House of Representatives
13 September 1907

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- NEW HEBRIDES
QUESTION
- TARIFF
QUESTION
- EXCISE TARIFF (AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY) ACT
QUESTION
- VICTORIAN TORPEDO PRACTICE
QUESTION
- NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS
PAPERS
BUDGET
- Customs and Excise Tariffs
- In Committee of Ways and Means:
ADJOURNMENT
- Personal Explanations- Miners for Broken Hill- Budget and Tariff Debate

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

page 3268

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES

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

– In regard to a statement which appears in this morning’s Argus, to the effect that the Government have declined to consider grievances in connexion with the administration of the New Hebrides which the Presbyterian Church of Australia wishes to have remedied, I desire to ask the Acting Prime Minister the following questions: - 1. Did the authorities of the Presbyterian Church submit a list of grievances in connexion with their mission work in the New Hebrides to the Minister of External Affairs, and afterwards to the Acting Minister? 2. Was a request made that these grievances be forwarded for the consideration of the Colonial Office, and was the request declined? 3. Has any inquiry been made into these grievances by the. Government ? 4. What is the reason for declining to consider the grievances of citizens of the Commonwealth made in a proper and respectful manner? 5. Is itnot the special and primary function of the Department of External Affairs to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth from injustice in any part of the world - including the New Hebrides ?

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

– When I saw the newspaper statement to which the honorable member refers, I asked the Secretary for External Affairs if it or any portion of it was correct. I am awaiting his official written reply ; but I understand that an application was made in writing, and, instead of being refused by me, was sent to the Colonial Office and to the Administrator of the New Hebrides. No deputation waited upon me in regard to the matter, nor did I refuse to receive one. The latter part of the newspaper account is therefore absolutely untrue, and a concoction of the writer. Moreover, I do not think the Prime Minister refused to make the representations asked. Therefore, in my opinion there is no ground for any complaint. As regards the New Hebrides, the Commonwealth has no control, and the Government cannot do more than forward complaints to the Imperial authorities.

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

– I give notice of the questions for Tuesday next.

page 3268

QUESTION

TARIFF

Protection of Workers and Consumers.

Mr GLYNN:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether the declared intention of the Ministry to abandon the method of protecting labour provided by the Excise Tariff 1906, and to substitute another therefor, was the result of a doubt as to the constitutionality as well as the efficacy of the provisions for the purpose in the Act referred to?
Whether, in view of the statements of some honorable members of this House that their support of the Tariff proposals is conditional on the extent and efficacy of the protection to be afforded to labour, the Acting Prime Minister will, on the close of the general debate on the Budget and Tariff, submit his new method of protecting labour to the House for consideration, to enable honorable members to consider what it is worth before dealing with the lines giving protection to employés?

Sir WILLI AM LYNE:
Treasurer · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– I intend, on or before next Tuesday, to make a statement which I think the honorable member will regard as a reply to his question ; but if he wishes a formal answer, I ask him to give notice of the question for next week.

page 3268

QUESTION

EXCISE TARIFF (AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY) ACT

Mr HUTCHISON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

What steps have been taken to ascertain the amount of Excise due upon agricultural machinery and implements under the Excise Tariff 1906?
What steps have been taken to collect any amounts due?
What has been the cause of delay in collecting any amounts due?

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

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow - 1 and 2. The collectors in each State have been directed to call upon each manufacturer who has not applied for exemption to render an account of all excisable articles manufactured by him, and show cause why the Excise duty should not be forthwith paid.

In regard to those who have claimed and obtained exemption, it has been found’ necessary to obtain legal advice as to the authority of the Customs to enforce payment of Excise in case of subsequent non-compliance with the conditions of such exemption.

The delay has been unavoidable. The majority of applications for exemption in the States of Victoria, Queensland, and Western Australia have not yet been heard, and it is questionable whether the Excise should be enforced until simultaneous action may be taken in all the States.

page 3269

QUESTION

VICTORIAN TORPEDO PRACTICE

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

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Does he regard the fact as evidencing great skill on the part of the Victorian Naval experts that they should have been successful in finding their own torpedo, after losing it for two days during a course of instruction, as recorded in the daily press of yesterday ?
Is it a fact that about two years ago the same experts directed a loaded torpedo from one of the naval authority’s boats at a distant object, and that, instead of reaching the object Aimed at, it struck the bottom and exploded in close proximity to their own boat?

Mr EWING:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– If the honorable member desires a reply to these questions, I ask him to postpone them until Wednesday next, because there has not yet been time to get the necessary information. Similar questions could be asked in regard to the operations of any navy on the face of the earth.

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

– Should the occurrences referred to be allowed to pass without notice?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The time for asking questions without notice has passed.

page 3269

QUESTION

NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS

Mr SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether he is aware that many newspapers, registered so as to obtain cheap transmission, contain advertisements inimical to the natural increase of our population and conducing rather to an increase of the death-rate?
If he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to the detection and classification of such advertisements ?
If he can take steps under the Post and Telegraph Act to remove from the Register such publications as fail, after reasonable warning, to purge their columns of such harmful and degrading advertisements?
If he will further, under the same Act, cause the destruction of such publications sent through the post?

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

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

. No.
Yes; in connexion with inquiries which are already being made with regard to businesses that may contravene the provisions of the Post and Telegraph Act.
Newspapers containing advertisements which are indecent or obscene within the meaning of the Post and Telegraph Act may, subject to appeal to a Justice of the High Court, or to a Judge of the Supreme Court of a State, be removed from the Register.
Any posted newspapers found to contain matter contravening the provisions of the Post and Telegraph Act in the direction indicated in answer 3 will be destroyed.

page 3269

PAPERS

Mr. MAUGER laid upon the table the following papers -

Public Service Act - Regulations amended, Nos. 66 (Provisional) and 102 - Statutory Rules 1907, Nos. 89 and 92.

page 3269

BUDGET

Customs and Excise Tariffs

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from 12th Sep tember(vide page 3230) 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 MATHEWS:

– That is so. That is one form of protection, but it is not the most satisfactory. I believe in a policy that will build up our industries and benefit equally every class of the community. During this debate, we have heard a good deal of the iron industry., I should like to. point out that we have in operation in Victoria, to-day, a patent by which iron in one process can be converted into steel. The invention is a new one. If we had not encourged our iron manufactures in Victoria, is it likely that any one in this State would have been found devoting himself to the work of perfecting such an invention? We have been told over and over again that we cannot produce certain kinds of steel. But by the Moore-Heskett gas reverberatory principle, to which I have referred, magnificent steel can be produced by the ton.

Mr Atkinson:

– Is the steel so produced a success?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– I wish I had a thousand shares in the company that owns the patent.

Mr MATHEWS:

– We can obtain supplies of iron ore from Lal Lal, near Ballarat, and I have here many samples of steel produced in Victoria. I’ am told by experts that the piece of steel which I hold in my hand, and which was made in this State, is as good as any that could be produced. I shall read presently two or three testimonials which bear out that contention. I have here a lathe tool made from the same steel, and which experts declare to be hard enough for any purpose. Here is a piece of steel produced by the same firm, which is hard enough for use in connexion with machinery of any kind. If there are any experts in the House, they may test its temper on glass. I have here a piece of cold turned steel, also manufactured in Australia, where it- is said nothing of a satisfactory character can be produced, and where the people are told that they should depend solely upon imports to satisfy their needs. The honorable member for Grey said the other night that it was little short of a crime to place duties upon cream separators, since we could not manufacture high-speed steel. I am able to say authoritatively that we can produce high-speed steel suitable for use in connexion with agricultural machinery, cream separators, and other things used in the agricultural and dairying industry. What has the honorable member to say to the following testimonial, given by a Sydney firm to the holders of the MooreHeskett patent - 27th February, 1907. 745 Harris Street.

Ultimo.

To Whom it mav Concern.

This is to certify that a trial was given this morning in the presence of M. Colyer, Esq., at our works, 745-747 Harris-street, of’ three pieces of cast steel, and to give them as severe a test as possible they were tried against crucible caststeel wheel, and the result was most satisfactory, the edge holding good at 60 feet per minute. This steel we consider equal to any we have used as a high-speed tool-steel. The only drawback we can see is the tempering as. compared to other steel -

– What is the name of the firm ?

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr LIDDELL:
Hunter

.- I listened to the concluding remarks of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports with considerable interest ; but I take objection to his suggestion that the members of the Opposition are not considering the interests of the working classes of Australia. Parliament must legislate for the wellbeing of the whole community, and must bear in mind the conditions of the primary producers as well as the interests of the manufacturers.

Mr.Mathews. - The primary producers belong to the working classes.

Mr LIDDELL:

– Yes. Practically the whole population of Australia belongs to the working classes, and therefore I say that the Opposition in considering the welfare of the community at large is considering the interests of the working classes. We must legislate, not for the benefitof any particular class, but for the benefit of the whole population. Many persons seem to think that this debate is causing considerable and unnecessary delay, and that the sooner it is finished the better it will be for all concerned. But, in my opinion, it has proved most interesting, and will exert a beneficial effect on all parties in the Chamber. The statements which have been made in opposition to the Tariff should show the Ministry that the people of Australia as a whole do not favour high duties. That is proved, not only by the speeches which have been made here, but also by the numerous letters which have flooded the daily press, and the protests which have been received from various associations. The Labour Party should take note of the fact that the working man and his wife are beginning to feel the pinch of the higher duties. At the present time trade is practically paralyzed, and I cannot better convince the Committee of the difficulties and hardships which the Tariff is causing than by reading the statements of leading business men which have appeared in the public press in regard to it. The President of the Chamber of Commerce has put his views very clearly in these words -

From a business point of view it is most important that a final adjustment of the Tariff should be made. At present we are circumscribed by the uncertainty of our position. It has been intimated that some of the duties are likely to be reduced, but in the meantime people are not buying any more than they possibly can. We have been obliged to cancel a number of orders in consequence of the present Tariff, it being quite problematical whether the duties will be ultimately lowered. It is a question of adjusting the difference and passing it on to the consumer.

The last few words should be well pondered. Then Mr. W. H. Felstead, of the firm of Messrs. Beath, Schiess find Co., has written as follows: -

As long as uncertainty exists, there must be dislocation of business. At present buyers do not know what to do. The increase in prices has not been accompanied by a corresponding rise in wages, so that the result is that people who have only a certain amount to spend in a certain way have to put up with an inferior line, the price of better articles having become prohibitive so far as they are concerned. We have to order our goods from six to eighteen months in advance, and until the Tariff is settled we do not know what to order for the next eighteen months. It becomes a question whether to leave them in bond until a possible reduction of the Tariff occurs, or to get them out now and sell them perhaps at a loss. A great many customers who have ordered goods as per sample insist on that price being adhered to in spite of the duty, and if we do not agree they cancel the order. While this uncertainty exists people will not give any more orders than they can help. Our position is a very awkward one. We might pay ^5,000 excess duty on the season’s goods, and then perhaps the Tariff will not go through in its entirety. If there were any chance of this excess duty being refunded, we could open up our goods and take the risk of selling them.

Not only is the Tariff causing unrest and dislocation of business, but dishonest traders are taking advantage of it to increase prices, often in respect of goods on which there has been no increase of’ duty, or which were imported prior to the alteration of rates. I should like to know from the Ministry why a new Tariff has been introduced. The results of the last elections show that Australia did not desire another Tariff. It is all very well for some honorable members to say that the result proved that the majority of the people are in favour of increased duties. The fiscal question, most certainly in New South Wales, and in the majority of the other States, was not raised during the campaign. The election was fought entirely on the issue of Socialism versus anti-Socialism; it was only in Victoria that the question of protection was raised. I recognise that this was due. to the tactics of the Prime Minister and his colleagues in this State. The professional man certainly has not- asked for a higher Tariff. He cannot increase his fees, yet he has to pay a higher price for everything he uses. Nor do I think that the unfortunate clerk has asked for any increase in the Tariff. He obtains no increase of salary, and yet, under the new duties, his cost of living is considerably increased. The man who has asked for increased duties is the Victorian manufacturer, who knows that as the result of their imposition his profits will be considerably enhanced. He knows that the wages which he pays will not be raised, and that he will lose nothing under the new. Tariff. It is nothing more nor less than the influence (of the Victorian manufacturer) that has forced this policy upon the present Government. _ I can only say that, as the result of this high protection, the rich will become richer and will have further opportunities of spending their wealth abroad, as some of them are doing, whilst, on the other hand, the poor will become considerably poorer. The chief argument advanced in favour of protection is that it means an increased output. Are we to secure an increased output by building a prohibitive wall round the Commonwealth and keeping out importations? How are we going to increase the output of our manufactories when we have no population to take advantage of the goods so produced? What we need most of all is an increased population. We have a magnificent territory, with a few large cities and vast areas of unoccupied land, which could and should be put to a useful purpose. What are we doing to-day to encourage our primary industries? Nothing at all. The whole object of the Tariff is to crowd mure people into our towns and to encourage manufactories in the cities. Every one knows that a young and growing community needs to have its unoccupied lands peopled, and that those who settle upon the soil follow the healthiest of occupations. During last week, when the Royal Agricultural Society held its annual show at Flemington, the streets of the city were crowded with country visitors, and a casual glance at their splendid physique and the intelligence expressed in their faces was sufficient to satisfy one of the superiority of a country over a city population. It should be our endeavour, as far as possible, to encourage an increase in our rural population, to encourage closer settlement, and the development of the vast resources which lie beneath the soil. It would be far better to do that than to attempt by means of a highly protective Tariff to bolster up unhealthy industries which tend to concentrate our population within the few cities of Australia. It is absurd to imagine that by the agency of the Tariff we shall induce a rapid growth in the .Commonwealth. Our aim should be, if possible, to allow the country to develop naturally. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the -position of the dairy farmer under this Tariff. We know full well ;the importance of the dairying industry to Australia. In the electorate which I have the honour to represent, some of the farmers a few years ago found it difficult to make a living. But since the introduction of the dairying industry we find springing up all over the district comfortable homesteads inhabited by men who are doing well, and are in a position to rear their children under satisfactory conditions. As the result of the establishment of the dairying industry, they now enjoy settled incomes. What will this protective policy do to encourage such men? The magnitude and the growth’ of the industry is shown by the fact that in 1903 we manufactured 100,678,000 lbs. of butter; in 1904, 140,255.208 lbs.; and in 1905, 140,462,500 lbs. I have takenthese figures from Coghlan, and I .am sorry that I have not had- an opportunity to obtain the returns for 1906. I should like, .in passing, to express my regret that we have been deprived of the valuable work which was periodically brought out by Mr. Coghlan, and I hope that the Commonwealth Statistician, Mr. Knibbs, will endeavour as soon as possible to issue a similar publication. May I again ask what can high protective duties do for the dairy farmer? He is engaged in one of our primary industries ; but, instead of assisting him, we are taxing him from the cradle to the grave. By the application of labour and brains to the work, he can considerably increase the value of his land. In its unimproved state it may not be worth much more than ios. per acre; but by industry he may speedily raise its value to £5 per acre. What steps does he take to improve his property ? In the first place, he finds it necessary, even in the more settled districts, to sink a well to provide water for his stock. We find that the pump which he uses is heavily taxed, that the windmill which supplies the power to draw up the water is heavily taxed, and that the iron trough alongside the well, into which the water is forced for the use of his stock, is likewise subjected to a heavy impost. If he proposes to build a house for himself, he has to pay a tax on the galvanized iron used for roofing purposes, and the very timber of which the house is constructed is dutiable. So unsatisfactory are the timber duties that those engaged in the trade have already entered a protest against them. According to a press report -

The members of the Timber Merchants’ Association are not satisfied ‘ with the new Tariff. They ask that the duties on various descriptions of timber should be remitted. They contend that there is no timber in New South Wales which could take the place of Oregon, redwood, baltic, kauri, or white pine, and that, even if there were, the duties are so high as to be absolutely prohibitive. The new duties as compared with the old ones would probably mean an increase of 25 per cent. As the Tariff is now framed, it would be cheaper to import dressed timber. A heavy duty on New Zealand pine would be a serious matter, and would mean that a bos which now costs is. would be raised to is. 4d. Queensland could not supply pine in sufficient quantities for existing requirements.

This statement shows what is the position of the unfortunate man who is engaged in one of our primary industries. He has to pay duty on the timber that he uses to build his house, and, when he has produced his butter, and desires to send it to market, he finds that there is a heavy impost on the timber of which his butterboxes are made. The duty of 25 per cent, means an increase of 2jd. per box. There are some who would not object to such a duty if by means of it we could encourage another of our great primary industries, that of timber- getting. But we find that even Queensland is unable to supply local demands. Although Queensland pine may be a very good substitute for New Zealand pine for butter-boxes, yet that State is unable to supply the local demand. Only the other day a Queensland firm asked a Victorian maker of butter-boxes to quote a price for the supply of 12,000. It could not place an order here, and ultimately it procured the necessary boxes from New South Wales. They were made of New Zealand timber, because there was not a supply of local timber available, and each box was taxed to the extent of 2½dThose engaged in the industry naturally protest against such an impost. Here is an extract from a recent issue of one of our daily newspapers -

At the conference of directors of butter factories, which was held at the Hotel Metropole last night, Mr. W. Young (Kyneton) said that the Federal Government had raised the duties on dairy requisites and other articles. He moved - “ That this meeting view with alarm the proposal of the Federal Government to impose such duties on the various requisites necessary for carrying on the dairying industry as will seriously embarrass that industry. The meeting earnestly urges the members of the Federal Parliament to oppose such duties.”

One of the speakers at this Conference said that -

He had in his possession a letter from a Warwick (Queensland) company in which the writer asked a butter-box maker in Victoria to quote a price for 12,000 boxes made of New Zealand pine. Eventually the company purchased the boxes from a New South Wales firm, but the fact remains that they were made of New Zealand pine.

Sir William LyNE:

-r-It probably suited” the firm to obtain butter-boxes made of New Zealand pine.

Mr LIDDELL:

– There is not a sufficient supply of Queensland timber.

Mr Fisher:

– Nonsense.

– What is the use of a young country like Australia endeavouring to compete with the older countries of the world, which have grown accustomed to protective Tariffs by the experience of a hundred* years, and which possess populations of 60,000,000 or 80,000,000 ? Why should we endeavour, in the early stages of our national history, to emulate their example? Let us endeavour to settle the people upon the land, instead of attempting to encourage exotic industries within the city walls.’ The extract which I was quoting continues -

The use of properly-prepared infants’ food has had a very appreciable influence in this direction, but Federal Ministers have not hesitated to increase the taxes on all kinds of infants’ foods. In every household where there are young children these taxes will be severely felt, and no compensating advantage will accrue to the Commonwealth. The following are a few of the increases rendered necessary, either by the duty on the article of food or the bottle which contains it : -

We not only tax artificial foods for infants, but also the very vessels which contain them -

The above are retail prices. In the subjoined table the increases which the wholesale houses have actually made to the retail establishments are shown. These, with a little extra added, will be passed on to the purchaser by the retailer : -

That list illustrates very clearly the disabilities under which unfortunate infants who require to be fed upon artificial foods will labour under this Tariff. If a child belonging to a dairy-farmer, which has been deprived of its natural sustenance, becomes ill, it will be necessary for the father, to obtain the services of a professional man. The doctor will attend the infant and will probably prescribe medicine. The very drugs which he prescribes will have to be paid for. These too are taxed, so that if the doctor himself supplies them, he will be called on to pay for them. The dairyfarmer will not give his medical adviser more for his visits because the latter has to pay extra for the drugs which he prescribes. As I have already affirmed, it is the professional man who will suffer most under the operation of this Tariff. It is not the individual who drives about in his motorcar, and sneers at the poverty around him, who will feel the pinch most acutely, but it is the unfortunate professional man who cannot pass the tax on. The importer does not mind the duties imposed by the Government, because he can pass them on. In the same way, the retailer can pass them on. But the professional man - the lawyer; for example - cannot pass them on without resorting to fraud, and I am perfectly certain, from -what I know of the members of the legal profession, that the mere thought of fraud would be as far removed from them as is Heaven. The very chairs upon which the dairyfarmer sits at his table are taxed. The chair which is in general use amongst dairyfarmers is a light chair, which looks very well, and which is cool in the summer time. It is known as the Austrian chair. But the duty upon it is prohibitive, notwithstanding that it cannot be made in Australia. I would further point out that the life of a dairy-farmer centres around a machine which is known as the “ cream separator.” Any one who has visited one of these farms must have been struck by the musical hum of a separator at work. It is a machine in which the farmer takes a very great pride. He is very fond of pointing out to visitors its cleanliness and its smoothness in working. These separators cannot be manufactured in Australia, and yet, under the present Tariff they are heavily taxed. About the only country in which they can be manufactured is Sweden. There is a peculiarity about the metal of which they are composed. They revolve at an exceedingly high rate of speed, and if the metal were not of the very best quality, they might, at any moment fly asunder, and cause considerable damage. This particular class of metal cannot be obtained in Australia. But even if we could manufacture these machines locally, I would point out that they are so protected by patent rights - which will continue for some years - that it will be impossible to do so, or even to use them if so heavy a duty is levied upon them. Under the new Tariff the dairy-farmer will find himself considerably handicapped by the enhanced price of these machines.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– British cream separators are upon the free list.

Mr LIDDELL:

– What are we doing to help the dairy-farmer, whose market we know is not the Home market, but who has to sell his produce in the markets of the world? He has to compete with countries which are densely populated, and in which the very life-blood is squeezed out of their ‘ workers, so hard are the conditions of their labour. It is against such people as those that our dairy farmers have to compete in the markets of the world. What are we doing to assist the primary producers of Australia? All we are doing is to foster artificial trades and manufactures in the cities. I have just had placed in my hand a newspaper extract which bears out exactly what I have said. This is from the Brisbane Worker .which, I have no doubt, the members of the Labour Party regard as of considerable repute; and in a leading article on the 17th August, the editor writes -

Those who believe in High Protection have reason to fling up their caps this week and shout !’ Hurrah !”

A tariff after their own hearts has arrived, and heavy duties have been imposed on nearly everything we use - the chairs we sit on, the beds we sleep in, the tools we work with, the clothes we wear, the food we eat, the tobacco we smoke, even the matches we light our pipes with.

The article goes on -

Surely the Labour Party in the Federal Par- _ liament will insist upon a substantial reduction ‘ in those duties which will prove a severe burden upon the toiling workers in city and- bush, and on the settlers wrestling with the land.

An increase in the cost of living of from three to five shillings a week will plunge thousands of families below the poverty line, and incalculable evils will follow, reacting upon the social, moral, and industrial life of the community.

These are pregnant words, which should sink deeply into the hearts of the members of the Labour Party. I think that already the Acting Prime Minister begins to see the writing on the wall, and that he realizes that he will not receive that wholesale support from the Labour Party he expected when he threw the Tariff on the’ table. The article in the Worker proceeds -

The only hope of bringing this burdensome tariff down to more reasonable proportions lies with the Federal Labour Party. We look to them to lift taxation off the necessaries of life and the implements of agriculture.

I sincerely trust the Labour Party will not prove a broken reed when the time comes -

The Federal Treasurer’s estimate of increased Customs receipts to the amount of ^800,000 is a giving-away of the whole case. Foreign goods are not to be kept out, but the public are to be made to pay an extra ^800,000, with interest and profit added, upon next year’s consumption of dutiable goods.

It is not often I find myself in accord with the opinions of the editor of this newspaper; but on this occasion I can cordially indorse what he says. I am sorry to say that on other questions his opinions are not quite so sound . as they are regarding the Tariff. In the electorate of Hunter, which borders on the sea-coast, there are many fishermen, who brave the perils of the sea, and work very hard, in order to supply our markets with fresh fish every morning. It is the boast of the Ministry that tools of trade, and especially the machinery used in certain mills, are not taxed ; but, unfortunately, the fishermen of Australia are handicapped, owing to the fact that the. nets they use bear a duty of 20 per cent. Further, the very material out of which the nets are made is taxed, so that the fishermen suffer double injustice as a result of the Tariff. Then, the wine industry is one of the most important in Australia, and one which, I believe, has a great future before it. Those engaged in wine-growing have to sell their produce in the markets of the world, and they find the greatest difficulty in pushing sales in England, on the Continent, and in America. It is our duty, instead of taxing their means of production, to do all possible in the way of assisting the industry, and placing it on a sound basis, to enable it to meet the competition of the world. In the Hunter electorate, not very far from Maitland, ‘there has been established a distillery, and in the same district there are a great many vineyards, which employ large numbers of men, women and children. The secretary of the Hunter Valley Distillery Company Limited, Mr. Chas. H. Starkey, writes as follows - 93 York-street; Sydney, 7th September, 1907.

I am instructed by the directors of the abovementioned company to forward you a copy of a letter addressed to the honorable the Minister for Customs protesting against an extension of the time determined by the Federal Government under the Spirits Act of 1906, when the age limit of two years for spirit in wood should be enforced.

The Hunter Valley Distillery Co. Ltd. carries on the only distillery in the State of New South Wales, and my directors have, to the present detriment of their shareholders, made arrangements to meet the requirements of the Act, and they contend that it is manifestly unfair to alter the time limit to meet the request of persons whose interests could * have been similarly guarded, and they would also point out that the public health demands that the limit of at least two years, so wisely ratified by the Federal Parliament, should be most rigidly enforced.

It seems unfair that this particular company should’ be placed at a disadvantage owing to an alteration in the regulations. I have here a copy of a letter by the same gentleman, addressed to the Prime Minister as follows -

It having come to the knowledge of my directors that a request has been made to you, by Victorian spirit merchants and distillers, that an extension be granted -until October, 1908, before they are required to comply with the provisions of ti e Spirit Act of 1906, they contend that sufficient time to meet the provisions of the Act referred to has been given to distillers and merchants, and that the extension asked for would be manifestly unfair to those who have taken precautions to meet the requirements of this Act.

This company has never placed any brandy on the market unless considerably over the two years’ limit, and, in the interests of consumers, they consider the age limit is quite fair and reasonable.

My directors have deferred sales, and consequent dividends to shareholders, to enable them to hold stock and permanently place a matured brandy before the public, and the shareholders will, if the extended age limit as requested is granted, be actually penalized for the reliance placed by their directors on the good faith of the Commonwealth Government.

To allow crude, immature spirits to be placed on the market would not only be unfair to the distillers who have thus taken steps to comply with the above-named Act, but it would be a menace to the health of the community, and as the company are distillers of brandy only from pure grape wine (the medicinal qualities pf which are exceptional and invaluable), my directors would ask the Government not to allow any suggested hardships in individual instances, which could have been avoided, to influence their judgment towards the alteration of the wise provisions of the present Spirit Act of 1906.

I believe that this distillery produces the finest brandy in the Commonwealth; and I suggest to the Government that a sample should be obtained for the refreshment:room, so that, in the event of any honorable member feeling indisposed, an effective stimulant may be at hand. To show that there are further disadvantages to which this industry is exposed, I shall read a letter which was addressed to the Acting Prime Minister by Dr. Thomas Fiaschi, President of the New South WalesWine Association, setting out the position very clearly -

On behalf of the Wine Association of New South Wales, and through my association, on behalf of the wine-growing community of this State, I beg to, respectfully, submit to your consideration the following incidences of our industry as affected by the new Tariff. Under the old conditions casks, bottles, corks, capsules, sealing wax, and other requisites used by vignerons and wine merchants were already high in price. This price was steadily on the increase owing to the large demand for bottles. Even before the present Tariff, charges, such as freight, commissions, duty, wharfage, insurance, exchanges, &c, amounting to 100 per cent, on the manufacturer’s price, afforded an ample protection to the local producer. The new Customs rates, however, will affect those interested in the following manner : -

Casks. - Before the imposition of the new Tariff, the cost of hogsheads was from 14s. to 18s., according to the nature of the spirit thev had contained. These casks, being seasoned, are preferable to new ones for immediate use. Besides, a number of them are re-exported with wine to England, and it seems hard that a duty should have to be paid on them, especially in view of the low prices Australian wines obtain in the London market. Most of pur wines are quoted and sold, casks included. Under the new tariff, with a duty of 12s. per cask, the cost of hogsheads will be increased 25s. to 30s. each, which is a most serious matter to our winegrowers. In fact, it is prohibitive. The same applies to quarter casks, which used to cost from 7s. to 10s. each, and will now be raised to practically double that figure.

In addition to the above, many of these casks, hogsheads, and quarters are used by coopers to cut down into octaves and kegs, which would entail a loss all round under the new tariff. There again the duty of 35 per cent. on large casks is so exorbitantly highas to militate against the wine industry if persisted in.

The duty on shooks is also much too high, considering Australian timbers are not suitable for wine or spirit casks, owing to their pronounced and disagreeable flavour and porousness. They have been repeatedly tested, and had to be relinquished for that reason, especially for the lighter and more delicate wines of our State. There are no Australian timbers at present known suitable for that purpose.

Bottles. - The prices of bottles have been high for years past, and have been steadily on the rise owing to the ever increasing demand for them. With these, in particular, the charges such as freight, commissions, duty, &c.,have been far in excess of the actual manufacturer’s costs. Under the new tariff the cost of imported black wine bottles, for instance, would work out as under : -

We would add to the cost of packing and charges without any duty on an assorted parcel of quarts and pint bottles, i.e., 11s.3d.pergrossor11d.perdoz., with old duty this charge was raised to 12s. 7d. per gross, or1s.0½d. per doz., and now. with the exorbitant and unreasonable duty, it is to be raised to 19s. 6d. per gross, or1s. 7½d. per doz. Wecouldquote many similar instances, but these will be sufficient.

The new duty on small bottles, such as flasks, will be another barrier in the development of the brandy-trade, a large amount of Australian brandy being sold at present in these bottles.

We also wish to. point out that the higher prices of bottles, the result of the new tariff, must of necessity lead to a larger distributing trade in the bulk, with a corresponding shrinkage in labour on account of a diminution in bottling operations.

Capsules. - With regard to these, we beg to point out that to load capsules with 6d. per lb. on advertising, in addition to a general tariff of 5 per cent., is absolutely prohibitive. Capsules are not manufactured at present in Australia.

Corks. - Considering that corks are neither grown nor manufactured here, a duty of 6d. per lb. is quite unreasonable, and will materially add to the cost of Australian-grown wine or brandy.

The wine industry of this State, and of the other States, is one with large prospects, and requires all the legitimate fostering your Government can extend to it. The granting of a prohibitive protective policy to a few manufacturers will very seriously militate against the interests of a much larger community of winegrowers and merchants.

As to the encouragement of the cork industry, it is well known that the cork tree is not now grown here, and even if it would grow, it would take some years to come to maturity. Moreover, it is doubtful whether the bark of such trees grown in Australia would be suitable for the making of corks. I know a gentleman whosebusiness was practically ruined because two bottles of wine out of a dozen which he sold - he was a seller of large quantities - were found to be “corked “ - that is, the wine was slightly flavoured with the taste of the corks, and as a result his trade vanished. The Government propose to put a heavy duty on corks, although it is not known whether the cork tree will grow in Australia, or whether, if grown here, its bark would be suitable for the making of corks. It is absurd to think of this Administration endeavouring to foster primary industries. The only industries which it will foster are slum industries.

Sir William Lyne:

– They are going to kick the honorable member out next time.

Mr LIDDELL:

– Speaking during the electoral campaign, I said that I should be prepared to assist industries which were being strangled ; but I cannot support the high protective duties now proposed, and I call upon other honorable members to assist me in reducing them. I should like to see such a fight in regard to the Tariff that the whole of Australia will ring with, it. I am prepared to fight against it, and, if necessary, to die in the last ditch, or in the last division. To say that free-trade has no champions in this Chamber is ridiculous. The sooner we come to close quarters, the better it will be for the country, because the present state of unrest is seriously interfering with commerce. I - and there are others like me - intend to fight for reductions on item after item. The honorable member for Coolgardie, when speaking on the Naval Agreement, drew attention to a letter written by Mr. Richard Hain, who I am told, was once connected with the Post Office, but was pensioned off on the score of ill-health. Like many such pensioners, he seems to have acquired a new lease of life, and to be flourishing like a young bay tree. Mr. Hain appointed himself a sort of Boswell tq the Prime Minister’s Johnson, and followed him to London, I believe at his own expense, making a careful record of the honorable gentleman’s speeches and actions. He seems to have obtained information which we do hot possess. Writing to the newspapers he has endeavoured to prove that Sir Joseph Ward, the Premier of New Zealand, has been brought into line with our Prime Minister in regard to the Naval Agreement. He writes -

The Conference, indeed, handed the matter over to Lord Tweedmouth and Mr. Deakin, and Sir Joseph Ward was also brought into agreement with them, so that there should be one clear naval policy in the western Pacific.

He tries to prove that the Prime Minister expressed the opinion that the Commonwealth wishes to provide for its own naval defence, anti to discontinue the subsidy payable under the Naval Agreement, and that Sir Joseph Ward was prepared to join him. A report of the proceedings of the Conference has been placed in our hands ; but we are warned that - whenever the Conference got to a point where caution in treating the question publicly was needed there is a sudden silence in the official report -

That is only natural - but there is very good reason for believing that more talk went on in private between the First Lord of the Admiralty and Mr. Deakin and Sir Joseph Ward over the Naval Agreement than in the open Conference, and it is the result of those discussions which is of importance, and not that of the discussion in the Conference. At the close of negotiations the Daily Chronicle announced that Mr. Deakin has withdrawn Australia from the Naval Agreement.

The Prime Minister has denied this; but there has been no Ministerial pronouncement’ on the subject. We are all sorry that the honorable gentleman is absent through illness, yet that is no reason why the Acting Prime Minister should shelter behind him. At present, we are governed by one man, the other Ministers having apparently very little to do in matters of policy; but we should know what the view of the Administration is on this question. Lord Tweedmouth said in so many words that the motherland recognises her responsibility for the defence of Great Britain and her dependencies and dominions beyond the seas, and is prepared to undertake it ; but he stated that she will be very glad of the assistance of the self-governing Colonies in any way that may seem good to them, such as the fortification of their shores or the making of contributions towards the up-keep of the Imperial Navy. But he insisted that the Admiralty must have undivided and complete control of all the vessels which form that navy. Sir Joseph Ward agreed with him in that, and the Prime Minister seems to have done so too. But the Prime Minister had no mandate from Australia to announce that this country wishes to withdraw from the Naval Agreement, while Sir Joseph Ward stated that, in his opinion, New Zealand does not wish to do so, but that before committing himself on the subject he would like to consult the people in regard to it. He seemed to think that the people of New Zealand would be prepared to increase their contributions if that should bethought necessary. Lord Tweedmouth stated at the. Conference that -

The only reservation the Admiralty desire to make is that they claim to have the charge of the strategical questions which’ are necessarily involved in naval defence, to hold the command of the Naval Forces of the country, and to arrange the distribution of ships in the best possible manner to resist attacks, and to defend the Empire at large, whether it be our own islands or the Dominions beyond the seas. We thoroughly recognize that we are responsible for that defence. . . . We acknowledge our absolute obligation to defend the King’s Dominions across the seas to the best of our ability. . . . There is one sea, there is one Empire, and there is one Navy, and I want to claim in the first place your help, and in the second place authority from the Admiralty to manage this great service without ‘restraint.

Could language be clearer than that? He continued -

His Majesty’s Government recognise the desire of the self-governing colonies to have a more particular share in providing the naval defence force of the Empire, and, so long as the condition of unity of command and direction of the fleet is maintained, they are ready to consider a modification of the existing arrangements to meet the views of the various colonies.

Sir Joseph Ward, replying to Lord Tweedmouth, said -

I want to convey for New Zealand my concurrence in the expressions that Lord Tweedmouth has given utterance to, that we should have confidence in the Board of Admiralty and in the British Government in connexion with the Navy. I subscribe lo that absolutely. . . . I want to say that I fully indorse the view expressed by Lord Tweedmouth, that there is but one sea around our shores, and that with one sea and one Empire, there should in reality be but one Navy.

These are the words to which I desire to draw special attention -

The outcome of deliberations such as we are engaged in now, should be to place both ships and the disposition of the ships, and the distribution of the ships and the whole question of strategical work, entirely under the control of those at the pulse of the Empire - London; who are responsible in the time of war for the working out of any engagements that may take place for the purpose of common, defence.

Sir Joseph Ward very wisely does not believe in a dual control, or in an Australasian Navy, which would not be under the direction of the Admiralty. In many respects, which I need not enumerate, such a Navy would be a clanger to the mother country. In speaking for New Zealand, which is a party to the Naval Agreement, Sir Joseph Ward said -

I would like to try and make the position, as far as New Zealand is concerned, quite clear in connexion’ with this matter. . . . New Zealand has made no request of any kind for an alteration of the existing agreement, and I readily acquiesce in the suggestion made by the First Lord of the Admiralty that New Zealand in relation to the mother country will of necessity require to continue by direct subsidy or an increased subsidy which we are quite willing to give for a continued attachment to the Navy proper which we consider is so important to us.

He made it perfectly clear that New Zealand is prepared not only to continue her present subsidy, but, if necessary, to increase it. She has no desire to build a navy of her own, but, at the same time, does not wish to interfere with such a project on the part of the Commonwealth. Sir Joseph Ward went on to say -

I am quite certain New Zealand, if required to, under altered proposals that may be suggested, with a view to cementing the defence of the Empire as a whole, would be willing to increase its contribution.

Nothing could be plainer. The writer of the article to which I have referred adopts an attitude which suggests that he has some secret information. If he has, I am at a loss to know where he’ obtained it. He has said that what is put before us as a report of the Conference is altogether erroneous and misleading. In other words, he suggests that dust has been thrown in our eyes by the Ministry, and that he is the man who knows what actually transpired in connexion with the consideration of this question at home. He says distinctly that Sir Joseph Ward has fallen into line with the Prime. Minister. I think I have proved conclusively, by quotations from the official report, that that statement is incorrect. The spectacle which

Australia presented to the. world when her representatives went to England and asked the British Government to grant us a preference - to change what had been her national policy for nearly sixty years, and to impose heavy duties on foreign imports in order that we might reap the- benefit - was a somewhat sordid one.

Mr Johnson:

– Great Britain was asked to tax the food and clothing of her own people for the benefit of Australia.

Mr LIDDELL:

– That is so. I should be -glad to see Australia grant a preference to British imports. I should like all our imports, if possible, to come from the mother country, but I do not think that the Prime Minister has taken up a proper attitude in regard to the question of preference. He offered Great Britain absolutely nothing in return for that which he asked her to give us. The Acting Prime Minister is reported to have said at the Imperial Conference - t would like to ask Lord Tweedmouth a question in connexion with the Australian proposals.

In a democratic country such as this we are accustomed to speak out boldly, and I am inclined to think that the authorities at Home were, to some extent, surprised bv the questions sometimes put by our representatives. The Acting Prime Minister continued -

It is not intended, I presume, to remove the present squadron, or any large proportion of that squadron, until, if we can make a new arrangement, our coastal defence is fairly complete.

The honorable member has an eye on the main chance. He thinks that we should discontinue the subsidy, but that the vessels of the Australian Squadron should remain in Australian waters. Who will be able to say, for some years, whether or not our coastal defence is complete? In the meantime, we are to take all that we can obtain from the mother country, and give nothing in return. In reply to this question, Lord Tweedmouth said-

There is no intention of moving the squadron as it at present exists until a hew arrangement is arrived at.

There’ is another point to which I desire to draw attention. In his report on the question of defence, Captain Creswell advises that we should embark upon an expenditure on torpedo boats and torpedoboat” destroyers. The report of the Imperial Conference makes it particularly clear that the class of vessels most favoured by the Admiralty for the purposes of local defence is not torpedo boats, but submarines. If a torpedo boat attempted to attack a cruiser in daylight she would quickly be blown out of the water. The submarine is most strongly recommended by the Admiralty, and is evidently the boat of the future for us. Captain Creswell is misleading us to a certain extent when he advises us to construct or purchase torpedo boats. Let me quote what Lord Tweedmouth said on the subject -

Sir Joseph Ward asked what is the opinion of the Admiralty with regard to the comparative merits of submarine local defence, and subsidy. That, I think, is a question upon which we at the Admiralty cannot pretend to adjudicate. We say, if the Colonies decide on a system of local defence, we think submarines would be the most useful way of beginning it, and that Colonies would find that a submarine flotilla would be the best way from their point of view and from a strategical point of view of defending the coast, to begin with, at any rate. They might afterwards develop the destroyer, and so forth; but to begin with the submarine would be the best plan that could be adopted in everybody’s interests.

We do not refuse the subsidy plan, and I do not think it would come well from us to say that we insist that the subsidies should be dropped. That, I think, is a matter for the Colonies themselves. So far as we are. concerned, the subsidy is a very convenient way of receiving help from the Colonies; but we quite recognise that it is a question for the Colonies themselves as to how far it is to be subsidy and how far it is to be local defence.

Another peculiar feature of the report of the Conference is that it shows that whenever there was any doubt as to the passing of a resolution it was not put. It appeared to be the desire of the delegates to the Conference that unanimity should prevail. When it was evident that a proposal was not likely to be unanimously agreed to it was quietly allowed, to drop, and so when Dr. Smartt moved a resolution relating to naval defence Sir Wilfrid Laurier said -

We, of the different Dominions beyond the Seas, have tried to be unanimous up to the present time. I am sorry to say this is a question upon which we could not be unanimous. Therefore, Dr. Smartt can move it if he chooses, or withdraw it. But if he presses it I should have to vote against it.

We find in that statement an indication of the reason why this question was not settled ir the Conference. There was a want of unanimity, and consequently it was thought unwise to put the resolution. I think I have proved that, in the first place, the Prime Minister had no mandate from Australia to take up at the Conference the at titude which he did with regard to theNaval Agreement. I have also proved that Mr. Hain’s contention that Sir Joseph Ward had been brought into line with the Prime Minister, and shared his views on that question is also erroneous. I have shown,, further, that if we adopt the naval policy suggested by Captain Creswell we shall be acting contrary to the advice of the Admiralty, and finally I think I have shown most conclusively that it would be a matter for regret if we terminated the Naval Agreement until the country had expressed an opinion upon it. Passing away from the question of defence, I should like now to bring under the notice of the PostmasterGeneral one or two matters relating to hisDepartment. I make no apology for criticising it. We have the authority of the Prime Minister himself for the statement that the privilege which we enjoy of criticising our public departments is one_ that ishighly prized. Speaking at the ImperialConference, he said -

We have freely used State agencies and continue to use them, and many of us are strongly of opinion that it is only by their employment that the complex conditions of modern government can be dealt with. If, therefore, we criticise State Departments it is because so muchof the success of the policy which we advocate depends upon them and upon ‘their power of adaptation to the business side of social life. In Australia we are constant critics of our ownDepartments, and experience shows, with good” reason. One of the chief tasks of our Parliament is that of endeavouring to bring the various agencies comprised in their public officesinto more fruitful relation with the circumstances of the country. We have busy Parliaments passing many laws, most of them demanding some administrative work, and many of them demanding a great deal, but we find the purposes- of those law’s defeated or their ends avoided, unless by constant criticism and revision of methods we keep our Department’s, touse a familiar expression, up to date.

The Postmaster-General will not quarrel with me if I endeavour to point out a few of the grievances under which the postal employes labour, and urge him to lose notime in rectifying them. The Post and Telegraph Department is a great institution. It enters into the life of nearly every inhabitant of the country. It bringsu.j into touch with the rest of the world, and anything wrong with it must of necessity be far-reaching in its effects. It is evident that there is & great deal of dissatisfaction and discontent in the Department. There are connected with it certain associations that are perfectly legitimate. For example, the post and telegraph masters have an association of their own, the clerical division have another, and the telegraph operators have a third. Three or four months ago those associations met in conference, and decided to take a referendum as to the best method of remedying their grievances. The result of the referendum was that an overwhelming majority determined that there should be a public inquiry, or that something in the nature of a Royal Commission should be appointed, in order that they might properly ventilate their wrongs, and ‘ have them remedied. They formed a deputation, and approached the Public Service Commissioner and the Secretary of the Central Administration ; but nothing came of their application. Thev were promised a departmental inquiry by the Minister and the Secretary, but that inquiry proved of little use to them. They contend that their complaints are well founded, and that they are the result of the cheeseparing policy adopted by the Department, lt is only by making these facts public that a definite result can be arrived at. The chief grievance of officers in the Department arises from the fact that there is a classification of the service resulting in individual inequalities and injustice.

Mr Mauger:

– I suppose that the honorable member will say that that is the fault of the Government ?

Mr LIDDELL:

Mr ATKINSON:
Wilmot

.- had hoped that this debate would have finished long ago, and that I should have been spared the necessity of addressing the Committee until we were engaged on the real business of considering the items of the Tariff, because the country is asking that they shall be disposed of as quickly as possible. However, I can see plainly that, whether I speak or not, we are not likely to reach the items any quicker, and therefore I take the opportunity to make a few remarks. I intended to speak at greater length had I managed to get into the debate earlier, but, under the circumstances, I shall content myself with observations of a general character on the most important points.

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

– I understand that it is the intention to take the items seriatim.

The CHAIRMAN:

– When the Committee considers the Tariff in detail I shall put each item separately. Up to the present I haveput the resolution as one resolution, but it has always been the custom in dealing with matters of a complicated character to deal withthem seriatim. As soon as the general discussion is over, and we come to the first item, I shall put that, and afterwards each item separately. I remind honorable members, in case of any misunderstanding, that if I put the first item to the Committee I shall then not be able to allow them to enter into a general discussion on the Budget, but shall have to confine them entirely to the Tariff. The question is - That item No. 1-

Ale, Porter, and Other Beer ; Cider, and Perry, containing not less than 2 per cent. of proof spirit : - (a) In bottle, per gallon,1s. 6d. ;

In bulk, per gallon,1s. be agreed to.

Ale, Porter, and Other Beer; Cider, and Perry containing not less than 2 per cent, of proof spirit: - (a) In bottle, per gallon, is. 6d. ; (n) In bulk, per gallon, is.

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

– I wish to know, Mr. Chairman, whether the honorable member for Bourke is making a personal explanation, or indulging in a general address to the Committee? I submit that if he is not making a personal explanation he is out of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I must confine the discussion to the item before the Chair.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is open to the honorable member, or to any other honorable member? to move that my ruling be disagreed with. If that course be adopted the difficulty will be overcome, but the wrangling that is now taking place is not calculated to uphold the dignity of the Committee.

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

– I shall obey your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and proceed to discuss the first item.

Sir William Lyne:

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Let the bells be rung, and the honorable member will see whether we have or not.

Progress reported.

page 3298

ADJOURNMENT

Personal Explanations- Miners for Broken Hill- Budget and Tariff Debate

Motion (by Sir William Lyne) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr LIDDELL:
Hunter

.- The Government Whip has said that I made a remark this afternoon which misled him. I accept the whole responsibility for that which I did say. I am not going to inform the Government Whip or any one else how long I intend to> speak on any question. As a matter of fact, when I rose to speak on the Budget and Tariff I did hot anticipate addressing the Committee as fully as I did, but I certainly decline to be criticised because I, to some extent, misled the honorable member for Bourke. I further decline to be bullied by a man like the Acting Prime Minister.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

.- I also wish to make a personal explanation. Prior to the honorable member for Hunter addressing the Committee this morning, I, acting on the advice of the -Acting Prime Minister, asked him how long he was likely to be, and whether he would have any objection to the Acting Prime Minister interposing. He told me that he would not occupy the attention of the Committee for more than half-an-hour, and. I advised the Acting Prime Minister accordingly. The honorable member for Hunter spoke for twenty minutes before luncheon, and for a considerable time this afternoon. He was certainly under no obligation to tell me how long he was going to speak, but I accepted his statement in good faith, and conveyed, it to the Acting Prime Minister. That is all I know of the incident. I do- know, however, that the honorable member for Hunter did not keep his word.

Mr KNOX:
Kooyong

.- The honorable member for Darling on Wednesday evening animadverted upon statements that had been made with regard to employment for miners at Broken Hill. I wish to read a few lines from a report which I have received to-day from the acting general manager of the Broken Hill Company. The report is as -follows : -

Two hundred thoroughly competent miners accustomed to rock-drill work would represent vacancies for this class of man at the present time, and from all appearances this state of affairs will not be remedied unless a special supply be arranged for. As regards truckers and general labourers the same remark applies, and fifty able-bodied men accustomed to this class of work could, be taken On. Apart from the above, the other mines on. the Barrier could take 160 miners of the class above-mentioned. The above shows that 410 men could be advantageously absorbed by the mining companies at Broken Hill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 4.10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 13 September 1907, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1907/19070913_reps_3_39/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives13 September 1907

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES

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

QUESTION

TARIFF

Mr GLYNN:ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLI AM LYNE:Treasurer · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

EXCISE TARIFF (AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY) ACT

Mr HUTCHISON:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

QUESTION

VICTORIAN TORPEDO PRACTICE

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

Mr EWING:Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

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

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS

Mr SALMON:LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

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

PAPERS

BUDGET

Customs and Excise Tariffs

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr MATHEWS:Melbourne Ports

Mr Hutchison:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Hutchison:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Wilks:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Austin Chapman:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Atkinson:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Mauger:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Atkinson:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Storrer:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Storrer:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Mauger:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Mauger:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Atkinson:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Atkinson:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Bowden:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Bowden:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Hutchison:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr J H Catts:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Atkinson:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Sampson:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Atkinson:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Atkinson:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Atkinson:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Wilks:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Sampson:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr Edwards:

Mr MATHEWS:

House of Representatives
13 September 1907

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

Mr GLYNN:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLI AM LYNE:
Treasurer · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

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

Mr EWING:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

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

Mr SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

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

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr STORRER:
Bass

Mr LIDDELL:
Hunter

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

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

Mr ATKINSON:
Wilmot

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 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