesters. On and after rst February, 1907 - Stripper Harvesters, 5-foot size, price ^70. Stripper Harvesters, 5-foot 6-inch size, price *£/5-* > >On and after rst February, igo3 - Stripper Harvesters, 5-foot size, price ^65. Stripper Harvesters, 5-foot 6-inch size, price *£70-* > >The prices herein mentioned are to be the maximum prices of the harvesters delivered to. the purchaser at the railway station nearest to the factory where they are made or at the port nearest to the factory. {: #debate-5-s0 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- I move - >That after the words " stripper harvesters," line 2, the words "and' drills" be inserted. If this amendment be carried, I intend to move a further amendment limiting the selling price of drills - fertilizers, seed and grain - on and after 15th February next. {: .speaker-KPM} ##### Mr McCay: -- Will this amendment include fertilizers? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- Yes. Amendment agreed to. {: #debate-5-s1 .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie .- I intend to .move the addition of certain words, providing that the prices specified in this clause shall be the maximum selling prices in the capital of each State. I think it is desirable that we should not permit the maximum selling price throughout Australia to be that ruling in any one State. Unless some such amendment as I propose be inserted, the manufacturers will be able, in the case of machines sold in States in which they are not made, to add to the maximum prices fixed in this clause considerable charges in respect of distribution and selling costs. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- Something must be allowed to cover the cost of conveyance from one State to another. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I think that we should conserve the interests of the users of these machines by adopting the course I propose. Honorable members must not lose sight of the fact that we are fixing the maximum, not the minimum, selling price, and that we ought, therefore, to determine what shall be the maximum price for Australia. Unless we do so, those living in States in which these machines are not manufactured will be placed at a disadvantage. They will have to pay more than those residing in the State of manufacture. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- The same remark would apply to the man living in the interior of the State of manufacture. He will have to pay more than the man living close to the factory. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I agree that, in any event, the farmer in the interior must be at a disadvantage. But, under the clause as it stands, an agreement might be arrived at by the manufacturers to make these machines in only one State, with the result that the price to those living in all the other States would be considerably increased. The position is very serious from the point of view of farmers in Western Australia. By the imposition of these duties, we shall practically shut out importations. In, Western Australia the farmers would have hitherto been able to obtain machines from Great Britain's other colonies and other parts of the world almost as cheaply as from some of the eastern States. Those sources of supply will now be closed to them, and unless we fix a maximum price for Australia, they will derive no advantage from this Bill. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- We cannot by Act of Parliament alter geographical conditions. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I am quite aware of that, but, in the circumstances, we should determine that the maximum fixed by this clause shall be the price charged in each State capital. That would place the farmers of each State on an equal footing. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- They are bound to charge more- in States where the machines are not manufactured. The cost of conveyance must be covered. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- Not more than the maximum, surely ; if so, that suggestion is not in accordance with the honorable member's theory that competition will keep down prices. {: .speaker-KW6} ##### Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- Under this Bill, we are doing away with competition so far as these machines are concerned. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- Internal competition will still prevail. I do not wish to labour this question, but I hope that the Minister will accept my suggestion. The right honorable member for Swan appears to be pleading my cause with him. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- He is pleading as vigourously as he can. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- There are not many farmers in my constituency, but I hold that, as the result of an arrangement as to prices arrived at by the manufacturers, the farmers generally of. Western Australia have hitherto been fleeced. They will be placed under an additional disadvantage unless the maximum prices be applied to every State. The suggestion that the difficulty would be overcome by the establishment of factories in Western Australia may be readily answered. In view of the wages conditions which we have inserted, it is hardly likely that a factory would be established immediately in that State, where the wages paid to mechanics and other workmen at the present time are higher than those paid in most of the eastern States. It may be said also that the margin of profit allowed under the Minister's proposal is not sufficient to permit of the adoption of my suggestion. I do not think that such a contention could be seriously maintained. The evidence given before the Tariff Commission is that the cost of manufacturing the Australian machines is *£41.* whereas the selling cost is equal to an, additional *£40.* We propose to reduce that extraordinary cost by only 10 per cent. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- The estimate of cost is not correct. I showed the honorable member a statement bearing out my assertion. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- The honorable member showed me a letter! from a partisan. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- The honorable member is quoting the evidence of a partisan. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- It is the sworn evidence of witnesses before the Commission. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- The statement which I showed the honorable member has also been sworn to. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I shall not say that the honorable member's information is absolutely wrong, but I repeat that, according to evidence given before the Tariff Commission, *£41* is the cost of manufacture. **Mr.- Hume** Cook. - That was the evidence of an importer. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- It is the decision of the protectionist members of the Tariff Commission, based on sworn evidence. We are given the cost of the imported Massey-Harris machine, the imported Internationa] harvester, and the locally-made machine. I am justified in trying to provide that the users of harvesters in Western Australia shall not be placed at a disadvantage by legislation which is being passed without much consideration on the part of honorable members generally. I dare say it will be argued that my proposal will not be in the interests of the manufacturers of the small States; but what I wish to do is merely to fix a maximum price. The manufacturer who tries to sell in a distant State will then have to produce at a cost sufficiently below that price to enable him to pay the expenses of transport there. I appeal to the Minister to fix the maximum selling price as the price at the railway station or port of the capital city of each of the States. If the price inserted in the Bill is found not to be high enough, I shall be prepared, when that is demonstrated, to increase it ; but every consideration should be given to the users of these machines. I move - >That after the words " set out," line 4, the words " delivered at the principal city in each State," be inserted. . I trust that the Minister will give serious consideration to the amendment and, if possible, accept it. {: #debate-5-s2 .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON:
Bland .- It seems to me that the amendment will not work, and that it 'does not apply a principle upon which it is proper for us to act. What we wish to insure is that the factory price, that is, the price at which the manufacturer sells, shall be reasonable. To it must be added, as a natural operation of commerce, the cost of conveyance from the factory to the place of delivery. If we fixed a uniform price for the whole of Australia, one of the anomalies that would occur would be that farmers who had paid high prices to secure land close to markets and to manufacturing centres, would be charged as much freight as farmers in distant parts who had secured their land cheaply because of its remoteness from markets. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- Does the honorable member say that the maximum selling price fixed in the Bill will be the real selling price ? {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- Assuming that eighteen months hence the price is ^65, it will not be fair to charge the man who lives only 100 miles from a factor)' as much as is charged to men "living 1,000 miles away. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- These machines will be made in Western Australia. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- I think it likely that when the local manufacturers have the Australian market to themselves machines will be made in Western Australia. {: .speaker-KFJ} ##### Sir John Forrest: -- That will be done in order to save the expenses of transport. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- No doubt. Machines are now being made in Corowa and other small towns in New South Wales and Victoria which compete with McKay's Sunshine harvesters, and there is no reason why factories should not be established in places like Perth, or even at Northam. The Bill provides for a very substantial reduction in the price of harvesters. Within the last few weeks McKay's Sunshine harvesters have been selling for ,£81 each. {: .speaker-JWA} ##### Mr Carpenter: -- Including the cost of delivery from the factory to the farm? {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- No; rail or wharf. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- If, eighteen months hence, machines can be bought for *£16* less, or£65 each, rail or wharf, the reduction will be a very considerable one. Of course, if that price is found to be too high' it will be reasonable to propose its reduction ; but it is not reasonable to attempt to fix the same price for all Australia. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- The amendment would not have that effect. It merely makes the price uniform at the capitals. The men who are away from markets will be at a disadvantage". {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr WATSON: -- The farmers in my electorate who have to pay railway freight from Melbourne or Sydney are placed at a disadvantage compared with men who reside half that distance from the metropolitan cities. I do not see how we can equalize the conditions all round, and it certainly would not be fair to load up the men who are near the source of supply, in order to confer an advantage upon those who live at a distance. I think that we should insist upon a fair selling price at the factory and allow the freight charges to be added. These machines are now being made in New South Wales and Victoria, and I have every hope that they will shortly be produced in Western Australia also. {: #debate-5-s3 .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY:
Moira .- So far as I can judge, the proposal of the honorable member for Kalgoorlie is impracticable. The only fair way of fixing the selling price is by providing that the machines shall be sold for a certain figure at the factory. The manufacturers in Victoria quote for delivery at rail or wharf, and the buyers have to pay the freight. A farmer in the Goulburn Valley would have to pay 50s. freight upon a machine sent to him from Melbourne, and thus the cost to him would amount altogether to ^83 10s. A farmer in Western . Australia would probably have to pay *£5* freight from Melbourne to Fremantle, and thus the cost of the machine landed on the wharf would be about ,£86. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- When the combine controlled the market, harvesters were being sold in the agricultural areas of Western Australia for as much as ,£100. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- Perhaps so, but we are now endeavouring to get beyond the control of the combine and to secure a reduction of prices. This proposal works out just as equitably for the farmers of Western Australia as for those in close proximity to the seat of manufacture. If we fix a maximum selling price at the factory, the Western Australian farmer will get exactly the same proportion of rebate as the farmer in Victoria. It is only reasonable to assume that before very long a factory will be established in Western Australia for the manufacture of harvesters. The present freights are high, and as the agricultural industry expands in that State there will be every inducement to manufacturers to open workshops there. In the meantime it would not be fair to fix a maximum selling price in that State. {: #debate-5-s4 .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson -- We have reached a pretty pass when it is proposed to regulate the prices at which stripper-harvesters shall be sold I would remind honorable members that these machines were sold at one time for *£6$* each, when orders were given for three machines in one lot ; and yet it is proposed to fix a higher maximum. In view of the restrictions under which the manufacturers will be placed, they will derive very little advantage from the proposed increases of duty. Under the socialistic system proposed, the workmen will want their shares of the profit. {: #debate-5-s5 .speaker-KVJ} ##### Mr STORRER:
Bass .- I think that as it is evidently intended under the new system of protection . to protect every one, we should safeguard the interests of the residents of the various States. If we keep out the imported article it is only right that we should make provision against any State being penalized. If it is proper for us to protect the manufacturers of Victoria, we should also see that no injury is done to the consumers in other parts of the Commonwealth. We do not use strippers in Tasmania, but legislation may shortly be introduced affecting other classes of manufactured goods, and, therefore, I desire at the outset to make provision for equitable treatment all round. If the Victorian manufacturer has to pay very heavyfreight upon machines which are sent to Western Australia he may be induced to make on the spot the machines required there. But I would point out that a large factory can always produce a machine at a less cost than can a small factory. In considering this question, it seems to me that we should be careful not to inflict an injury upon people who are resident in the smaller States. I have had a little experience of what the Victorian manufacturers will do. I know that in the matter of Australian-made bedsteads, some manufacturers appointed a single agent in towns in the distant States, and refused to supply anybody else. The retailers are thus prevented from obtaining the Australian-made article. I consider that we should not merely study the manufacturers, and that if we arrange for a place of delivery it ought to be in the capital of each State. {: #debate-5-s6 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- I regret that I cannot accept the amendment, and for several reasons. A provision of that kind would operate very unfairly to the manufacturers in all the States. Let us suppose that a large establishment for the manufacture of these machines started operations in Perth. If it were compelled to deliver them in Melbourne or Sydney- {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- Under the amendment they would not be compelled to deliver them. It merely provides that if they do sell in other States, they shall sell at a fixed price. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- Under the amendment they would be compelled lo deliver them in other States at the maximum price, otherwise they would not be permitted to sell them. The Bill compels delivery of the machines at not more than a certain price at the railway station or wharf nearest to the factory. In reply to the fears expressed by the honorable member, that the establishments in Melbourne and Sydney will come into competition with those in Perth, I would point out that the Perth manufacturers will still enjoy a natural protection of *£4* or /[$ per ton by reason of freight charges. I do not know whether the honorable member is aware of it, but there are small factories preparing to start operations all over the country. There are three or four in my own electorate, and in the adjoining electorate there are others. Why cannot factories be started in Perth or Brisbane just as easily ? {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- Because in Perth, the emplovers have to pay 25 per cent, more for labour than do the employers in other States {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- Then the honorable member had better blame the Wages Boards. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- There are no Wages Boards there. There is an Arbitration Court. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- We cannot make provision for every possible contingency. The honorable member might just as reasonably urge that we had better make some provision for delivery at Junee or Yarrawonga or Tocumwaal. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- There are five manufacturers in mv own constituency. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- Thev are chiefly blacksmiths who engage in the manufacture of these machines during the "off" season. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- At Corowa there is a manufacturer named Henderson, who exhibited quite a number of these machines at the last two shows - as good machines as could be delivered from Melbourne. Under the provisions of the Bill this industry will be carried on all over Aus- tralia. I should like to be able to accept the amendment, but I really cannot do so. {: #debate-5-s7 .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie -- I am absolutely dissatisfied with the statement of the Minister. The honorable member for Bland believes that under my amendment the man .who is in close proximity to the market would be deprived of the advantage which he possesses over the individual who is resident in the more remote portions of the State. If that be so, we need to extend to this question of fixing a maximum selling price a, larger amount of consideration than I have yet devoted to it. I thought that what was contemplated was a maximum selling price for Australia, and that internal competition, assisted by the provisions of the Australian Industries Preservation Bill, would reduce the price of these machines to the consumer near the factories very much below the amount mentioned in the Bill. But now it seems to be accepted that it will do nothing of the kind, but that the maximum selling price specified in the Bill merely represents the price which will be paid for the machines by the consumer who is most favorably situated. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- Does not that follow in every instance? {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- If so, it does not support the argument of the honorable member that internal competition will regulate the prices. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- Competition will tend to brins the prices down. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- Then we may fairly assume that the man who is resident close to a city will be able to obtain his machine for less than the maximum selling price, whilst the individual who is not so advantageously situated will be required to pay the maximum. I desire to fix a maximum price all over Australia. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Why should certain States be made to suffer as a result of doing that? {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- Does the Minister say that if we fix the maximum selling price, of the machines as I propose we shall necessarily increase the price which the Victorian consumer will have to pav for them? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- It might possibly do so. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- How would the honorable member, fix the maximum in the State of which he is a representative ? {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I repeat that we ought to fix a maximum- selling price for Aus tralia, otherwise the object of this provision will be defeated, and the consumer -if away from the factory - will be fleeced by the same combination that fleeced him before. Question - That the words proposed to be inserted **(Mr. Frazer' s amendment)** be so inserted - put. T(he Committee divided. Ayes ... ... ... 7 Noes 21 Majority ... ... 14 Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. {: #debate-5-s8 .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY:
Moira .- I am at a loss to understand the basis on which the Minister framed these provisions as to the rates and sizes of these machines. It came as a surprise to many when the manufacturers, who in the first instance asked for an increased duty on harvesters, expressed their willingness to grant a reduction in prices if their requests were complied with. In paragraph 3 of the report of that section of the Tariff Commission which recommended an increased duty it is set forth that that increase should be granted subject to the imposition of conditions as to the retail selling price not being increased, as to the observance of reasonable conditions of labour in the industry, and, in the case of harvesters, a reduction in the selling price within a certain date. The lines suggested by those engaged in the industry were practically adopted, and it was recommended that the price of a standard machine, within two years, should be reduced from ^81 to *£70.* As the rate of duty has been increased by 12J per cent., that represents a reduction of 14 per cent, on the selling price, whereas the proposal embodied in this clause is that there shall be a reduction of 20 per cent. I think that we are expecting teo much. We are proposing for the first time to grant an increased duty, subject to a reduction in the selling price of the machines to which it is applied. The implement-makers, and that section of the Tariff Commission which recommended ;an increase, agreed upon what should be a fair reduction. It was what I expected when the duty was fixed at *£12.* I said then, as I say now, that the amount of the duty need not concern the Australian user of machines. Within the next eighteen months we are to get a reduction of 14 per cent, on the' selling price of standard machines. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- A manufacturer told me that he thought he could bring the price down to *£65* within that time. {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- The Tariff Commission reports that within two years the price of the standard machine, which is now selling at *£ii,* could be reduced to ,£72. That machine has a width of comb of from 5 feet to 5 ft. 6 in. But there is a machine, now in its second year, and found to be satisfactory last year, which has a comb of the width of 6 feet. It was being sold for £&>] ros., and, under the Bill, must after the 1st February, 1908, be sold for ^70, which, I think, is too great a reduction in the time. If the Australian market were wholly conserved to the local manufacturers the reduction might be brought about, but under the circumstances it is too great. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- According to the evidence given before the Tariff Commission, the cost of the imported machine, including all charges, is only *£41.* {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- Both importers and manufacturers have refused to state their actual factory costs, and the Tariff Commission had before them only the same evidence as was before the Minister of Trade and Customs when he fixed the value at *£65.* I should like the Minister to adopt a recommendation which was put before him at an interview, and indorsed by a section of the Tariff Commission. That is, that the machine now selling at *£&i* should be reduced in the first year to *£T5,* and in the second year to ,£70, a total reduction of 14 per cent., and that a *pro rata* reduction should be made in regard to the 6 feet machine. There are also machines from 4 ft. 6 in. to 5 feet in the comb, which have been selling for .^75, and they might very well be brought to ,£65 within two years. In my opinion, it would be best to make three classes - machines under 5 feet to be reduced to *£65* in two years, machines under 5 ft. 6 in. to be reduced to *£70,* and machines under 6 feet to be reduced to *£15-* That is practically what was in the mind of every honorable member who voted for the *£12* duty, and would carry into effect the recommendation of the Tariff Commission. {: #debate-5-s9 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- Perhaps it would be better to have three classes, because virtually no provision is made for the 6 feet harvester, which was being tested out West last season. I think, however, that the rates I have fixed are very reasonable. The duties will check importations to a large extent, and next year there will be a large increase in the local output. Of late there have been serious complaints as to the prices charged for harvesters, which have been altogether too high. The manufacturers themselves have admitted that one reason for keeping prices up has been the expense to which they are put in sending agents through the country to extend their trade. I think, however, that, taking into account the duty - which I should like to have been higher - they will do very well, though, perhaps, an exception might be made in favour of the third class of. harvester, at an increase of *£5.* {: #debate-5-s10 .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie .- The Bill makes provision only for stripperharvesters 5 ft. and 5 ft. 6 in. wide, but there is in use at present a harvester 6 feet wide, or very nearly so. I think that provision should be made for strippers of sizes between those specified, because, as the clause stands, harvesters 5 ft. r in. in width would not come under the Bill. I hope that the Minister does not. intend to increase the selling prices. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Only two sizes are provided for in the Bill. There is a third type of. machine which was tested last year, and it is still questionable whether it will prove successful. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- But does not the Minister think that the maximum price is sufficiently high to cover any machine? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- No; the new machine to which I refer is a very large one. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I have seen it, and experts have explained to me its possibilities. In view of the fact that we have fixed the selling price at the factory, and that manu- facturers have practically been instructed to charge the maximum price, and to. get as much as they can from farmers who are carrying on their operations in distant parts, we ought to be very careful in adopting a maximum quotation. The proposals of the Government are too liberal. The Tariff Commission, which has made a most exhaustive inquiry, reports that the landed cost of, stripper-harvesters is £41, and that £38 is a fair valuation for Customs purposes. In my opinion, the selling price of the), machine should not be fixed at about £30 above these figures, and it is altogether absurd for the Minister to propose to adopt a still higher maximum for 6-feet machines. I would certainly not agree to any proposal for increasing the selling price. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I am not proposing to increase the selling price. I stated that the larger machine should be considered, because jio provision had been made for it in the Bill. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- Did not the Minister consider that provision had already been made for machines of the maximum size? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Certainly not. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- Then why did he bring down such an incomplete proposal ? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The new machine has not been properly tested, but if it proves a success, we should not discourage the manufacturers from supplying harvesters of the new type. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- The Minister has suddenly become conversant with all these facts since the speech delivered by the honorable member for Moira. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Nothing of the kind. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I do not object to a *pro rata* increase of price according to size, but I think that we should not increase the maximum. If the Minister adopts as the price for the larger machine, and £72 10s. for the 5 ft. 6 in. machine, I think that he will be fixing the quotations sufficiently high. {: #debate-5-s11 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- I propose to provide that, after the 1st February, stripper-harvesters, 5 feet and under, shall be sold for £70, stripper-harvesters, 5 ft. *6* in. and over, for *£75* ; and stripperharvesters, 6 feet wide, for £80. Then, after the 1st February, 1908, the prices are to be as follow : - For 5-feet strippers, £65 ; for 5 ft. 6 in. and over, £70 ; and for 6-feet, £75. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- I think that the Minister should adopt a maximum of £75 for the largest class of machine, and reduce the other prices in proportion. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I have already received complaints from the manufacturers regarding the prices I propose to fix. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- If the selling price were fixed at .£100, the manufacturers would still complain. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- The manufacturers had a meeting, and afterwards waited upon me, and asked that on and after 1st February, 1907, the cash selling prices of standard stripper-harvesters, known as 5 ft. machines, having a width between the drum cheeks of 4 ft. 6 in., at the port of manufacture or the nearest railway station, should be not more than £75, and that the cash selling price of stripper-harvesters known as 5 ft. 6 in. machines, having a width between the drum cheeks of 5 feet, should not be more than £5 extra. They asked for £5 more than I am proposing, and I told them that I could not grant their request. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- Does not the Minister think that the manufacturers would fix a price that would give them a good margin of profit? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- Yes; but I am proposing- to give them £5 less than they ask. I know that a very much larger and improved harvester is being tested now. At the first trial at Narromine, this .harvester stripped 31 acres per day for fourteen days. It is what is called a push machine, the horses being hitched up behind instead of in front of the machine. If we fixed the price of this harvester so low that it would not pay the manufacturers to sell it, we should discourage them from placing it upon the market. It is much more expensive to make than the ordinary harvesters, and gets through three times as much work. Therefore, I think that it is fair to fix the price at *£5* more than that adopted for the s ft. 6 in. machine. {: #debate-5-s12 .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie .- I think that the Minister, in making a difference of £5 in the price of a machine 6 inches wider- {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The larger machine is 6 ft. wide. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- It is too bad to keep honorable members here in this way. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- To the honorable member the injury which will be inflicted upon the users of these machines is nothing as compared with the inconvenience to which he is being subjected. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- Do not talk .nonsense. The honorable member is not the only wise man in the place. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- I do not suppose that the honorable member has ever seen one of these machines. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- The honorable member is making himself a nuisance. {: .speaker-KVJ} ##### Mr Storrer: -- I rise to a point of order. I wish to know if the honorable member for Melbourne Ports is in order in stating that the honorable ""member for Kalgoorlie is making himself a nuisance? {: #debate-5-s13 .speaker-JOC} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Batchelor:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA -- If the honorable member for Kalgoorlie considers the remark an offensive one, it must be withdrawn. {: .speaker-KNJ} ##### Mr Mauger: -- If the honorable member regards it as offensive, I withdraw. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- In the honorable member's present frame of mind, I do not regard it as offensive. Ordinarily he is a decent citizen. I wish to point out to the Minister that in making such a distinction between 5 ft. and 5 ft. 6 in. machines, he is offering a special inducement to the manufacturer of the. smaller machines. I think that he would be acting wisely if he fixed the selling price at *£70* and *£15,* and allowed intermediate sized machines to be sold at intermediate figures. {: #debate-5-s14 .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson -- It is about time the Committee became aware of the fact that there is an Opposition. Honorable members opposite are beginning to quarrel amongst themselves as if there were no Opposition. We have entered into an arrangement with the Government that this Bill shall be put through this afternoon, and some finality ought certainly to be arrived at. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie has had a good innings, and he has done very well. That being the case, I hope the Government will push the Bill forward and complete the arrangement which was arrived at with the Opposition. {: #debate-5-s15 .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr KING O'MALLEY:
Darwin -- - I wish to correct a statement of the honorable member for Kalgoorlie. Whilst he was speaking,- I interjected that over twenty years ago I purchased harvesters in America for $85. Thereupon the honor able member stated that they were only invented ten .years ago. It may be only ten years to the honorable member, but I recollect that McCormack's harvester, the Deering, the Miller, the Blue Rock, the Rocky Mountain, the Massachusetts, the Ohio, and twenty or thirty more machines were being operated in Western America - it fell to my lot to operate one - long before the honorable member was born. I wish him to understand that I am not accustomed to make statements which are inaccurate. I am just as honorable as he is. {: .speaker-KZV} ##### Mr Ronald: -- He does not know everything. {: .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr KING O'MALLEY: -Bu -But he thinks he does. If the McCormack machine could be made in the United States twenty years ago for $85, I wish to know why our farmers now have to pay $300 and $400 for the harvesters in use to-day ? {: #debate-5-s16 .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie -- When the honorable member for Darwin, who now complains that I have done him an injustice refers sarcastically to my abilities, and to the attitude which I adopted towards him, I wish to tell him that when he interjected that he had bought stripper-harvesters- {: .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr King O'malley: -- I - I never said anything about stripper-harvesters, and the honorable member knows it. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- When the honorable member interjected we were discussing stripper-harvesters and the price of them. If he did not refer to those machines his interjection was irrelevant, and I was justified in jocularly passing it by. {: .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr King O'malley: -- T - This is the knowledge of the universe. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- -Any information upon the point at issue- I did not expect from the honorable member. {: .speaker-K5D} ##### Mr King O'Malley: -- H - He knows quite as much as does the honorable member. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr FRAZER: -- The honorable member for Darwin is evidently under the impression that what he says he was doing in America about twenty-five years ago has some relevance to the price of harvesters. I must confess that I am unable to see the connexion. I wish to learn from the Minister whether he does not think that the minimum and the maximum prices fixed in this Bill should be the prices of the smallest and largest machines respectively, and that we should fix intermediate prices for intermediate machines. {: #debate-5-s17 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs. · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; IND from 1910 -- When I prepared the schedule to this Bill I had in mind only two classes of machines, namely, the 5 feet and 5 ft. 6 in. machines. I was not then aware that a 6-ft. machine was made. Obviously we cannot fix the same selling prices for a 6-ft. machine that we impose for a 5-ft. machine. I understand that the cost of the "push" machine is £120. This is 12 feet. I find, therefore, that altogether there are four kinds. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- Then the Minister thought that the prices mentioned in the schedule covered the largest class of machine? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- I did. I did not know that there was a 6-ft. machine made. {: #debate-5-s18 .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY:
Moira .- It is perfectly correct to say that the 6-ft. machine has been tested. It was tested lastyear. The Minister has established a standard, which he says is a fair one. He has not adopted the recommendations of the Tariff Commisison. That body recommended that the price of the 5 ft. 6 in. should be fixed at £75. I say that the minimum price for a machine which is over 5 ft. 6 in. should be £75. {: .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr Bamford: -- Why make any alteration ? {: .speaker-KED} ##### Mr KENNEDY: -- Simply because if we neglect to do so we may prevent a man who desires a 6-ft. machine from getting it. That machine is a good one, and upon sound country can be pulled by four horses. Moreover, the extra 6 inches in its width is a consideration to the farmer. {: #debate-5-s19 .speaker-JWA} ##### Mr CARPENTER:
Fremantle -- It seems to me that there is just one defect in the proposals of the Minister. Hehas decided upon the prices of machines up to 5 feet, and from 5 ft. 6 in. upwards. But there is a gap between the two classes, which may result in confusion. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The 5-ft. machine is the standard machine, which ranges between 5 feet and 5 ft. 6 in. {: .speaker-JWA} ##### Mr CARPENTER: -- If the Minister is dealing with a standard which will not be departed from I am satisfied. What I had in my mind was the possibility of an attempt being made to evade the provisions of the Bill by manufacturing a machine which was between the two classes. Amendment (by **Sir William** Lyne) agreed to - >That after the word " size," line 12, the words " and under " be inserted. > >That the words " 6-inch," line 13, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words " to under 6-foot." Amendment (by **Sir William** Lyne) proposed - >That the following words be inserted after *"£75"* : - "Stripper harvesters, 6-foot size and over, price£80." {: #debate-5-s20 .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson -- I do not know whether the Minister is introducing into the Bill entirely new matter. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The amendment relates to the harvesters of extra size, of which I spoke a few minutes ago. {: #debate-5-s21 .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906 -- But no previous reference had been made to them. The proposal, I take it, is one to fix the price of the largest-sized machines in proportion to that fixed for the other sizes. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- That is so. Amendment agreed to. Amendments (by **Sir William** Lyne) agreed to - >That after the word " size," line 16, the words "and! under," be inserted. > >That after the word " inch," line 17, the words " to 6-foot," be inserted. > >That after *' £70"* line 18, the following new line be inserted: - "Stripper Harvesters, 6-foot size and over,£75." > >That after the word " harvesters," line 20, the words "and drills" be inserted. {: #debate-5-s22 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- I move - >That the following new paragraph be inserted : - "Prices of Australian drills (fertilizer, seed and grain) I have taken the trouble to ascertain, through my officers, the prices ruling today for seed and disc drills. My proposal is that a reduction of 5 per cent, on present prices shall take place, on and after the 1st February next, and a further reduction of 5 per cent, on and after 1st February,1908. A reduction of 10 per cent, on present prices must thus take place within the next two years. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Schedule - >Part II. - Free Goods. > >Manufactures of Metal, viz. : - > >Hand-worked rakes and ploughs combined, > >Hay tedders, > >Maize harvesters, > >Maize planters, > >Maize binders, > >Mould board plates in the rough and not cut into shape, > >Potato sorters, > >Potato raisers or diggers. Amendment (by **Sir William** Lyne) proposed - >That the word "-maize planters" be left out. {: #debate-5-s23 .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson -- This amendment means that maize planters are to be struck out of the list of free goods in the schedule. Does the Minister propose to make them dutiable ? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I cannot, since they are already on the free list, but I desire to go as near as I can to doing so. As a matter of fact, maize planters should not have appeared in this list. I made inquiries to-day, and found that they should not have been included. Amendment agreed to. {: #debate-5-s24 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- I move - >That the following new line be added : - " Sub-surface packers." The sub-surface packer is a new invention recently introduced from California. If it should be considered desirable hereafter to impose a duty upon these machines, it will be open to us to take action, but at the present time, there would be no justification for making them dutiable. Itherefore desire to place them on the free list. {: #debate-5-s25 .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson -- This is the machine to which I referred earlier in the day as Professor Campbell's cultivator. I pointed out that, unless it were specifically named in the list of free goods, it might be held to be dutiable at 20 per cent., under the heading of "Cultivators other than disc" in Part I, and I assume that, as the result of my action in drawing attention to the matter, the Minister, after making inquiries, has decided to place it on the free list. The machine cannot be manufactured here, and I am pleased that the Minister has submitted this amendment. Amendment agreedto. Schedule, as , amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments. Standing Orders suspended, and Bill passed through its remaining stages. {: .page-start } page 5162 {:#debate-6} ### EXCISE TARIFF (AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY) BILL {: #debate-6-s0 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist -- In presenting the Bill, and moving - >That it be now read a first time, I desire to state that the deputy leader of the Opposition was prepared to allow this Bill, with the schedule, to be disposed of this afternoon, provided that I obtained a printed copy in time to enable that course to be pursued ; the Prime Minister understood this, too. I have just received a copy of the Bill in print, and propose to ask the House to deal with it this afternoon. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a first time. {: #debate-6-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Is it the pleasure of the House that the further stages of the Bill be taken? Honorable Members. - Hear, hear. Motion (by **Sir William** Lyne) proposed - >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #debate-6-s2 .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson -- I thought that there was an understanding that the Minister was not to proceed to-day with the second Bill relating to these machines. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The honorable member for Parramatta was agreeable to this Bill being dealt with this afternoon. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- My instructions were that a certain agreement was entered into. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- As to the two Bills. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- I understood that one Bill was not to be proceeded with. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- That is the Bill relating to the British preferential trade proposals. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- At the request of the honorable member for Parramatta, we are not proposing to deal this afternoon with that Bill. {: .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS: -- I am prepared to accept the honorable and learned gentleman's assurance. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Standing Orders suspended, and Bill passed through its remaining stages. {: .page-start } page 5163 {:#debate-7} ### PAPERS **Mr. EWING** laid upon the table the following papers : - >Instructions of the Minister of Defence to Captain W. R. Creswell, C.M.G., Director of the Naval Forces, relative to his visit to England to inquire into the latest naval developments. > >Report of the Director of the Naval Forces on his visit. {: .page-start } page 5163 {:#debate-8} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-8-0} #### Order of Business : The Mace : Date of Elections : Prorogation {: #subdebate-8-0-s0 .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist -- In moving- >That the Bouse do now adjourn, I desire to say that the first business we shall take next week will be the Bill covering the schedule of preferences to Great Britain. Immediately following the passing of that measure the Estimates will be taken ; and I hope that there will be an opportunity during the week to deal with the Postal Rates Bill, and other minor measures. {: #subdebate-8-0-s1 .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE:
Maranoa .- I desire to congratulate you, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** on the fact that the Mace is on the table. Hitherto, on **Mr. Speaker** leaving the chair, it has always been removed. I do notknow of what use it is, but it seems to be the emblem of **Mr. Speaker's** office. Perhaps the fact that it has been retained on the table whilst you, sir, are temporarily occupying the Speaker's chair, is an indication that **Mr. Speaker** will be translated to' a higher sphere, namely, that of the High Commissioner in London, and that we shall have the pleasure of seeing you elected in his place. {: #subdebate-8-0-s2 .speaker-JWA} ##### Mr CARPENTER:
Fremantle -- Could the Prime Minister make any definite statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the close of the session ? Some honorable members have already left for their homes, and others have fixed upon certain dates for leaving Melbourne. The Prime Minister will realize that it is not fair to keep one set of members working here whilst others are allowed to go back to their constituents and enter upon their electoral campaigns. Those honorable members who have to travel by sea to the distant States have to make their arrangements some days beforehand, and, therefore, I should like to have some indication as to the date upon which we shall be relieved of our duties. {: #subdebate-8-0-s3 .speaker-L1D} ##### Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson -- The long list of Bills upon the businesspaper of the Senate would seem to indicate that we shall be detained here for some time. I think that an effort should be made to close the session at as early a date as possible, and I should like some information as to the intentions of the Government. {: #subdebate-8-0-s4 .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr BAMFORD:
Herbert -- I think that it would be equally interesting to honorable members to know upon what date the election is likelv to take place. {: #subdebate-8-0-s5 .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist -- I hope that with assiduity, we shall be able, so far as this House is concerned, to practically dispose of the remaining business next week. Our labours may, however, have to be extended into the first days of the following week. Most of the measures now before the Senate have already been before us, and will not require to engage our further attention unless requests or amendments are made, as in the case of the Spirits Bill. I hope that, by applying ourselves closely to the work before us, and with some good fortune, we shall be able to dispose of the business upon the notice-paper next week, and, if necessary, give attention to any Bills that may come back from the Senate during the following week. As to the date of the elections, I would point out that two of the' measures passed by an absolute majority last night require to be dealt with in a similar manner in another place. After they have been so approved, two months must elapse before the elections can be held. That means that the elections cannot take place until the last days of November or the first week in December. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 6.70 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 September 1906, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1906/19060921_reps_2_34/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives21 September 1906

QUESTION

MAIL SERVICE TO EUROPE

Mr JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

CUSTOMS TARIFF (BRITISH PREFERENCE) BILL

Mr SPEAKER:

Sir William Lyne:

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

Sir William Lyne:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

Sir William Lyne:

QUESTION

TARIFF :

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Sir William Lyne:

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

Sir William Lyne:

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Sir William Lyne:

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

Sir William Lyne:

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

Mr HENRY WILLIS:Robertson

Mr Watson:

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

Mr Watson:

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

Mr Salmon:

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

Mr Page:

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

Mr Watson:

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

Mr SALMON:Laanecoorie

Mr Johnson:

Mr SALMON:

Mr Cameron:

Mr SALMON:

Mr KELLY:Wentworth

Mr Salmon:

Mr KELLY:

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

Mr CAMERON:Wilmot

Mr Salmon:

Mr CAMERON:

Sir JOHN QUICK:Bendigo

Mr Mcwilliams:

Sir JOHN QUICK:

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

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Mr JOHNSON:Lang

Mr Salmon:

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr Salmon:

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr Salmon:

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr Salmon:

Mr McCay:

Mr JOHNSON:

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

Mr JOHNSON:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr JOHNSON:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr Mcwilliams:

Mr JOHNSON:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr JOHNSON:

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

House of Representatives
21 September 1906

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

Mr SALMON:
Laanecoorie

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

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

Mr CAMERON:
Wilmot

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

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

Mr JOHNSON:
Lang

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

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

Mr KENNEDY:
Moira

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

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

Mr McCAY:
Corinella

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

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