House of Representatives
4 September 1907

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

PETITIONS
- Honorable Members. - No
QUESTION
- AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT MAKERS : SOUTH AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- TARIFF
ESTIMATES : MILITARY AND LIGHTHOUSE ENGINEERS
QUESTION
- DELAYS IN THE POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- TARIFF
QUESTION
- MR. BRUCE HART
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE RATES
QUESTION
- DECORATION OF DIVER HUGHES
QUESTION
- INCREMENTS : GENERAL POST OFFICE, SYDNEY
QUESTION
- OVERTIME : DENILIQUIN POST OFFICE
QUESTION
- PRECEDENCE OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
PAPERS
BUDGET
ADJOURNMENT

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

page 2789

PETITIONS

Mr. JOSEPH COOK presented a petition from the Child Study Association of Australasia, praying the House to remove all Customs duties from food and clothing necessary for the health, comfort, and decency of the people of Australia.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE presented a petition from certain persons at Wagga and the surrounding districts, Sydney, and other places, praying the House to reject or greatly modify the proposed Customs duties.

Petitions received, and read.

Mr SPEAKER:

– We have many times resolved that petitions be read, but in no case has it been thought worth while to have read long list’s of the names of the signatories, though, of course, if the House desires to hear them, the Clerk will read them.

Honorable Members. - No

page 2790

QUESTION

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT MAKERS : SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HUTCHISON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister of Trade and Customs the return which he promised to furnish in connexion with the administration of the Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Act ; and will he explain why Excise has not been collected from firms which have not been working under the award of the President of the Arbitration Court?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– I have been supplied with the following information

On the 30th July,1907, Mr. Hutchison, M.P., moved, with regard to agricultural implement makers and employes in South Australia - exemptions under Excise Tariff 1906- that a return be laid upon the table of the House showing
The number and names of all South Australian firms of agricultural implement makers who have secured exemption under theExcise Tariff 1906.
The number of labourers employed in making ‘agricultural implements by each of said firms whoare classified ns “ used to the trade,” and the number classified as “ not used to the trade,” and the wages paid to each.
The number of employes, other than labourers, employed in making agricultural implements by each of said firms, who are classified ‘as “ of average capacity,” “ slow, under average capacity,” and “ under average capacity,” setting out the various occupations.
On the same day, the Collector, South Aus tralia, was requested to furnish the desired information, and, in reply, he stated that -
1. No information could be supplied by the Deputy Industrial Registrar with regard to numbers a and 3, as none of the particulars had been furnished by the manufacturers when making application for exemption, nor are they required in that connexion.
2. It had been suggested that the manu facturers would probably decline to help the Department to obtain the information sought by Mr. Hutchison, because it is alleged that they view the provisions of the Act with disfavour.
On the 6th instant the Collector was instructed to ask the manufacturers to be good enough to supply the desired information, and he reported, on the gth instant, that action was being taken accordingly.
Since that date, no further communicationon the subject has been received, and it will probably take some time to obtain replies from those interested.

– I wish again to call the attention of the Minister to the very important fact that firms in South Australia that are obeying the award of the Arbitration Court have to compete with those who are not. In the circumstances, what action does he intend to take in the interests of those who are paying fair rates of wages?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I intend, as far as I can, at the earliest possible moment, to put all on the one footing.

page 2791

– Or did the Minister give the honorable member notice?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– We do not conduct business on the lines adopted when the honorable member’s party was in power. The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows -

I am credibly informed that all the merchants in Sydney have entered into an agreement binding themselves to add the extra amount of duty on orders for all goods received by them on and after 12th August. It is presumed that this increase in price is being made on goods which were imported under the old Tariff at lower duties than those now in “force.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he will refund duty collected upon wire netting if the item in the schedule be struck out?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– That is a question which, to a very large extent, must be answered by the States Governments, since they receive nearly all the revenue. It has been decided that no duties shall be refunded, and that decision will be adhered to unless the House determines otherwise.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:

– I desire to ask the Minister of Trade and Customs whether he is aware that a certain tweed factory in New South Wales sent to its customers all over that State two days before the new Tariff was introduced a circular stating that their prices would be increased by 25 per cent, in consequence of the rise in wool - a rise which I may say had not taken place - and that two days after the introduction of the Tariff the firm in question published a large advertisement to the effect that they were not going to raise their prices in consequence of the new Tariff ?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I am not aware of the incident to which the honorable member has referred, but if he will give me the particulars-

Mr Bruce Smith:

– I shall give the honorable member the original correspondence.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– Then I shall be glad to make inquiries into the matter. If the honorable member wishes to infer that in some way or other a leakage of information has occurred-

Mr Bruce Smith:

– I shall give the Minister the facts, and he may draw from them whatever inference he pleases.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– If the honorable member wishes to suggest that there has been a leakage of information from the Department, I shall be glad to be furnished with all the facts- on which he bases his statement. Having regard to the number of men who knew what the Tariff was to be - considering that the Tariff Commission, and others whom they had tt> take into their confidence, knew what the Tariff was likely to be- I think it reflects the greatest credit upon all concerned that, so far as we have been able to discover, no leakage of information has occurred.

page 2793

ESTIMATES : MILITARY AND LIGHTHOUSE ENGINEERS

Mr BRUCE SMITH:

– I should like the Postmaster-General, as representing the Minister of Home Affairs to explain what are the proposed functions of two new officers for whom provision is made in the Estimates of the Department of Home Affairs. I refer to the officers described as “ military engineer “ and “ lighthouse engineer.”

Mr MAUGER:
Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– I shall be happy to afford the information when the Estimates are under consideration.

page 2793

QUESTION

DELAYS IN THE POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

Mr LIDDELL:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I have just received a reply to a communication which I addressed on 19th March last to the PbstmasterGeneral’s Department, and I should like the Postmaster-General to say whether he will inquire why this unprecedented delay of 198 days has occurred? Will he also endeavour to facilitate the work of the Department ?

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

– If the honorable memberwill see me at the Department, I shall be able very quickly to furnish him with an answer, and public time will thus be conserved.

page 2793

QUESTION

TARIFF

Seizure of Wire Netting : Cancellation of Carriers’ Licences

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it a fact, as reported in the Sydney newspapers of Friday last, 30th August, that three carriers employed by a Government contractor named Sutton to assist in removing wire netting, under instructions from the New South Wales Government, have been peremptorily ordered by Mr. Baxter, Acting Comptroller for Customs, to return their licences and show cause why they should not be cancelled ?
Was this drastic proceeding authorized or approved by the Minister?
As the carriers referred to were (according to the report) in no sense principals in the contract with the State Government, and the withdrawal of their licences must seriously injure them in their carrying business, will the Minister recall the order issued by Mr. Baxter until an inquiry has been held, and an offence has been proven?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

– In reply to the honorable member’s questions, I have to state -

I do not think it wise at the present moment to discuss the propriety of any action which the Government, upon the advice of its legal advisers, proposes to take, to insure the observance of the law in regard to the case under notice.

page 2793

QUESTION

MR. BRUCE HART

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Whether there are any objections to plac ing on the table of the House all papers leading up to the suspension of Mr. Bruce Hart, telegraphist, Sydney, on a. charge of misconduct in March last?
Also the papers containing the evidence taken at the Board of Inquiry held in connexion with Mr. Hart’s suspension?
Also the finding of the Board of Inquiry and any subsequent papers connected therewith?
If there are no objections, will he cause those papers to be placed on the table of the House ?

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows - 1, 2, 3, and 4. I have no objection to placing the papers in question on the table of the Library, and will have this done as soon as they can be obtained from Sydney.

page 2793

QUESTION

TELEPHONE RATES

West Maitland and Sydney

Mr LIDDELL:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether he will seriously consider the advisableness of reducing the telephone rates between West Maitland and Sydney, seeing that although a reduction of 50 per cent, has been made in the rate between Newcastle and Maitland, no reduction whatever has been made for the Sydney-Maitland service, while practically all other lines have received consideration?

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

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

The basis on which ordinary trunk-line charges are made must be such as to be of general application, and I regret that I am therefore unable to recommend a special rate in any particular case.

The present trunk line charges are substantially less than those charged in New South Wales prior to Federation, and no further reduction could be made without involving a loss of revenue, which the circumstances do not warrant.

page 2793

QUESTION

DECORATION OF DIVER HUGHES

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has he any objection to lay upon the Library table the papers in connexion with the granting of the Albert medal to Diver Hughes, of Western

Australia, or, in the alternative, will he be good enough to state the facts in connexion with the matter?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

– The following particulars are from the departmental files- 28th March. Varischetti rescued by Divers Hughes and Hearne, assisted by Diver Curtis and others. 2SU1 March. Mr. Mahon, M.P., wrote to the Acting Prime Minister suggesting that action should be taken on behalf of the nation to recognise the heroism displayed by Divers Hughes and Hearne. 30th March (?). Report asked for from Mayor of Coolgardie. 1st April. Mayor of Coolgardie promised report. 3rd April. Reply sent to Mr. Mahon asking for full statements of case.

Sth April. Mayor of Coolgardie forwarded report (received, 17th April). 10th April. Mr. Mahon forwarded copies of newspapers giving particulars. 16th April. Mr. Mahon was informed that as soon as 0ffici.1l report was received from the Mayor of Coolgardie the matter would receive prompt consideration. 20th April. The Acting Prime Minister wrote to the Premier of Western Australia, saying that his attention had been drawn to the action of Messrs. Hughes, Hearne, and Curtis, and that lie had been asked to take action in the direction of having their praiseworthy exertions a suitably recognised. Sir John Forrest ad’ded “that, before taking any steps in the matter, he desired to learn whether the Premier of Western Australia would prefer to submit the case through the Governor of his State, as, in that case, it would not be necessary for him to move in the matter.

Sth May. The Premier of Western Australia replied that the Governor had recently dealt with the matter in a despatch to the GovernorGeneral, and had recommended that the Albert Medal should be awarded to Diver Hughes.

Mr. Moore added that no reference was made to the actions of the other persons (received 17th May). 10th June. Acting Prime Minister acknowledged that letter, and stated that it was understood that the Governor-General had brought the case of Diver Hughes under the notice of the Imperial Authorities. He added that the attention of the Royal Humane Society would be invited to the claims for consideration of the three divers engaged in the rescue. 10th June. A letter was sent by the Acting Prime Minister to the Royal Humane Society. 15th April. From the files in the GovernorGeneral’s office it appears that on the 15th April the Governor of Western Australia forwarded to the .Governor-General a number of communications from the Acting Premier of the State and others, drawing attention to the conduct of all concerned in the rescue of Varischetti. The Governor suggested that the case of Mr. Hughe’s was worthy of being represented to the Imperial Government with a view to the award of the Albert Medal. 26th April. The Governor-General transmitted the papers to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with a recommendation for favorable consideration. 19th July. Secretary of State for the Colonies intimated that the King had been pleased to award the Albert Medal (second class) to Mr. Hughes, and asked that the presentation of the medal be undertaken by the Governor-General or by the Governor of Western Australia. That despatch was delivered to the Governor-General at Perth, and His Excellency requested the Governor of Western Australia to be good enough to undertake the presentation.

page 2794

QUESTION

INCREMENTS : GENERAL POST OFFICE, SYDNEY

Mr JOHNSON:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Is it a fact that eligible officers engaged in the electrical and mechanical branch of the General Post Office, Sydney, do not advance by annual increments from the minimum to the maximum salary in common with officers in other branches of the service ?
If so, what is the reason of the differentiation ?

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow - 1 and 2. The Public Service Commissioner advises as follows -

The work and responsibility in the Electrical and Mechanical branches differ in each State, and to provide for this, certain positions such as line inspector and mechanician are divided into grades, with an appropriate salary to each. In the latter position there is a range of seven different salaries according to the value and importance of the work. -The officers are moved from grade to grade as the importance of the work justifies. The same system is followed in’ regard to positions in other branches of the service.

page 2794

QUESTION

OVERTIME : DENILIQUIN POST OFFICE

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Postmaster-General been called to a paragraph in this morning’s Age, wherein it is stated that the officials at Deniliquin are working overtime?

Mr Chanter:

– I have given notice of a question on the subject.

Mr PAGE:

– I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the paragraph to which I refer, and to ask him to remedy the state of things therein complained of.It would appear that several officials are dying, or have died, from overwork. Something should be done to relieve the tension at the office.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If what the honorable member refers to is the subject matté of notice of question No. 6, the Minister will not reply until the question is called on.

Mr CHANTER:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Has his attention been called to the sweat ing practised in the Deniliquin Post and Telegraph Office by the number of hours, continuously, the officers are compelled to remain on duty?
Is he aware that, in consequence of the un due strain upon these officers, many of them have been and are incapacitated by illness?
Is he aware that, in consequence, one officer has, after ten years’ service, resigned his position ?
Will he inquire into the small salaries paid to many of these responsible officers, with the view of recommending increases?
Will he cause the number of officers at the Deniliquin office to be increased immediately, by at least two competent ones, and so arrange that in the future no officer shall be compelled to work overtime?

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

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

The honorable member complained to me recently that the officers in the Post and Telegraph Office at Deniliquin were being overworked, and I immediately took steps to have inquiry made on the subject. I am now awaiting reports from the responsible officers, including the Inspector, who was sent up to investigate the matter.

An Honorable Member. - How long will it take to obtain those reports ?

Mr MAUGER:

– Unfortunately, it will take altogether too long a period, but I am compelled to proceed in the only way that is open to me, and that I have done. The reply to the second and third questions put by the honorable member for Riverina is -

No ; but I have called for a report upon both’ these matters.

The Public Service Commissioner advises me that it is considered the salaries paid, ranging from£380 in the case of the postmaster to. £26 in that of telegraph messengers, are com mensurate with the value of the work performed. No distinction is made between Deniliquin and other post-offices in this respect. The salaries paid are as follow -

I will see that any assistance required is immediately provided.

page 2795

QUESTION

PRECEDENCE OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– I move -

That on each sitting day, until otherwise ordered, Government business shall take precedence of General business.

In submitting the motion,. I desire to say that I take this course purely for the purpose of facilitating the transaction of public business, so that as soon as possible we may have an opportunity of dealing with the separate items of the Tariff. I was under the impression that all honorable members understood what was the intention of the Government in this connexion, but, apparently, the honorable member who took exception to the course we proposed to adopt last evening was not present at the time that intention was announced. I regret that he was absent, because I wished honorable members to understand exactly what was proposed before I submitted the motion which I desired to move last night without notice. The Government do not wish to take Thursday afternoon from private members unless the House is willing to adopt that course, but it seems to me that it would be wise to fall in with that proposal, and’ to get on as quickly as possible with the real business of the session. Honorable members who have private business upon the notice-paper have been exceedingly considerate to the Government, in that they have already voluntarily sacrificed one, if” not two days, which should have been devoted to its consideration. I do not wish to unduly deprive them of an opportunity to transact this private business, but I do desire that we shall have no interruption of our ordinary business, and that as soon as possible we shall arrive at a determination of the great question which is at present so exercising the public mind.

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

– The course which the Government propose is a rather unusual one to adopt at the beginning of a session. On the other hand, the circumstances are of a most urgent character. The need for conserving the time of the House and for devoting every moment that is available to the consideration of Government business, is made apparent when we recollect the short period that remains to us during the present year to dispose of the work that is before us. I assume that in taking away from honorable members the time which is ordinarily allocated to them for the transaction of private business, the Government will not be averse - if the occasion should offer - to affording them an opportunity to consider that business. That has been the practice hitherto followed, and I take it that a similar course will be followed in the future. But I do think that the public business is more urgent than is any private member’s business. ‘ Therefore, I support the Government in their proposal to expedite the transaction of public business so far as is consistent with a full consideration of the urgent matters upon the notice-paper. The sooner we can settle the Tariff, the better it will be for the trading community as a whole, the better for our industrial enterprises, and, indeed, for all concerned. I do not think that any private business upon the notice-paper possesses a tithe of the importance that attaches to the Tariff. I hope, therefore, that the Government will make good use of their opportunities, and proceed with the discussion of that matter as soon as possible with a view to facilitating its definite settlement. I shall cordially support the Government upon the present occasion.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

.- I should think the honorable member for Parramatta would support the proposal of the Acting Prime Minister. At an earlier stage of the session the honorable member went so far as to suggest that no time should be devoted to the transaction of private members’ business. Upon that occasion, I raised the question of whether there was an Opposition in the House - of whether there was any body of members in this Chamber whose duty it was to conserve the rights of the minority. I entertain quite a different opinion from that of the honorable member. I go so far as to say that nearly every political reform that is worth anything has originated with a private member.

Mr Mahon:

– What are they?

Mr FISHER:

Mr MAHON:

Mr TILLEY BROWN:
INDI, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC

– Rubbish.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– It isallvery well for. a representative of Victoria to receive the suggestion in that way. Surely we should be prepared to extend some consideration to the representatives of other States, who, during the session, have to make their homes in Victoria. It is unfair to them that the session should be unduly protracted bv the fact that we sit only four days a week, when we might well sit on five. If this suggestion were adopted we should have ample time for the consideration of private members’ business as well as of Government measures. The proposal that we should hand over to the Executive the whole control of’ Parliament is a verv serious one. I agree with the honorable member for Wide Bay that honorable members should retain as far as possible the scanty privilege which they at present enjoy of submitting business once a week. If an extra sitting day were decided upon the Government would have ampletime to dispose of the Tariff without depriving hon-. orable members of their only opportunity to bring forward measures representing the views of, at all events, a considerable minority in the House. It is singular that whenever a Ministerial proposal is submitted honorable members of the Labour

– That is, the Government will revert to the old rule?

SirWILLIAM LYNE.- I shall consult honorable members as to whether they desire Thursday or some other day for private members’ business.

Mr Chanter:

– Give two or three days.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I should like later on to see a week devoted to private members’ business.

Question - That’ the motion be agreed to - put. The House divided.

AYES: 32

NOES: 11

Majority … … 21

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2807

PAPERS

MINISTERSlaid upon the table the following papers -

Defence Acts - Provisional Regulations - Military Cadet Corps - Amendment section1, para. 5 (a); Additions section 1, para. . 4; section 2, paras. 19 and 21. - Statutory Rules, 1907, No. 87.

Audit Acts- Tranfers of amounts approved by the Governor-General in Council - Financial Year 1906-7 (dated 29th August, 1907).

page 2807

BUDGET

Customs and Excise Tariffs

In Committee of Ways and. Means:

Consideration resumed from 3rd Septem ber(vide page 2742) of motion of Sir William Lyne -

That duties’ of Customs and duties of Excise be imposed according to the following Tariff (vide page 1648)…………

Mr CARR:

– Quite so. To come now to another item in the Tariff, I . think thatwire netting ought to be exempt from duty until it is known that local manufacturersare in a position to supply the demand. There would be no difficulty in embodying, such a provision in the Tariff. As a matter of fact, however, we find that a duty of 3c* per cent, has been imposed, although it iswell known that the local manufacturers cannot satisfy the demand for wire netting in Australia. There has been a great outcry in regard to this duty, and I, for one,, would have been prepared to support a motion censuring the Government for proposing the duty without imposing any conditions. They might’ very well have tempered the impost to the man who is deserving of every consideration - to the small farmer who has to depend upon wire netting to protect his land from the rabbit invasion. The object which the Government have in view might have been accomplished bv pro- .viding that, as soon as it is shown that the local manufacturers can turn out sufficient wire netting to supply the local demand, a duty shall be imposed. When the local manufacturers could show that they were in a position to satisfy the requirements of Australia, we should be justified in granting them ample protection, subject to the condition that fair rates of pay. should be enjoyed by the workers in the industry, and that a satisfactory article should be sup*plied at a satisfactory price. I un:derstand that many manufacturers do- not ask for higher prices than were ruling prior to the introduction of the Tariff. The Mildura fruit-growers, for instance, recently stated that they did not desire higher prices for their dried fruits and that they would not attempt to obtain an increase, since they were satisfied with the extended markets that protection would give them. That is the spirit that I should like to see manifested throughout Australia. Unfortunately, in very many quarters it does not occur spontaneously, and it is the duty of the Government in the interests of the people to spur it on. I, for one, am anxious that manufacturers and others shall be compelled to take up such aposition. Item 168 in division VI. savours of the condition that I desire to see attached to the Commonwealth system of protection. It provides -

Any dutiable machinery or machine tool, or any part thereof specified in any proclamation issued by the Governor-General in pursuance of a joint address passed on the motion of Ministers by both Houses of the Parliament, stating that such machinery, machine tool, or part cannot be reasonably manufactured within the Commonwealth, and that it should be admitted free, shall be free. That is a reasonable provision, and it is one that the daily press ihave very carefully ignored. None of the iedeeming features of the Tariff have been put before the public by them. It is to this provision that I pin my faith, and it has formed the basis of my defence of the Tariff. I trust that the fullest advantage will be taken of such provisions, and that we shall, in short, go as far as we possibly can in the direction of regulating, in the way proposed by the Labour Party, the system of protection that we adopt. I wish now to deal with duties that have been imposed purely for revenue purposes. I am averse to a revenue Tariff. Of course I know that free-trade in its literal sense is impossible. Free-traders themselves admit that free-trade is synonymous with a revenue Tariff. The terms have become synonymous by usage, but I am not disposed to regard them as such. I do not fayour a revenue Tariff, and I will use my best endeavours to defeat proposals tending in that direction. The Government, in their desire to grant a large measure of protection to industries, have increased the duties upon certain commodities. They realize that they cannot derive much revenue from the goods thus penalized, and accordingly they have been compelled to resort to duties upon the necessaries of life - duties to which I am opposed. Upon cutr lery a duty of 20 per cent, has been levied. We have no hope of manufacturing cutlery in Australia. The conditions required for its production are of a peculiar character. Its manufacture requires natural conditions which do not obtain in Australia, in addition to which the necessary market is not available here. In the course of twenty or thirty years, when we have a closer settlement policy in full swing, that market may be available, and, perhaps, artificial conditions may then be introduced to take the place of those natural conditions which are so necessary to the successful manufacture of cutlery. A duty of 20 per cent, has also been imposed upon cash registers and computing scales. Again, I say that we have no hope of manufacturing these articles in the Commonwealth.. They are patented machines, and, in addition, their manufacture involves the outlay of a vast amount of capital. Special knowledge is also necessary, and it is manifest that in Australia the necessary market to warrant the establishment of factories for their production is not available. The same remark is applicable to surgical apparatus and appliances.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– Does the honorable member say that we cannot grow currants in Australia?

Mr CARR:

Mr King O’Malley:

– He was a good Postmaster-General.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– I do not think so. How has it come about that the Department has a large sum to its credit ? Is it not due to the fact that officials have been sweated, and that promotions which should have been made have been kept back, supernumeraries and temporary hands being employed when permanent appo ntments should have been made? On this subject a magazine, entitled The Federal Service, has published the following statement -

We are prepared to give satisfactory evidence that at least some of the fifth class officers, who have not been promoted, are doing highly responsible work, far in excess of the value paid for it ; they have been on the £160 grade for a number of years, and they have been recommended for promotion each year. Following up this evidence, we find that the estimates do not provide for these increases, and we are forced to the conclusion that somewhere in the official channel there is a stumbling block to promotion. We now make the statement, and we invite those who can do so to join issue with us, that a number of promotions were recommended from the fifth to the fourth class, and that these promotions were struck out - not because the officers were unworthy, their recommendation proved their worth - but because there were too many fourth class officers in the service.

Mr King O’Malley:

– That was the fault of State administration.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– It is pretty generally admitted bv the Postal officials that under the administration of the States they were better off than they are now.. We have been told that the Public Service Commissioner is not amenable to influence, and, therefore, I would ask how it comes about that, since the last election, postmasters and other officials were promoted to positions to which thev were not fitted, ‘and to which they were not entitled, and that men who were notified for removal were allowed to remain where they were? Influence must be assumed to account for that state of affairs, which, it seems to me, has. not tended to improve the efficiency of the Department. Mr. Arndell, the head of the Postal Department in Sydney, said in a report -

Although in many instances officers have for a considerable period toiled long beyond the regular hours, no complaint of overwork has reached me, each striving to carry his burden while his strength lasts. There must, however, be a limit to the power of endurance of even the strongest, and unless substantial relief is shortly forthcoming not only the health of the officers but the efficiency of the service must sutler. The pace at which the work has to be rushed through is productive of mistakes, which, I have no hesitation in saying, would not occur if the staff were maintained at its legitimate strength………

I can therefore only repeat that unless substantial relief is speedily afforded the health of the officers and the efficiency of the Department must sutler.

– The honorable member is here to defend his Department.

Mr Ewing:

– The honorable member should not indulge in general statements unless he is prepared to prove them.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– So far I have given proof of all my statements, and I have yet to criticise the Defence Department. I propose now to refer to the cancelled mail contract. The present Minister of Trade and Customs, when PostmasterGeneral, accepted the tender of a firm which was to lodge a deposit of £25,000 as a guarantee of good faith. Where is that deposit to-day ? The facts go to show that at the time the Government were in dire straits. They allowed Sir James Laing and Company to secure the option of floating a company to provide the necessary mail service, and they saw that if they insisted’ upon the deposit of £25,000 being lodged there would be no contract. In the circumstances, therefore, they did not insist upon a cash deposit, and the syndicate, finding that it could not float a company and so make a pot of money out of the option they had secured, threw up the sponge. That is an old game in mining circles, and it -is singular that the Minister should have allowed it to be played. The position suggests the inefficiency of the Administration. One of the greatest Departments of the Commonwealth at the time

– It would be an excellent investment. Our chief line of defence, I maintain, is the British Navy. If that were withdrawn, all our military and naval forces would be of no avail against an enemy. At the same time, I do not hold the view that it is our duty to do nothing towards providing ourselves with an effective system of defence. For that reason I should like the Government to exhibit a little more interest in the naval cadet movement. The other day the Minister of Defence declared that every facility was being provided for the enrolment of cadets, both in the Naval and the Military Forces. I know from correspondence with the Defence Department that his statement is not accurate. Upon a previous occasion . I pointed out that damaged ammunition had been supplied to cadets and to. rifle clubs. The Minister replied that’ such a state of . things ought to be impossible. That is not quite the answer which should have been given by the honorable gentleman. He should have known a little more about his own Department. From the Jubilee number of The

Sydneian, the official magazine published by the Sydney Grammar School, I quote the following -

The grave political limitations under which our staff officers struggle - in silence - are more than hinted in the following statement, published in the DailyTelegraph so recently as July 6th. We have seen no official denial : -

The quality of the ammunition supplied to the cadet force has been the subject of unfavorable comment on more than one occasion. The attention of the National Rifle Association was officially directed to the matter at its last meeting by one of its members, Mr. H. B. Jamieson, who was on the Randwick range recently, and had ocular demonstration of the utter uselessness of the ammunition which cadets were using at target practice. Lieutenant Dakin, the secretary of the association, was also in a position to substantiate these remarks. His son, who is a promising young shot, and has figured in the prize list at the cadet rifle meetings, was unable to find the target- with the ammunition issued to him, but on trying with another brand scored six bull’s-eyes in succession. The association decided to forward a letter of protest to the District Commandant.

What are we to gather from this? That Major Dove takes a wicked delight in fooling his cadets with bad ammunition ? Either this, or that he is issuing to the boys the only ammunition he can get - old stuff perished through long storage -

Mr Ewing:

– I endeavoured to trace the case when 1 saw it referred to in the newspapers, but nobody could tell me where the ammunition came from.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

Mr Mahon:

– But there would be a loss on the conversion.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– I may remind the honorable member that some of the loans were issued at 6 per cent. ; but, ire any case, the principle is the same, and the cost of conversion would occur once only, whereas it would be repeated with every loan falling due if the debts were not converted. As the sinking fund accumulated we could go into the market and purchase our own stocks, and we could do so at advantageous terms if they ran down, as they must occasionally. The fluctuations of the money market are just the same as in ordinary trade -indeed, it is trade in money. We could go into the market and buy our stocksas soon as opportunity offered.

Mr King O’malley:

– That is done by Canada.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– It is done by every country. The honorable member for Macquarie asks how I account for the reduction in the value of our bonds. One reason may be that the English Government are now borrowing £112,000,000. That, of course, makes a difference in the London money market, but theinfluence of that operation will not last long. The people who receive this . £112,000,000 for their Irish properties will not walk about with it in their pockets ; and the very financiers who found the money for the British Government are the financiers” who are looking for secure investment for it on behalf of the recipients ; ‘ and so it comes back again into the market.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.45 p.m. [Quorum formed.]

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– In a speech which I delivered last vear, when I propounded a scheme for the conversion of the debts of the States. I said -

If we ask the bondholders to accept 3 per cent, for 4 per cent, stocks, we must give them something that will be equivalent to the difference in the percentage. .

Sir John Forrest:

– Then what advantage shall we derive?

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– We should gain upon every loanmaturing from1907 till existing loans had run their fixed period under the actuarial valuation, as from that period the stocks converted would cost the Commonwealth nothing. . In respect of every bond current, weshould give an inducement on paper by inscribing our stock. We should in that way raise the value of that stock, whilst at the same time we should reduce the interest bill on loans maturing, providing for a sinking fund of½ percent, which in sixty odd years would wipe out the face value of the accumulated debt. Under this system we should pay nothing more in respect of interest, although we should appear to pav a little more on paper. When our bonds fell due, we should redeem them at their face value.

That is a very terse statement of my position. As one who has devoted a considerable amount of time to this question, I wish, without speaking on it exhaustively now, to do something to advance its consideration a little, and I hope on another occasion to contribute still further to its discussion. Referring to Mr. Coghlan’s paper on the debts of the States. I said -

Mr. Coghlan points out that loans amounting to several millions will fall due every year for forty-five years, and that if the States debts be consolidated at 3 per cent, at par, there will be a saving to the Commonwealth when the loans expire of £1, 375,000 -that is, if we allow the bondholders an opportunity to make some profit in the meantime. During the five years, from 1907 to 191 1, the loans falling due, if redeemed at 3 per cent., would represent a saving of £273,000 per annum.During the period, from 1912 to 1916, we should effect a further saving of £390,000 per annum. So the saving would be increased every year. If we <lo not adopt the plan suggested, the States will probably have to raise money at 4 per cent. ‘ The honorable member for Swan asked of what advantage it would be for us to consolidate now. The advantage is that it would cost nothing, and would result in an annual saving of hundreds of thousands of pounds, from 1907 onwards. If the bonds are allowed to fall due as he proposed, we must take the risks of the market, and borrow the money necessary to meet them, at whatever prices are asked. But under my scheme, the holders of 4 per cents, would be offered stock at 3 per cent, to the amount of their holding, together with the capitalized difference between 3 and 4 per cent, for the period for which the loan had currency, which might be one year or forty-five years. The Commonwealth would inscribe upon its ledgers the amount of the principal originally held by the bondholder and the amount which would represent the capitalized difference between the first rate of interest paid to him, and 3 per cent., and would pay 3 per cent, on both sums.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– I was speaking of the prodigality of the remnant of a party to which the honorable member belonged when he was a member of the Legislature of New South Wales. I had in mind the stragglers who followed the Acting Prime,

Minister when he was the leader of the Government in that State.. I have not much to say of the present State Administration. They are a lot of spendthrifts. The Commonwealth Tariff has produced for them an immense revenue drawn from the wageearners. It takes a man of pluck to propose direct taxation ; a mere weakling may bring in indirect taxation, to “ pluck the goose without making it cry.” At the present time a man who works hard and lives well has 25 per cent, of his earnings swallowed up by taxation. We are faced with a deplorable condition of affairs. I am glad to observe that the people of this State are beginning to recognise what they have to pay under the Tariff, and are resenting it. The honorable member for Gippsland smiles, but I do not think his smile is caused by thoughts of the men who have to submit to this taxation.

Mr Mauger:

– No. He is smiling about the swindling that is going on.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– Swindling must take place in connexion with Customs taxation. During this debate we have heard again and again the statement that the merchants are passing on the duties to the consumers. There was a time when we were told that the foreigner had to pay the duties. Our protectionist friends have changed their tune, and we are told that the importers pass on this taxation to the consumers, who are also called upon to pay increased prices for goods on which the duties have not been paid. The Minister of Trade and Customs told us the other day’ that we had in Australia a supply of kerosene sufficient to meet all our requirements for the next twelve months. I venture to say that 75 per cent, of that supply is to be found in two States. What, then, is the position in the other States where there is a shortage ? In those States there mustbe withdrawals from bond, and the increased duty on kerosene has there to be paid.

Mr Chanter:

– There is no duty on kerosene passing from one State to another.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– No, but the honorable member must not lose sight of the. fact that the stocks in the different States may be held by a dozen different firms.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– In what State are they now paying duty on kerosene?

Colonel Foxton. - In Queensland duty has been paid on something like 10,000 cases.

– The Reid

Tariff relieved the people of taxation to the amount of £1,000,000, and that is the sort of legislation we can admire.

However, I do not wish to trespass upon the attention of the Committee any longer. I thank honorable members for the patient hearing which they have given to me. As a free-trader, it will be my duty to reduce the duties on the Tariff as much as possible, and remove all anomalies. I shall do this for the advantage of the 80 per cent, of our population who are workers. The free-traders are the friends of the workers, the true representatives of the people. Having in view the interests of the masses. I can never be a protectionist.

Mr COON:
Batman

.- It is not my intention to follow the bad example of honorable members oppositeby making a long speech. One might have thought, after the last general elections, that freetrade was dead, but the few freetraderswho were returned to this Parliament seem to be very much alive indeed. The free-trade party, however, was badly beaten in New South Wales and throughout the Commonwealth, and when I look at the Opposition benches, I am tempted to vary the well-known lines, and to ask -

Do I sleep, do I dream,

Or is visions about?

Are things what they seem,

Or is free-trade played out?

Mr Wilks:

– And still her people are against the Tariff.

Mr COON:

– They are in favour of the Tariff. That is why they are asking for more protection. In 1900 the number of factory hands employed ira New South Wales was 60,779, and in 1905 72,175, an increase of 1 1,396 due to the Tariff. The total trade of the State in 1900 was valued at £55>725-587, and in 1905 at £[66,181,000, an increase of £[10,455,413. The free-trade section of the Tariff Commission in its final report says -

We find definitely that the Commonwealth Tariff has not prejudiced Australian industry ; but, on the contrary, production, trade, nml employment have, under it, largely increased.

The honorable member for Dalley on Friday last stated that, in his opinion, bottles’ should be admitted free of duty.

Mr Wilks:

– I said that the duty on bottles makes groceries dearer. I did not say that they should come in free.

Mr COON:

– The honorable member thought that a duty on bottles was unnecessary, because we obtain a large part of oursupplies from the United Kingdom. -In the United States the number of men employed in the bottle-making industry in 1880 was 25,763, and in 1900 61,164, or an increase of 35,401 in twenty years. In Belgium in 1880 there were 10,124 persons employed in the industry, and in .1900 22,780, or an increase of 12,056. In Russia, in 1887, 21,044 persons were employed in the industry, whilst ten years ‘ later 37,543 were so engaged, so that there was an increase of 16,499. In France, in 1886, 21,428 persons were employed in the industry, and ten years later there were 38,500 so. engaged, the number having increased by 12,072. In Germany, in 1 881 , 35,631 persons were engaged in the industry, and twenty years later 58,221 were employed in it, or an increase of 22,608. 1 would draw the special attention of honorable members to the fact that in the United Kingdom, in 1880, 23,647 persons were employed in this trade, whilst twenty years later there were 32,929 so engaged, so- that the number had increased by only 8,282. These figures go to show that the glass bottle trade of the United Kingdom is gradually drifting to other countries. The annual average of imports of bottles into the United Kingdom for the five years, 1894-98, was 867,525 gross, and from 1899 to 1903 the average was 1,626,874 gross. It will thus be seen that there was an increase of 87 per cent, in these’ imports. The value of those imported during the first five years mentioned by me was £1,758,879, whilst the value of the imports during the second period was £2.0301956. Had these bottles been made in the United Kingdom employment would have been given to 5,000 men at 30s. per week. What is the condition of the bottle glass makers in the old land ? One of the witnesses before the Tariff Commission stated that the trade there had been verv bad during the last twenty years. In Glasgow, in 1870, there were twenty-four or twenty-five glass bottle factories, whilst to-day there were only three, and in one district 40 per cent, of the workers in the trade were out of employment. This is the state of affairs under the policy of free-trade. The honorable member for Dalley appeals to the Labour Party to assist the workers in the old country by reducing the protective duty on bottles entering Australia. When the Tariff Commission was in Svdney, representatives of the whole of the bottle manufacturers in New South Wales appeared before it, and asked for a more highly protective Tariff than the bottle manufacturers of Victoria had requested. Mr. Cornelius Bishop, glass bottle manufacturer of North Botany, gave evidence that -

The glass manufacturers of this State are unanimous and deeply in earnest in their request for a higher duty on glassware of all kinds that are being made in the Commonwealth.

He was then cross-examined as follows by the honorable member for Perth -

Have the New South Wales bottle manufacturers been in communication with the bottle manufacturers of Victoria in this matter? - Yes, and no. In the first place, it happened that when we held our first meeting, the manager of the Melbourne firm was in Sydney. He came to the’ rooms where we were meeting, and remained for about half-an-hour, after which he had to go away to catch his train. Since then, so far as I know, there has been no communication between us and the Melbourne manufacturers.

Have you seen a copy of their request, or has their request, as submitted to the Commission, been brought under your notice ? - Yes ; I have read the evidence.

And, generally speaking, are you in harmony with their request? - I an., in every particular, except that the duty that the Victorian manufacturers are asking for is very much too low.

That was the evidence of a representative of the whole of the bottle makers of New South Wales. Mr. Osborne Thompson, manager of the Sydney bottle works, who also gave evidence, was examined as follows -

If the duties which you suggest were imposed, what employment would the trade give? - I should say that if all our requirements were locally supplied, at least -^’100,000 in wages would be annually spent iri the Commonwealth.

We thus find that manufacturers in freetrade New South Wales were asking for higher protection than was sought in Victoria. Manufacturers in South Australia likewise asked for protection, and, needless, to say, manufacturers of Victoria also required additional duties. The glass bottle workers in Great Britain, many of whom are out of work, have to compete with the products of a country where those engaged in the trade work seven days a week for a wage of from 173. to 25s., and where women are employed, and there is no restriction on child labour. If the free-traders had their way, the same competition would confront manufacturers in Australia. Reference has also been made during this debate to the pottery trade. A few weeks ago, I paid a visit to Lithgow, New South Wales, and whilst there entered a shop conducted by a lady in the same line of business that I happen at present to be engaged in. In reply to my question as to the state of trade in Lithgow, she said, “ Things are very dull at present. We used to have a pottery here, but it has closed down. We need more protection.” More protection is considered necessary in New South Wales in order that the pottery at Lithgow may. be kept in full swing. When the Tariff Commission was in Sydney, witnesses before it urged that protection for the pottery trade was essential. I was under the impression, judging from what I had heard. that no witnesses asking for more protection would appear before the Commission in that State; but the reports of the Tariff Commission, as well as the statements made by some of the members of it in this Chamber, show that the people of New South Wales are just as anxious to secure protection as are the people of Victoria. With a view of showing the condition of the pottery trade in England, I propose to quote from the evidence given before the Pottery Commission of the United Kingdom.

Mr Wilks:

– It is the oldest trade in the world.

Mr COON:

– And England is losing it. There are hundreds of men out of work there, and the unions are doing all that they can to keep from starvation those unable to find employment.

Mr Poynton:

– That is why we are asked to put a duty of 140 per cent, on pottery ware.

Mr COON:

– The pottery-workers of Great Britain to-day are asking that they shall be protected in the same way that workers are shielded in other parts of the world. They are asking for a duty of 40 per cent. If the honorable member for Grey doubts my statement, he may read the evidence tendered before the Commission. It is available in the Library. Witness, No. 276 - Enoch Marsey, gave evidence before the English Commission that-

There are considerably less people employed in our district than 20 years ago. Of the balance some have drifted into other businesses; a great number have gone to America, many have become chargeable to the rates. We are talking of increasing one parish workhouse, though at the present time it is one of the largest in the country ; it is crowded. We have thousands of people in Longton out of work. The workpeople beyond doubt are realising what the foreign competition is doing for them, driving them into the workhouse and taking away their bread.

That is the evidence which was given before the Tariff Commission appointed in Great Britain. During the . past” twenty years the- wages in the pottery trade of the United Kingdom have been reduced by 20 per cent. The imports of foreign china amount to over £[500,000 annually, the workers losing £’250,000 yearly in wages, or approximately £5,000 a week. It is stated that through the importation of pottery and china into the United “Kingdom £7,000 a week has been lost to the workers there. We are asked to compete against the Japanese, who pay their employes 4d. a day, and who last year exported over £[526,000 worth of pottery.

Mr Poynton:

– Not to the Australian States.

Mr COON:

Mr Hedges:

– We ought to accept the evidence of the persons who are using it.

Mr COON:

– The testimony of those who are using Australian mining machinery to-day in Broken Hill and Western Australia is that it is the best machinery they have upon their mines. Witnesses who gave evidence before the Tariff Commission declared that they were using Australian made machinery, and that it. was equal to - and in some cases better than - imported machinery. Mr. D. J. Sullivan, representing the workers of Sydney, gave the following evidence in reference to the iron industry -

At present we have good moulders working as agents’ on the wharves, as casuals, hawking, fishing, butchering, in wood and coal yards, firing on steamers, and at any occupation where they can yet in, probably taking a chance of employment from those who follow any of the above occupapations. Last Christmas, when giving some financial relief to those of our members who applied for it, we knew how it hurt them to be compelled to be in such circumstances, although by our rules financial assistance is part of the benefit they” subscribe to.

That is the position of the iron trade in Sydney. I come now to the clothing trade. As evidencing the progress- which that industry has made in New South Wales, I may mention that, whereas in 1898 it employed 2,120 persons, in 1899 the number had increased to 2,181, and in 1903 it had still further increased to 3,105.

Mr Wilks:

– That growth was due to Inter-State free-trade.

Mr COON:

– This evening the honorable member for Robertson dealt at some length with the duty imposed upon boots and shoes. I consider that upon these articles a higher duty should have been levied than that which the Government have imposed. On the 20th August last, I asked a gentleman to supply me with some information respecting the introduc tion into Japan of bootmaking machines. He was good enough to cable to Germany for it, and he now writes -

We have much pleasure in giving you herewith some particulars in connexion with the bootmaking machines supplied to the Japanese Government by the Moenus Machine Works. We have just received a cable, according to which the Moenus Machine Works supplied five complete outfits to the Government, each of which is capable of turning out 1,000 pairs of boots or shoes daily.

At the present time these machines are turning out 35,000 pairs of boots per week. The mechanic who operates each machine receives 11d. per day of fourteen hours, and is required to work seven days a week, whereas the mechanic who works the machine in Australia receives 12s. per day. The communication continues -

Taking the. 35,000 pairs of shoes made in Japan -on this new set of machinery, at an average of 5s. per pair, it would amount to ,£8,750. One-third of the wholesale price’ being labour in Australia, would leave ^2,916 at Australian rates. That amount represents giving work to 1,166 men for one week, at £2 ros. per week. Taking the Japanese highest wages at nd. per day, of 14 hours, it would only cost the Japanese £$ 8s. lod., showing a saving in wages to them of ,£2,863.- The full value of the goods under Australian conditions would be 2,8,750 - deducting the amount saved in labour by the Japanese would leave their full value at £5,887. The duty on ^5,887 at 47^ per cent, would amount to ^2,796, which would still be £67 less than the saving they had made on their labour. Japanese work 98 hours per week, and his best mechanic gets 6s. 5d. per week. To work an average Australian bootmaker the same number of hours, under the Factories Act, we would have to pay him £5 8s. 6d. per week.

I think I have clearly shown that more protection is needed for our industries. In Japan the Tariff contains duties of 60 per cent, j and the object of the Commonwealth Government is to block out foreign trade,’ and find work for those who are out of employment in Australia to-day. I trust that within a very short time this Tariff will be finally passed,, and that our manufactories, before the expiration of this year, will be found working at full pressure. I congratulate the Government on the introduction of so effective a Tariff ; of course in some items there will have to be slight alteration ; but I have sufficient confidence in the present occupants of the Treasury benches to believe that any alteration made will be in keeping with the policy which was placed before the country on the 12th December last. I hope that we shall not have any more long speeches from honorable members opposite, but that honorable members who are anxious to set to work and put the Tariff on a proper basis will have every opportunity afforded of expediting its progress. I feel certain, judging from the number of protectionists in this House, that the Tariff will be made effective.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

: - I regret that I have been a victim of influenza, and, in consequence, have not had the opportunity of hearing the exposition of the Tariff by its author, the Acting Prime Minister, or of listening to the leaders of the different parties within this House. T have not had the advantage of hearing the remarks of the leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Labour Party, or of the leader of .the fourth party, whoever he may be.

Mr Poynton:

– The fourth party has no leader.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I understand that the fourth party is leaderless; but the probabilities are that, when the Tariff has been disposed of, its leader will be discovered pretty quickly. I have listened very carefully to the speech of the .honorable member for Batman, and I had the advantage of travelling over a great part of’ my State, especially in my own elector-, ate, and eliciting the opinions of those interested in mining,’ pastoral, and farming pursuits.

Mr Poynton:

– And I suppose the honorable member heard a number of people asking for higher duties?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I cannot say that I have met very many who ask for a higher Tariff. I do not take part in this debate with the same feeling of enthusiastic approval which was expressed by the honorable member for Batman. Of course, that may be the fault of my earlier training and my reading. It is well known that ever since I entered this House I have been an advocate of low taxation all round ; and I have seen no reason for departing from my original attitude. . I recognise that it is possible to make a few people wealthy by Tariff taxation; but I have yet to discover that the’ great masses of the community have ever been made wealthy by such means. When T do discover that the general community benefit in that way, I mav feel disposed to revise my opinion. From the .very outset of Tariff discussions in this Parliament, I have recognised the advantage which would result to honorable members if, instead of having only the information supplied by Ministers, or picked up by themselves as best they can, they had some authoritative information, such as that which may be gathered by a competent Commission. Such information we did not have when we considered the first Tariff, but on the present occasion we have before us the result of the labours of a very able body of gentlemen representing both sides of the fiscal question. The investigations of the Tariff Commission extended over a considerable time, and the results are now before us in the form of various very voluminous reports. I do not see, however, how honorable members can be expected to make themselves acquainted with . the contents of those reports in the time at their disposal. However, the reports are here; and I presume that we shall be able to glean from them a considerable amount of information which will prove of value when we are dealing with the- separate items. I notice that the Tariff Commission was very considerably handicapped in the securing of evidence. Of course, information from those specially interested in Tariff legislation - whose interests were in the direction of increased duties on commodities with which they were specially concerned - was readily secured.

Mr Poynton:

– No evidence was taken from consumers.’

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That was not the fault of the Commission, but the fault of the consumers. The trouble was that the great body of the consumers did not feel sufficient interest in the subject to prepare evidence or submit their views ; and, practically, the Commission were confined to one side of the question. If the views of the other side received any expression at all, it was mainly in the form of information elicited by the Commissioners from those who were interested in the increase, rather than the decrease, of Customs taxation. While that might be urged as an objection to a considerable number of the findings of the Commission, I am still persuaded that the Commission did good substantial work. I am favorable to the continuance of a Commission of a similar character, so that all matters relating to the Tariff in the way of alterations, and so forth, may’ be thoroughlysifted, and honorable members placed in possession of the latest and most accurate information. The absence of such Information was felt very much when the first Tariff was under consideration. We then found that the presentments of cases made to honorable members very often, did not disclose half the real facts of the case ; and it was only subsequently that we discovered that there was another side to many of the questions we had considered. It is only by the creation of some such authoritative body as I have indicated that we can hope to secure reliable information. After all, we are legislating for the people, and we desire to ascertain the real facts. I do not suppose there is an honorable member, how-, ever strong may be’ his feelings on one side or the other, who has so shut his mind that it would be useless to present facts to him. ‘T believe that free-traders and protectionists alike are prepared to look into cases, and accept the facts as they really are, before arriving at a judgment. Apparently we are committed to a system of high taxation, even supposing we do not make any considerable advance on the recent Tariff. We have now an opportunity for the’ introduction of what is termed the “new protection,” which can only receive a fair trial by the establishment of a proper tribunal, with ample powers to investigate the whole question. I am not in any way adversely criticising the reports of the Commission. I recognise that the members of that Commission had a difficult task, and that their presentment of the case is largely based upon the representations of those who are interested in manufacturing, and who are anxious to secure preferential treatment for their industries. On the other hand, I recognise that the great mass of consumers have not had their wishes voiced before the Commission, but, notwithstanding that weakness, I am of opinion that the Commission has made an invaluable investigation, and has laid the’ foundation of very much better work in years to come. I do not wish to discuss at length the relative merits of free-trade and protection. The last speaker had a great deal to say about the progress which was being made by America, and other protected countries, and the decay of Great Britain. The protectionist theories are, at first sight, very attractive. There is the statement that they keep money in the country, and, by building up industries, increase the national wealth, providing employment for surplus labour. But free-traders are as desirous as protectionists to increase the legitimate industries of the country. Every industry which will produce wealth and give employment deserves encouragement, and often a Legislature can best assist industries by leaving them alone. Such indus- tries as require Tariff protection are being established amidst surroundings which do not tend to their development. It is hoped that protective duties, by discouraging the importation of goods which would compete in the local market with their output, will foster such industries, and that the securing to them of the home market will ultimately make them sufficiently strong to stand alone. But the protective system merely amounts to the levying of taxation on profitable in’dustries for the encouragement of the unprofitable ones. The industries which are natural to a country yield profits and pay wages without protection. How could protective duties benefit those engaged in the production of wool, meat, and agricultural and dairy produce? As a matter of fact, they need no protection, but are large exporters to other countries. It seems to have escaped the protectionists that the exports of a country largely increase its wealth. But a country which exports must be prepared to receive imports in exchange. Our exports are paid for chiefly by our imports. If we place a heavy embargo on imports, it will re-act on our exports, and thus injure those engaged in our profitable industries. Thus, every attempt to punish the other fellow injuresourselves. This has been recognised in protectionist countries, notably in America. The manufactures of that country are protected by heavy duties, and have progressed by leaps and bounds. But the territory of the United States is more largely selfcontained than that of any other country, since it possesses very varied climates, and produces almost everything required by its people. Furthermore, the best of the manhood of the old world has gone there to assist in building up its natural wealth. Now, however, its leading statesmen are discovering that the high Tariffs which have hitherto prevailed are acting detrimentally to its industries. The existing Tariff was fathered by the late President McKinley, who was assassinated in the zenith of his brilliant career. But he lived long enough to recognise the weakness of the Tariff, and in an address which he made during a tour of the country, which took place just prior to his assassination, he said -

We must not repose in fancied security, that we can for ever sell everything and buy little or nothing. What we” produce beyond our domestic consumption must have vent abroad. The excess must be relieved through a foreign outlet, and we should sell everywhere we can and buy wherever the buying will enlarge our sales and productions, and thereby create a greater demand for home labour. The period of exclusion is past. Commercial wars are unprofitable.

The New York World, a leading American ^newspaper, commenting on these utterances, said -

Those are the words of a statesman. They -are economically sound. They are politically :sagacious in responding to and leading a popular demand, which is certain to extend and grow more insistent with the passing of time.

This has also been recognised by other politicians, and, according to a recent -cablegram, Mr. Taft, the present Secretary for War, who is looked upon as a probable successor to President Rooseveldt, has indicated that a revision of the Tariff must take place in the near future. Apparently he proposes a revision on the lines suggested by the late President McKinley. He says that as soon as the presidential election is over, he will favour the calling together of a Congress to revise the Tariff. Therefore, instead of protectionist countries becoming more and more enamoured of high duties, up to the point of prohibiting importations, with the object of building up their own industries - which is what the protectionists here desire - they are beginning to see that, once the local market is supplied, an outlet is essential to further progress, and that to secure such an outlet there must be an exchange of trade with other nations. As that truth becomes more gradually recognised, the idea that national wealth is to be built up by the erection of Tariff walls will fade away, and Tariffs themselves disappear. With regard to the proposals now under discussion, it was recognised that, because of the hurry of preparation, and the lack of information in regard to -details, many anomalies existed in the firstCommonwealth Tariff. Free-traders, as well as protectionists, desired the removal of those anomalies, and a Commission was appointed, one of whose principal duties was to suggest means for their removal. “The Government has founded its present proposals ostensibly on the recommendations of the Tariff Commission ; but the [Popular opinion is that it has made things worse, increasing anomalies, and adding to instead of lessening the causes of friction and dissatisfaction. Throughout the electorate which I represent I have met men who favour the humanitarian legislation which I desire to secure, but who, as .protectionists, felt that they could not vote for me. They, therefore, recorded their votes for my opponent. We now find that a protectionist Government has imposed what the honorable member for Batman regards as one of the most perfect Tariffs that could be submitted. It is one which he, as a protectionist, can enthusiastically support. The criticism to which it has been subjected during this debate has shown him that there are a few rough corners to be smoothed off, but substantially the Tariff proposals of the Government meet with his approval. I find that my protectionist friends in New South Wales who, for the most part, are engaged in’ primary industries, are as bitter in their hostility to the Tariff as the free-traders are. When it was introduced, I thought that ‘ free-traders like myself had some reason to complain, but I was not prepared for the criticism which the advocates of protection in country districts levelled at it. When I proceeded to question them, I found that they were in favour of protection as long as it did not adversely affect their own interests, but that as soon as they were called “upon to pay. something under a scheme to give effect to their principles, they suddenly became free-traders. So long as protection meant a Tariff on the Blucher boots of the working man as well as on his tweed suits and his food stuffs, they were satisfied, but they objected to the imposition of duties on their mining machinery, irrigation plants, wire netting, fencing wire, and a hundredandone other station and farming requirements. I am afraid that the honorable member for Batman will not see eye to eye with them in their advocacy of such a differential system of protection; he will be disposed to tell them that this is a protectionist Tariff which ought to command their support and approval. I have no desire to discuss it in detail, but I would point out to the Committee that the farming interests of New South Wales have been hit very severely by the duty on wire netting. For many years the pastoral areas in what is known as the western division of New South Wales have been subjected to the rabbit pest. So completely have the rabbits taken possession of those districts that pastoralists have gradually been driven before them, and, owing to their depredations, holdings to-day are not worth anything like their original value. Within recent years the invasion has assumed a more serious form. It has passed over the pastoral lands in thinly populated districts, and has largely, taken possession of agricultural areas. Whereas at one time squatters alone were engaged in fighting the pest, to-day the small farmer in the wheat-growing belt of New South Wales is engaged in a life and death struggle with it. In the district where I was born, for thirty-five years agricultural pursuits were successfully followed without any talk of the rabbit pest; but last year many farmers practically lost their crops owing to its depredations. Thev naturally feel that unless they are able to enclose their holdings with wire netting, it will be useless for them to sow. The rabbit is in possession, and owing to its presence the farmer has practically nothing to gather from lands which otherwise would give a good return. Many of the settlers engage in mixed farming. They combine agriculture with sheep raising, and they have discovered that the carrying capacity of their ground will be very seriously reduced unless they can keep down the pest.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– The duty on wire netting will protect the rabbits.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Quite so. During last autumn many land-owners who were unable to protect their holdings with wire netting were faced with the possibility of very serious loss. To prevent the total destruction of their flocks they had to import fodder from Sydney, and to resort to hand feeding. This was due not so much to the fact that the season was an adverse one as to the depredations of the rabbit. During the earlier part of the summer and autumn the rodents had eaten up the grass which had any nourishment in it, and the stock was consequently left without anything to sustain life. These people recognised that they must enclose their holdings with wire netting in order to insure their safety. Strange to say, as the demand for wire neting increased, the price of the imported, as well as the local article, jumped up by leaps and bounds. Settlers were also told that any large order would have to be placed some time in advance. Within a short period the price of wire rose from £25 and £26 per mile to £40 and £45 per mile. A strike took place amongst the workers engaged in the local manufactory, who claimed that despite the increased returns they were receiving sweating wages. The strike collapsed, and I am informed that a number of those who took part in it went to the cane fields, or turned to other occupations rather than return to their old trade. They went out of the factory to engage in work which is generally regarded as being better suited for black than whitemen. It was in these circumstances that the State Government had to take the unusual course of importing large quantities of wirenetting. Netting so imported was sold at £26 per mile, something like the cost price,- but the duty imposed under the new Tariff” raised the price to about £32 10s. per mile, and the Government notified the holdersthat this increased amount would have tobe paid. Naturally the farmers consideredthat a great injustice had been inflicted upon them. The honorable member for Franklin said just now that this Tariff was designed to protect the rabbits rather than the land-holders. That will practically be the result of a duty on wire netting. It is retarding the operations of those whoare endeavouring to keep down the pest, and to that extent it is protecting the rabbit. At the same time, I do not think it is conferring any material benefit on themanufacturers who can at present commandsuch high prices for their product. I hopethat in the interests of the large primary productive forces of the Commonwealth, such a duty will not be retained merely for the purpose of creating an industry, not for the manufacture of wire netting, but merely for weaving the wire, an operation which, represents only a small proportion of thelabour involved in the turning out of thefinished article. I have here a number of” letters addressed to me by different representative bodies, urging that I should do my best to secure the striking out of theduty. The Pastures and Stock Protection. Board of New South Wales has announced, its opposition to the impost. I have received the following letter from the ForbesPastures’ Protection Board, which has under its control very large areas devoted to the.mixed farming to which I have referred-

Sir,- On behalf of my Board, I desireto urge that you will use your best efforts to eliminate the proposed new Federal duty on wirenetting, when the Tariff comes up for debate in the House.

From your personal knowledge of this district in particular, you are aware of the fierce struggle for supremacy that has been waged! between the farmer and the rabbit for the last number of years, with the result that the landholder now finds it absolutely imperative to wire-net his land before he attempts to cultivate it, and his profits, never very large, arefurther reduced by this big outlay.

Another point that might be stressed is than: the increased charge will, for the most part, fall on the small holder, for those with the larger and more valuable estates have already purchased and erected their netting.

Trusting that you will do your best to help in this direction. I am, yours faithfully,

Lozell

Secretary

The statement contained in that letter indicates what is taking place. When the Barton Tariff was introduced, a proposal was made to levy a duty upon wire-netting, but, after discussion, the Committee decided to place that article upon the free list. At that time the squatters were engaged in fighting the rabbit pest, and to that end were enclosing their holdings with wirenetting. That work has since been completed, but in the years which have intervened, the rabbit pest has developed more alarming proportions than ever, with the , result that persons engaged in mixed farming are now being called upon to incur the cost, of wire-netting their holdings - an outlay which formerly only the large station-holders were called upon to bear. Consequently, the case for the remission of this duty is very much stronger upon <the present occasion than it was in 1901. I understood that the object of appointing the Tariff Commission was to secure the removal of anomalies, but I gather that the “introduction of this Tariff has only served to add to the list of anomalies. If the Acting Prime Minister read the Argus of yesterday he must have noticed in it a reference to a shipment of Canadian chairs, the duty upon which, under the old Tariff, would ha.ve been £[77. Under the new Tariff, however, a sum of .£1,093 was demanded as duty. The leading article from which I gleaned this information :goes on to say -

These are the flagrant cases, but other duties are imposed with so much ingenuity that only at the Custom House do they reveal their remarkable range and grip. Such an instance was that of a small shipment of bottles which, under the old Tariff of 20 per cent., would have ;paid 5s. 5d. ; but the Lyne Tariff, by charging at so much per cubic foot on the outside measurement of the package, has raised the duty to £1 is., or something over 100 per cent. Yet some people wonder why prices- go up. The mention of that percentage recalls the magnificent ascension of the “sky-scraper” duties. They rise on a beautiful ascending scale, from 45 per cent, on apparel, through 50 and 70 per cent, on corks, to* 100 per cent, on lounges and. preserved fish and bicycles, thence by a leap “to 200 per cent, on lamp globes, dates, and Vienna chairs, to 600 per’ cent, on buggy bodies. “The Argus also quotes the case of another consignment of chairs to Sydney which, under the old rate of duty, would have been called * upon to pay ‘£[30, but which, under the new rate, was required to pay .£600, with the result that the importer declined to take delivery of it. These are anomalies which have been created by the new Tariff. To me it seems to be a double-barrelled Tariff, in that it applies the principle of protection to certain lines of goods whilst upon others it endeavours to raise a large revenue. The result is the high taxation for revenue purposes of goods which cannot be produced locally. When the old Tariff was under review in this Chamber, very considerable reductions were effected in the rates of duty proposed by the Government. As honorable members are aware, members of the Labour Party have no particular fiscal faith. Thev are quite at liberty to act as they choose in this connexion. The result was that when the Barton Tariff was under review, reductions were made in the duties imposed upon a large number of items, including wire-netting, iron, &c, in order that the burden of taxation might not fall with undue severity upon the workers, and upon those who were engaged in industries which could not possibly be benefited by duties. The result was that when the Bill embodying the Tariff resolutions was forwarded to the Senate, the leader of the Government in that Chamber - Senator O’Connor - announced that reductions had been made upon the original proposals of the Government which involved the sacrifice of an estimated revenue of ,£920,000 per annum. I gather that the present Tariff is estimated to yield an additional revenue of from £800,000 to £1,000,000 per annum, and therefore I am justified in presuming that in many instances the Government have reverted to the proposals originally submitted in connexion with the first Commonwealth Tariff. When that Tariff was introduced there was in this Chamber an effective fighting force of freetrade members. Those members, as a party, can claim credit for having effected considerable reductions in the Government proposals’. I regret that there is not a similar party in this Chamber at “the present juncture. To-day, I am sorry to say, the Opposition are not led by a gentleman who is pledged to free-trade principles as the first plank in his political programme. Consequently I am not sanguine that large reductions will be made in this Tariff, as they were made in the first Commonwealth Tariff. Of course I know that honorable members like the honorable member for

Robertson will not allow their antisocialistic proclivities to outweigh their freetrade preferences, but nevertheless I regret that the leader of the Opposition is not in a position to challenge the Government in connexion with their Tariff proposals. No doubt the Acting Prime Minister feels very grateful for the position in which he finds himself, and probably he expects, the Ministerial proposals to obtain a considerable amount of support not only from honorable members upon the opposite side of the Chamber, but also from those who sit behind the leader of the Opposition. In the second Commonwealth Parliament, when the fiscal question was a live one, I thought that the right honorable member for East Sydney made a mistake in neglecting to challenge the position of the Government in respect of their Tariff proposals. He went before the electors. as the champion of free-trade principles, and as the opponent of the Tariff then in existence, with a request for a mandate to enable him to make further reductions in the duties.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– At the general election before last. In accord with those pledges, I, for one, thought to find in the right honorable member a fighting factor in this House, but, when the House met, he adopted other tactics. I took occasion, in an address which I delivered, to question not only the wisdom but the fairness to the electors generally, arid particularly of his own State, of his course of action. That address, however, could not apply on the present occasion. The honorable gentleman went before the country, not as the champion of free-trade principles, but as the sinker of the fiscal issue. He presented an entirely new question te. the electors, namely, that of antiSocialism, or, in other words, opposition to the Labour Party, because the Socialistic cry was very largely a bogus one. All the talk we heard about the marriage tie being threatened, about the rights of property being in danger, or about meditated attacks on the Christian religion, and so forth, was merely imaginary, and was presented to the electors for the purpose of winning a victory which appeared to be in doubt. There is no man in the Labour Party, to which I belong, who believes in such nonsense. The attack of the honorable gentleman was really made on the members qf the Labour. Party. It is well known *hit, although I am a free-trader, and have always voted for free-trade principles, I am a believer in the Labour movement, anc? from the outset have been a member of the Labour Party. I can claimthat when the Barton Tariff was introduced I did my fair share to secure reductions on a number of the items. T know that when a number of the leading, free-traders, who were returned, not as Labour men, but as free-trader’s, were looking after their own business, I was here, against the advice of my medical adviser,, fighting for the principles in which I believed; so that I do not think any reasonable exception can be taken to my position, on that score. It was represented to me, in the course of last Parliament, that if I wished to follow any longer the leader of the Opposition, I should not only have to sink my free-trade principles, but would have te become a traitor to those Labour principles which I have held all my life. I refused to do either, and the result was that I do not think any candidate in New South Wales was fought more .bitterly than I wasmyself, ‘ or that there was a candidate against whom the same kind of despicable weapons were used by my quondam friends in the free-trade party.

Sir William Lyne:

– They gave me a. taste of it.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If I had been the most extreme Socialist, the hostility could not have been more bitter. I think that the criticism levelled against theleader of the Opposition is not as justified’ to-day as it was, or would have been, in the last Parliament. The right honorable gentleman was then the champion of freetrade, pledged to the Commonwealth toendeavour in the life of that Parliament, to give effect to his principles. Now, however, he does not stand pledged to anything of the kind. He stands pledged’ to sink the fiscal issue, as far. as it is possible for him to sink it; for, at the last: election, he raised the anti-Labour issue,, and invited protectionists as well as freetraders to come, behind has banner. To a large extent that invitation was accepted, and in New South Wales there were foundprotectionists and free-traders fighting side bv side. That being so’, how can the right honorable gentleman- be expected to lead an attack on the Treasury benches in connexion with the Tariff? If the right honorable member did so, I consider he would be false to the pledges he gave to those protectionists whose support he asked for, and whose help he secured. And, what is more, he would be landed in a very awkward position. Although he might claim to represent a majority of the House, so far as parties are concerned, if he tabled a. motion against the Government, his majority as an anti-Socialist leader would be very considerably diminished on other issues, and he would find that a number of men, who support him- on that issue, would walk across the House and -support the Acting Prime Minister on the Tariff question. Those honorable members could not do otherwise than be loyal to the pledges they gave to their electors ; and, in this connexion, the electors of New South Wales may justly feel that they have a grievance. The electors of the mother State were told to sink the fiscal issue, and were invited to join in returning anti.Socialists, irrespective of their fiscal faith. But they were not told that the antiSocialists in the other States, and notably in Victoria, refused to sink the fiscal issue. They were not told that Mr. Allan McLean, who was the co-equal of the honorable member for East Sydney in the coalition Cabinet, and was his second in command in leading the anti-Socialist forces, did not sink the fiscal issue, but, on the contrary, was making it the primary issue at the elections. The electors in New South Wales, who, perhaps, did not look beyond their own State, and, it may be, were illinformed as to what anti-Socialists were doing elsewhere, may justly feel that they have’ a grievance. But that was a matter of the absence of sufficient information, rather than a ground of complaint against the honorable member for East Sydney for not “ putting up a fight “ on the fiscal issue. The attitude of the honorable member foi East Sydney has called forth a considerable amount of criticism in various directions where he ordinarily received” support as an anti-Socialist. The Sydney Morning Herald, on the 21st of last, month, instructed the leader of the Opposition as to the attitude, that he should assume in the present debate. That paper spoke as follows : -

The business of the Opposition is, if possible, to rectify the Tariff out of existence, and in doing this a great deal of dependence is placed by the whole Commonwealth on the efforts of Mr. Reid. He has always been a staunch fighter on the side of free-trade, and it is not to be supposed that he will fail the cause and party now.

Then some reference is made to the Tariff Commission, and the article goes on -

The new Tariff is extreme and prohibitive. Mr. Reid is therefore left with a perfectly free hand. There is no reason why he should not lead the attack in the House of Representatives to-day in his old fighting form, and it is needless to say that the Commonwealth will be disappointed if for any reason he should fail to take the stand expected of him…….

The State of New South Wales, to. which Mr. Reid belongs, makes a special call upon him. . . . Other States like Queensland and Western Australia are in the same difficulty, and are calling for a lead. Mr. Reid could not, even if he desired, shirk the responsibility which the whole Commonwealth now casts upon him.

Subsequently the same newspaper published the following: -

Mr. Reid’s Failure.

Those who expected from Mr. Reid a clear and sound note of opposition to the Tariff proposals of the Government will be sadly disappointed on reading the speech which he delivered in the House of Representatives last night. From him least of all our public men did we anticipate such a misstatement of fact as that the country decided at the late general elections for protection as against free-trade…..

In every State in the Commonwealth the bitter cry of the over-taxed consumer is being heard. . . Why, Mr. Reid admits that the people in their maddest moments never dreamt of such an instalment of protection as that which is now proposed. . “. . Mr. Reid has disappointed those who saw in him a leader who would place himself at the head of the people in all the States who are protesting as effectively as they can against the iniquities of the Tariff. It was his duty, once the prohibition gauntlet had been thrown down, to rally to his banner all the freetraders and the moderate protectionists who really represent the people, as against Sir William Lyne and his friends, who really represent the manufacturers. He has lost an opportunity of serving his country which we are afraid will never come his way again. The leader of a great party, who might have made himself the mouthpiece of the continent, he has disappointed the hopes of his best friends, and has played into the hands of the plunderers of the people. He has not only surrendered the fortress, but he has done his best to spike the guns.

I contend that the “fortress” was “surrendered “ and the “guns spiked,” not on the occasion when the honorable member for East Sydney spoke on the Tariff, but: in the last Parliament when he decided to relegate his free-trade principles to the back ground and’ substitute the antisocialistic issue. The Daily Telegraph, foo, has been very severe in its comments. In its issue of the 20th ult. it prints this statement - “ There is a very large majority of protectionists in the House,” says Mr. Reid : and proceeds to foreshadow a series of sham fights in which reduction will be made by the Government, whose prices have been fixed on the principle of the Oriental curiosity dealer, and of victories which will consist in abatements of exactions, which it never was hoped could be maintained. And so Mr. Reid joins the dreary ranks of the lost leaders - and at what a moment ! All through the State, through the largest part of the Commonwealth, there has been ringing for days a clamour of indignation in which surprise has not been the least dominant note.

It is not too much to say that a great deal has been forgiven to Mr. Reid, as a leader, by his party, and bv the country. If he has been absent from his place, it has been felt that the hour of need would find him there, a leader in the forefront of the battle. His position in the country has been due to that respect which even his enemies feel for the fighting man. His was one of the voices on which the people believed that they could rely when it should be necessary to stir enthusiasm and to animate effort. And now, when the day of disaster threatens us, instead of furious protest, we hear a whimper about the large number of protectionists in the House, and a pitiful cry te the more moderate of them to be as merciful as possible.

Then the Watchman, in the issue before last, says -

There is every warrant for the outcry being made against the leader of the Federal Oppositin by the daily press. There is only one thing for Mr. Reid to do, and that is to retire from the leadership. His party are tired waiting for him, and his State suffers through his inability to fill the breach when occasion requires.

We recognise the other States are against him to a man, and that his position is an unenviable and unfortunate one : but all that thrown in, he has lost touch with the electors of New South Wales, and they in turn have lost heart because of him.

I think, for the reasons which I have given, that that is hardly fair criticism. Had the writers, prior to the last elections, looked beyond the borders of New South Wales, they must have seen that the present position would be the inevitable outcome of the antiSocialist campaign. Now, like the Chinaman who has prayed for benefits and suffered misfortune, they are beating their Joss. They forget that before the elections Mr.- Reid sank the fiscal issue, and raised an entirely new one, in which he invited co-operation, which they gave heartily. There is therefore not much logic in their position. Last Parliament a lightning change followed the discussion of the vexed Capital Site question. The leader of the Labour Party was at the time Prime Minister, the present Prime Minister, and the honorable member for East Sydney, sitting in opposition to him. The House as then constituted was divided into three nearly equal parties, each preferring a different site. The honorable member for East Sydney and his supporters urged, however, that to allay the irritation felt in New

South Wales .because of the delay in dealing with the question, a settlement should be arrived at, the suitability of the choice being not so important as the making, of it. But directly the site was chosen, a lightning change took place, and the Watson Administration disappeared from the Treasury Benches. Other changes took, place subsequently, and last session, whenever the Government tried to do business, ifr was thwarted by the Opposition, even when, the members of that party were not hostileto the principles of the Government proposals. So much was business delayed that at one period it seemed that the sessionwould be fruitless, because, although muchhad been attempted, and partly done, the tactics of the Opposition were making completion impossible. As a result the closureresolutions were arrived at. Now that we are discussing a new Tariff, involving details of vital importance, I am surprised tofind a disposition on the part of Opposition members to rush matters. Private members’ time has been taken away to givemore opportunity for dealing with theTariff. In view of the anxiety to despatch business, I ask is history about to repeat itself? When the Tariff has been disposed1 of, what will happen?

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

– The deluge.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think so; but not what the honorable member expects. Apparently his next move will be to try to remove the Labour Party from Commonwealth politics; but it will be one of the toughest enterprises he has undertaken. As honorable members desire that’ progress be reported, I shall postpone the remainder of my remarks until to-morrow.

Progress reported.

page 2842

ADJOURNMENT

Duties on Boots and Shoes - Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Act: “New Protection.”

Motion (by Sir William Lyne) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr CARR:
Macquarie

– 1 wish, to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he is prepared to indorse the recommendation made by the Tariff Commission in Report No. 50. It is as follows -

We consider that where protective duties are substantially increased, provision should be made to secure payment of reasonable wages to persons engaged in the industries benefited by such duties.

– That will bebetter still. We shall then know all about the matter. The Minister of Trade and> Customs will certainly see that there is nolapse, so far as his Department is concerned.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.5 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 September 1907, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1907/19070904_reps_3_38/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 4 September 1907

PETITIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

Honorable Members. - No

QUESTION

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT MAKERS : SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HUTCHISON:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr Hutchison:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Wilks:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr Fisher:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

QUESTION

TARIFF

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Treasurer · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr TUDOR:YARRA, VICTORIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Protectionist

Mr FRAZER:KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr GLYNN:ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr Crouch:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr Bruce Smith:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr MATHEWS:MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr Wilks:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr HENRY WILLIS:ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr Bruce Smith:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr Bruce Smith:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

ESTIMATES : MILITARY AND LIGHTHOUSE ENGINEERS

Mr BRUCE SMITH:

Mr MAUGER:Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

DELAYS IN THE POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

Mr LIDDELL:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MAUGER:Protectionist

QUESTION

TARIFF

Mr JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Protectionist

QUESTION

MR. BRUCE HART

Mr THOMAS BROWN:CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr MAUGER:Protectionist

QUESTION

TELEPHONE RATES

Mr LIDDELL:

Mr MAUGER:Protectionist

QUESTION

DECORATION OF DIVER HUGHES

Mr MAHON:COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Protectionist

QUESTION

INCREMENTS : GENERAL POST OFFICE, SYDNEY

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr MAUGER:Protectionist

QUESTION

OVERTIME : DENILIQUIN POST OFFICE

Mr PAGE:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr Chanter:

Mr PAGE:

Mr SPEAKER:

House of Representatives
4 September 1907

Mr HUTCHISON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr TUDOR:
YARRA, VICTORIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

Mr FRAZER:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr GLYNN:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr MATHEWS:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MAUGER:
Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr LIDDELL:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

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

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Fawkner

Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; 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 W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; 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 TILLEY BROWN:
INDI, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC

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 TILLEY BROWN:
INDI, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie