House of Representatives
17 October 1907

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

PETITIONS
QUESTION
- PATENT MEDICINES
QUESTION
- MILITARY BAYONETS
QUESTION
- WIRE NETTING
QUESTION
- POST OFFICE ADMINISTRATION
QUESTION
- VICTORIAN TELEGRAPHS
TARIFF
- Chiltern, Monday
PAPERS

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

page 4842

PETITIONS

Mr. KING O’MALLEY presented a petition from certain retail confectioners, of Queenstown, Tasmania, praying the House to agree to the former duties on confectionery, or to a maximum duty of 2d. per lb.

Mr. COON presented a petition from 850 workers employed in the manufacturing of confectionery in Victoria, praying the House to agree to the duties on confectionery proposed by the Government.

Mr. COON presented a petition from 1,040 boot operatives of Victoria, praying the House to agree to a duty of 35 per cent, on boots and shoes.

Petition’s received and read.

page 4842

QUESTION

PATENT MEDICINES

Mr THOMAS:
BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister of Trade and Customs inform the House when the Bill dealing with the importation’ of patent medicines will be introduced?

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

– As soon as the Attorney-General can get. it ready. I hope that it will not be long before the Tariff discussion will be finished, and we shall be able to pass it.

Mr Thomas:

– The Minister’s predecessor, promised more than twelve months ago that the measure would be introduced very soon.

page 4842

QUESTION

MILITARY BAYONETS

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– Is it true, as reported in the press, that the military authorities intend to adopt a short bayonet in lieu of the long bayonet now in use? If so, is the Minister aware that the British Government, having adopted the short rifles, are using longer bayonets?

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

– The matter is under con-, siderarion, no definite conclusion Saving yet been arrived at. I understand that the Imperial authorities have not quite made up their minds on this subject.

page 4842

QUESTION

WIRE NETTING

New South Wales Government Importation

Mr CHANTER:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

What were the names of the ships that brought the rabbit-proof wire nettingto Sydney, to the order of the Government nf New South. Wales?
What was the total quantity of such wire-, netting imported?
In what countries was the said wire netting’ manufactured - specifying the separate quantities in each?
What were the stated values per ton’ of the-, netting as ‘landed in Sydney ?
Will he also ascertain if the rabbit-proof netting imported by the Government of New South Wales was up to the standard gauge as invoiced, or if it was not in fact found to consist of a much lighter material ?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

– The information is being obtained.

page 4842

QUESTION

POST OFFICE ADMINISTRATION

Victorian Promotions. - Undermanning of New South Wales Department.

Mr TUDOR:
YARRA, VICTORIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

How many officers in the Fifth Class, Clerical Division, in the Postal Department of Victoria were recommended for promotion to the Fourth Class for the year 1906-7?
How many such recommended promotions were provided for in the Estimatesfor that year?
In cases, if any, where recommendations were disallowed, what were the general reasons for such disallowance? .
How many promotions from Class 5 to Class 4 have been recommended for the year 1907-8?
How . many such- recommended promotions have” been provided for in the Estimates for 1907-8?

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

– The following answers have been furnished by the Public Service Commissioner -

None.
None,so. far as special provision on theEs. timates is concerned, although by. the ordinary process of filling vacancies, a number of post masters, postmistresses, and telegraphists were promoted from Class 5 to Class 4.
See answer to No. 1.
Four.
Four, exclusive of promotions which nrresult during the year from the occurrence of vacancies in Class 4.

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Did the Deputy Postmaster-General in Sydney ask that nrovision should be made in the Estimates for 1907-8 for a’ considerable increase an the staff of his Department to insure the efficient administration and working of the same in New South Wales?
If so, how many additional officers did he estimate were required?
For how many . additional officers has provision been made in the Estimates?
Is it a fact that the Department in New South Wales has heen undermanned and overworked for some time past?

Mr MAUGER:

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

Yes.

3.267.

To some extent if has during the last financial year, owing to an abnormal and to some extent unexpected increase of business.

page 4843

QUESTION

VICTORIAN TELEGRAPHS

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

– On the10th.inst., the honorable member for Yarra asked me a aeries of questions - Hansard, page 4519 - regarding certain allegations contained in a letter published in the Argus on the 30th August. An interim answer was given, but I am now furnished with detailed replies, which are as follow -

Yes.
It is reported that 40 are now required as against 30 in 1903.
Thirteen.
The number of hands asked for was reduced by the Treasurer, because he considered it. undesirable to largely increase permanently the staff required to deal with the business in a time of great activity, which might not be constant, and because he thought that the immediate pressure could be adequately, met by the employment of temporary hands, for which he was -willing to make provision, vide his statement in Parliament (page 3310 of Hansard).
Yes, but officers eat their lunch while on duty, and it is reported that since 1st January this year no officer has so worked on an average more than two and a-half times per month, and that telegraphists were offered as an alternative to work 7½ hours continuously only when this special extra duty was required of them, but they preferred the9-hour arrangement to being called upon to work extra duty more frequently. In. no case, it is said, do these officers exceed the limit fixed by the Public Service Commissioner of 84 hours per current fortnight.
See answer to No. 5. Instructions have been given that will prevent working for long periods without an interval for a meal ; also that telegraphists are not to be utilized for relieving in purely clerical branches, and temporary hands will be employed to meet requirements, vide answer to No. 4.
A report has been called for, and will be laid upon the table when received.

WAYS AND MEANS(Formal).

Personal Explanations : Rebate on Machinery Duties - Office of Deputy Postmaster-General, Victoria - Sewerage of Parliament Buildings - Postal Administration, New South Wales - Claims of Postal Employes - Central Telephone Bureau, Sydney - Letter Carriers -Public Service Administration - Contract, Semi-Official and Allowance Post Offices - Payment for Repair of Telegraph Lines - Case of Letter Carrier, Newtown - Rights of Transferred Public Servants-New Appointments, Post and Telegraph Department.

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

.- The Minister of Trade and Customs has apparently misunderstood the position. I did not make the statement which the honorable gentleman attributes to me. The exact words I used were -

It is a significant fact that hat-making has again received preferential treatment. I admit that the Customs Department have the power to do what they have done, but why did not the Government, when they discovered that exorbitant duties had been placed on other articles, such as chairs, use the same power to reduce the duty, say, from 7s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. per chair?

I thanked the Minister last night for his courtesy, and I thank him to-day for the further information he has afforded. We are told now that it was the ComptrollerGeneral who gave this decision without consulting the Minister-; and if that be so, I regard it as a most dangerous practice - as a most dangerous power to place in the hands of any Comptroller- General. Of course, we know that for whatever the Comptroller-General does the Minister must take. the responsibility; and I asked the question last night because I found that hat leathers had been treated in’ the way described a few days after the lodging of the Tariff. The Minister informed me that the discovery was made that there had been atn omission; and I now ask, how do we know that similar omissions have not been made in other directions? I did not accuse the Minister of Trade and Customs of favouring any industry, but merely alluded to the significant fact that the hat industry enjoys two kinds of preference - one in regard to leather bands, and another in regard to machinery. Had T or any one else thought that the Minister had been so neglectful of his duty as to favour any trade or occupation, not merely a question would have been asked, but T think thf leader of the Opposition would have tabled a vote of censure. I take this opportunity to make clear my reasons for asking the question last night.

Mr REID:
East Sydney

.- Without imputing any personal or improper interest of any kind on the part of Ministers - which I admit would -be a matter not to be dealt with except in the most formal way - I deliberately repeat that the conduct of the Government has amounted to an act of favoritism to two particular industries. I desire to prove that, and, in proving it, I refer to the Tariff which is now the law of the land. In that Tariff there is no schedule of any kind like the schedule of which I spoke a few days ago. In the Tariff’ Act of 1902 there is not a schedule like that to which I am now referring - a schedule which, whilst professing to make machinery liable to duty, enables those who pay that duty to get a refund. There has never -been such, a schedule in connexion with Commonwealth Tariff legislation. A further point is, that whilst machinery used in woollen and hat mills was exempt under the old Tariff, that exemption was a straightforward one,, such machinery being included under the heading of “special exemptions.” A num-‘ ber of other exemptions were covered by the same clause. But whilst woollen and hat-mills’ machinery have this special favour under the new Tariff, the other machinery, which appeared in the same clause in the old Tariff, has been made liable to duties ranging from 20 to 25 per cent. This is the exemption in the Tariff of 1902 -

Machinery for scouring, washing, carding, spinning, weaving, and finishing the manufacture of fibrous materials.

Mr KNOX:
Kooyong

I shall be able to fortify myself with a better speech than that which was delivered this afternoon by the honorable member for Yarra. He pointed out that within the Postal Department there are various cliques which make it extremely difficult for any man. to administer it in a satisfactory manner..

Minister of Trade and Customs admits that he is suffering from the effects of the air in the chamber, and when the Treasurer was. enjoying the hospitality of the pilots the other day - I do not say whether he acted wisely in accepting the hospitality of a ‘body of men in whose cause he will presently be called upon to adjudicate - he declared that he then occupied a very much better position that he does in the stinking atmosphere of this chamber.

Sir William Lyne:

– I did not use that word at all.

Mr LIDDELL:

– Then ,it is very like the word that the Treasurer did use. The scheme which I suggested ‘was that the air should be extracted through the roof of the chamber, and admitted in the neighbourhood of the floor. I understand that that scheme is now likely to be carried out, and I urge that it should be undertaken at the earliest possible moment.

Mr MALONEY:
Melbourne

.- The honorable member for Hunter has declared that if he were contesting another election he could not produce a ‘better anti-socialistic argument than that which was supplied by the speech of the honorable member for Yarra. If he will take the trouble to verify the statements of that honorable ‘ member I am sure he will acknowledge that they are absolutely accurate.

Mr Liddell:

– He said that there were certain organizations which influenced the administration of the Postal Department.

Mr MALONEY:

– His statements were perfectly accurate. Personally, I would prefer to see the present PostmasterGeneral at the head of the Postal Department rather than any Public Service Commissioner. The honorable member for Hunter has stated that he is opposed to the appointment of Commissions of Inquiry. In this connexion, I cannot forget what one wise old German said regarding the delays which resulted from the appointment of Commissions. He declared that if the Almighty bad placed the making of the earth in the hands of a Commission it would never have been made. My experience is that the appointment of Royal Commissions invariably involves delay. The whole life of the Postmaster- General affords evidence that he will not countenance sweating in any form. I recollect the time when, with myself and others, he was instrumental in securing the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry which led up to the passing of the first’ Factories Act in

Victoria. If the present staff of the Postal Department, with the assistance of 267 additional hands, cannot do the work, he will, so far as he can, insist on more men being taken on. I wish now to speak of another matter. It is desirable that the telephone conversations carried on over long-distance lines, such as that between Melbourne, and Sydney, should be as private as possible.

Mr Mauger:

– I have already instituted inquiries in regard to that matter.

Mr MALONEY:

– I drew the honorable member’s” attention to it privately a short time ago. Since then I have paid a visit to Sydney. On going to the General Post Office there, I found twenty-five persons outside the telephone cabinets, three deep, waiting their turn to use the instruments. If the honorable gentleman heard the expressions which some of them were “using under their breaths, I am afraid that he would blush. There is no reason why more boxes should not be provided. The cost would be very little. At the present time there is a complete absence of privacy. Names have to be shouted out so that any one can hear them. The position of things in this respect is even worse in Svdney than in Melbourne. -The officer at the counter has to shout out the names given to him, so that any one can hear them. I hope that the Postmaster-General will make, both in Melbourne and in Sydney, the arrangements necessary to insure privacy. With regard to the appointment to the position of Deputy PostmasterGeneral of Victoria, I would like to say that Victoria is the second State in the Union in point of population, and her branch of the Postal service is the second largest in the Commonwealth. If, in that service, there is not a man who has. been trained to fulfil all the requirements of the Department, those administering it have neglected their duty. I object to the importing of men from the other States, unless those imported are absolutely better than the local men. I do not wish to speak in terms of depreciation of a State whose potentialities are greater than those of any other in the Union ; but it cannot be con- . tended at the present time that the postal business of Queensland is as great as that of Victoria, or that the cities of Brisbane and Melbourne can.be compared in respect to population’ or volume of business. Therefore, I cannot see why a Brisbane official should be superior to a Melbourne official. If it is desired to bring an official from Brisbane to Melbourne merely to remove a difficulty, that is permissible; but if a permanent appointment is contemplated, I should like to know why it is considered that the capacity of a Bris-‘ bane official is greater than that of Victorian officials. I know that sweating has prevailed in our Postal Department; but I have never heard a word against Mr. Crosby, who is filling the position of Deputy Postmaster-General. I fear that, as the honorable member for Yarra has said, there is a special reason for what has’been done; but I am prepared to leave it to the Postmaster-General to prevent unfairness. I am sure that he will hold the scales of justice evenly between man and man. There must be some way of deciding the relative merits of officers. Surely some system of examination could be devised which would enable the best man to be selected for any position which is likely to become vacant. If any ten carpenters or joiners worked together for a month, they would discover, before the end of that period, who was the best amongst them. So, too, would any other body of workers ; they would soon find out who, in shearing parlance, was the “ringer.” I absolutely detest the principle of seniority in the matter of promotions, because seniority is not a guarantee of merit. But there is the risk that in allowing promotions by merit favoritism may be exercised by officers of high standing. I wish to pay mv meed of praise to the Public Service Commissioner, who has done his duty well. I have not found that he has ever allowed a man on the list for employment to be appointed out of turn. Not every man on that list is given employment, but those who can be taken on are appointed in their turn. While applicants for employment are fairly treated in this way the Commissioner will have my support.

Mr SPENCE:
Darling

.- After the excellent character which has been given by the honorable member for Melbourne to the Postmaster-General, he must feel that we expect a great deal from him. We hope that he will put the Department into good order, doing all that a clever man can do to remedy the evils which have been spoken of. I can support, from personal knowledge, much that has been’ said by the honorable member for Gwydir regarding the undermanning of the New South Wales Department. In some offices, it is so serious that annual leave has been deferred for a year .or two, it being impossible -to give the men leave, because their services cannot be dispensed with for a day. lt cannot be assumed that the Minister is responsible for this; but the official heads of branches seem to be too stingy and careful. If the present state of things continues, the postal employes will undoubtedly take steps to have their grievances voiced in Parliament, notwithstanding that the Public Service Act was passed to prevent political interference. It must tend to demoralize the service, and to dishearten loyal officers, to take from them their annual leave and other privileges1; and it cannot be charged against this Parliament that it is illiberal or parsimonious towards its servants. We have fixed a minimum wage - which was never done by the States - and have always- shown a readiness to act fairly. The heads of Departments must recognise this policy. If they will not do so, the Ministerial head should compel them -to do so. Although they are efficient officers, it might do some of them good to have to struggle for a living for a time outside the service. Until June last officers working overtime on Sundays were paid at the rate of time and a half. Parliament is opposed to Sunday work; but a certain amount of it appears inevitable. In some cases those who work on Sundays have to travel long distances by tram. They are often called upon to work for four or six hours in two stretches. But instead of receiving overtime pay for this service they are allowed an hour off, say, on Monday, and another hour off on Tuesday, until it is all compensated for as ordinary overtime. This means that they are being paid for Sunday work at the rate of 7d. per hour. Surely the PostmasterGeneral will .not state on any platform that that is a sufficient payment for Sunday work. Out of it tram fares have to be found, generally for two trips each way. Of course, overtime may occasionally be rightly compensated for by giving time off, but it is not fair to deal with Sunday work in that way. It has been said that some of the officials like Sunday work, because of the extra pay; but my experience is that very few men desire to give up their Sundays. The shortness of staffs that has. been spoken of exists, not only in Sydney, but also in a number of country places. In some towns the postmaster has had to take the telephone attendant into his office to do’ general division work, for which he is not paid, appointing a boy off .the street without any standing- at all to do’ the tele phone work. The boy is appointed temporarily, but may be kept on for a long period - perhaps for years - though the Actsays that temporary employment is not to last longer than six months. This sort of thing is overdone. Splendid work hasbeen done by the Public Service Commissioner, whom I believe to be a good manfor his position. I understand that the heads of the Commonwealth Departments* fully earn their salaries, which was not always the case with the heads of States Departments, whose under officers often did all the work. No doubt, it was expected that the greater efficiency of our higher officials would ‘ allow of an extra volume of work being done without, the making of additional appointments. [ am satisfied that throughout New South Wales, in the larger centres notably, there is shortage in the staffs, just as there isat the central office, Sydney. I should like to say a word or two about contract offices, into the whole arrangements of which I think .the new Postmaster-General ought to inquire very carefully. I do not oppose the utilization of contract offices, because there are districts in which such offices are undoubtedly useful. But the Department has gone to the other extreme, and with the result that there are many complaints of sweating, not of regular servants of the Department, but of persons who are engaged outside to do work, and are not given an adequate return. For instance, I know a case of a man who, for £156 a year over, I think, three years, has to provide a building, employ a telegraph messenger, and give the whole of his time to the duties of the contract office. When we take into consideration a fair return in the shape of rent, it will be seen that a very small income remains for the man himself ; and such arrangements are neither more nor less than sweating. In some of these contract offices the contractor has not only to employ a messenger but an operator ; and the system has grown to such an-, extent that I advise Victorian representatives to keep a sharp look out, in cose the delay in the appointment of the DeputyPostmasterGeneral in Victoria means the sub-letting of the General Post Office, Melbourne. I can assure honorable membersthat in this connexion the Commonwealth is getting a bad name throughout the country, owing to the dissatisfaction which is created. The Department has to take the chance of getting a competent person when the contract is let ; and, of course, if the contractor is unsuitable, the postal work is so conducted as to give rise to much public complaint. Under present arrangements the revenue has to be . £400 a year before an official office is established. In my opinion that figure is too high, particularly for growing districts; and moreover the establishment of official offices would give chances of promotion in the lower branches of the service, and secure the services of men trained and controlled by the Department and paid a decent living wage. It is false economy to pay poorly for services rendered; and when there is scarcely any compe’tition there is great danger of incompetency on the part of the contractor. I should like to draw attention to a curious regulation at the Wrightville post office, near Cobar. Although there is a savings bank and money order office attached, it is impossible to despatch a money order by telegraph. The office is conected with Cobar by telephone, but under a regulation which, I presume, is common in similar districts throughout Australia, any person desiring to send a telegraph money order must go to Cobar ; and it is not surprising that the people there do not quite appreciate the merits of the arrangement. There are many directions in which proper economy might be exercised throughout the country districts. For instance, an inspector of telegraph lines, in case of a breakdown, through the weather or otherwise, cannot obtain money necessary to pay for the repairs until, it may be, a month afterwards, owing to a voucher having to be sent in. Under the circumstances, he is forced to obtain the assistance of, perhaps, the local hotelkeeper, or anybody he can find ; and the result, it is to be feared, is inefficient work. If the inspector could go to the local postmaster and obtain the necessary money, he could employ any competent workman who happened to be about the place, and thus secure better value for the Department. I suggested to the Deputy Postmaster-General in Sydney that somesuch plan should be adopted, and I understood it to have been agreed to. Such work ought to be done promptly, and the cheapest method is to obtain the most efficient labour. Considering that work of this character must be called for daily throughout Australia, a large sum per annum is required for repairs’; and we all know that inferior labour adds to the cost. I should be glad of some information from the Postmaster-General as, to the future policy in regard to contract offices, and I hope to hear that every attention will be paid to the requirements of the various districts. In my opinion, postal work will grow in greater ratio than the population, because, naturally, the younger generation will write more letters than do the older people. The telephone demands are extending beyond the capacity of the Department to supply them ; and this, of course, involves the employment of additional officers.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- I. desire to bring under the notice of honorable members a grievance which affects one of my constituents, and also a number of public servants employed in the transferred Departments. This is the case of Mr. E. F. Dyer, a letter carrier of Newtown, Sydney ; and his claim has been hanging fire ever since 28th September, 1905. Section 49 of ‘the Public Service Act of New South Wales of 1884, under which thisletter carrier and others . think they are entitled to a retiring allowance, is as follows -

In the case of any officer not entitled to a superannuation allowance whose services may be dispensed with through no fault of his own, or who may be compelled through infirmity of body or of mind to leave the service, such infirmity being duly certified by medical authority. to the satisfaction of the Minister as likely to be permanent, the Governor may grant such gratuity as he may think fit, not exceeding in any case the amount of one month’s pay at his then rate of salary for each year of service.

The amending Act of 1895 secures the continuity of the right ; section 60, sub-section 2, being as follows -

If the services of any person permanently employed in the Public Service shall be dispensed with by the Board under the provisions of this Act otherwise than for an offence, then - (II.) If such person shall have been employed in the Public Service before and at the date of the commencement of this Act, but shall not be a contributor to the said Superannuation Account, such Derson shall receive a gratuity not exceeding one month’s pay for each year of service from the date of his permanent appointment, and a fortnight’s pay in respect of each year of temporary service ; such gratuity to be calculated on the average of his salary during the whole term of his employment, and . to be payable only in respect to service prior to the commencement of this Act.

Now, under the Constitution, the Commonwealth is called upon to safeguard the rights of the officers in the transferred services.

Mr Mauger:

– The Commonwealth has nothing whatever to do with the case referred to ; we cannot control it in any way.

– I desire to say a few words in reply to a statement made by the deputy leader of the Opposition.

Mr Liddell:

– The Minister should not start another discussion.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I am not going to allow the honorable member’s remarks to be published in Hansard without replying to them. He quoted certain exemptions in the old and in this Tariff. The exemption in the present Tariff reads -

Machinery and parts thereof, used in the manufacture of fibrous materials and felt, and felt hats, when installed for use ina woollen mill or a hat factory for the manufacture of such materials, felt, and hats.

In the other Tariff, the words were -

Machinery for scouring, washing, carding, spinning, weaving, and finishingthe manufacture of fibrous materials.

Machinery for the manufacture of paper and for felting.

The other night I stated that, according to my information, the words used, and the administration, were similar under both Tariffs. That statement was questioned, and, “on the motion for the adjournment last night, I was accused of having misled the leader of the Opposition. However, I have the following report fromthe ComptrollerGeneral -

Attached are shown the provisions of the Victorian Tariff, the Commonwealth Tariff of 1901-2, and the new Tariff, in regard to the exemption from duty of this class of machinery.

It will be observed that they are to a large extent identical in terms.

Under the old Federal Tariff it was the practice to admit free under this heading, machinery used in hat making, such as blocking, rounding, curling, finishing, and flanging machines, &c, but, as sometimes the officers were in doubt, it was thought advisable to specifically mention such machinery in the new Tariff, not that such mention extends the area of exemption, but simply makes clear what the old exemption included.

Even if the words “ and felt hats “ had been omitted, the exemption would still have applied to the class of machinery mentioned.

In the same manner a balling machine used in the manufacture of twine was also admitted free under this heading ; also a milling machine, wringer, steam press, and winder, used in connexion with the manufacture of knitted goods.

The position is practically unaltered as regards that which existed under the1901-2 Tariff, and that which exists under the present Tariff, except that the latter is really more restrictive in its terms than the old one.

Old Federal Tariff. -1. “Machinery for scouring, washing, carding, spinning, weaving, and finishing the manufacture of fibrous materials.”

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

– Are those still exempt ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I shall read what the Comptroller-General says, and then the honorable member will not be able to accuse me of varying the words.

” Machinery for the manufacture of paper and for felting.”

Sir William Lyne:

– Still, honorable members say that we are granting no preference to the goods of the United Kingdom.

Mr JOHNSON:

– The manufacturers, themselves say that, in respect of candles, the so-called preference really amounts to prohibition. That is, surely, a queer sort of preference. I wish now to say a few words in regard to the evidence given by Mr. Lorimer before the Tariff Commission, which is set out upon page 795 of the report of the proceedings of that body. He -pointed out that Australia was a large exporter of tallow, which is the chief raw material of stearine candles. The export from Australia of tallow is valued at something like £21,000 per annum. The transit charges upon this article in themselves confer upon our locally-manufactured candles a natural protection of 25 per cent., and have done so during the past four years. The f.o.b. cost ranges from 4½d. per lb. to 4§d. per lb., according to the brand. The previous duty of 25 per cent., added to the natural protection, made the impost under the old Tariff equivalent to 50 per cent, upon the f.o.b. value of imported candles. Surely that should be sufficient. But the new duty proposes an increase of 150 per cent, on the old rate, and 100 per cent, increase on goods of British manufacture. Of course, we have been told by the Treasurer and others who believe in protection that the amount of the duty imposed will npt be added to the cost of the article, and that, consequently, the consumer will not have to pay it. Indeed, the Treasurer has gone so far as to state in connexion with the effect of protection generally, that if a sufficient duty be levied, the locally-produced article will be verymuch cheaper than is the imported article. I have obtained a list of the prices ruling for candles throughout Australia prior to the introduction of the first Commonwealth Tariff. I find that in New South Wales, where candles were admitted free, the price of imported candles ranged from 5jd. to 5§d. per lb., according to the brand.

Mr Harper:

– They were Dutch candles.

Mr JOHNSON:

– That is immaterial, seeing that the same candles were imported into all the States of Australia. In Victoria, where there was a duty of id. per lb. upon these candles, the ruling price was from 6£d. to 6fd. per lb. - ari increase of exactly the amount of the duty. In Queensland and South Australia, the duty levied was 2d. per lb., and the same ratio was observed in the selling price to the consumer, which ranged from 7 Jd. to 7 Jd. per lb., according to the brand. These figures are sufficient to prove that it is not the obliging foreigner who pays the duty. The person who has to- pay in all cases is the consumer. This duty would not be of much consequence if candles were used only by the wealthier classes of the, community. But the chief users of candles are cabmen, miners, farmers, rural settlers, and the poorer residents of the cities. The old duty, so far as Great Britain was concerned, amounted to prohibition, and had the effect of preventing importation from the United Kingdom. Under the proposal of the Government, the impost against the mother country will be 2d. per lb. - an increase of 100 per cent, upon the old prohibitive rate. I wish now to call attention to the fact that there has been a great falling off in the importation of candles during the past few years. Under the old

Tariff, which imposed a duty of1d. per lb. upon candles, the importations under the heading of “ candles, tapers, night lights, and solid spirit heaters “ declined from approximately 3,500,000 lbs., valued at £70,000, in 1903, to less than 2,000,000 lbs., valued at £37,000, in 1907 - a decline of about 45 per cent.

Mr Mauger:

– Only half of the present year has expired. If the honorable member will compare the imports of candles for the present year with those of last year, he will find that they are gradually increasing.

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr Fuller:

– Not unless it is made in Victoria.

Mr JOHNSON:

– The evidence continues - 73653. You put in these exhibits, these candles, in these two packets, and you put in two vouchers. I should like you to make it clearer, if you can, that the candles were Kitchen’s ; how do you connect them with Kitchen? - In this way and that I think is made clear here : We wrote to Messrs. G. I. Mowat and Co. as. follows : - “ 9th March, 1905. “ In May and June of 1903, we had an interchange, and you kindly forwarded us a sample of Kitchen’s candles, under the label ‘ Imperial’ Bougie Anvers.’ Would you kindly inform us by wire at earliest possible after receipt of this present, if this candle is still available in your market, and if so, at what price? Please go into this matter at once, as we are anxious for the information, and oblige, “Yours faithfully, “ If the line is available, please purchase a packet, and obtain a receipt for the purchase, and forward on both to us.”

And we received the following from G. I. Mowat and Company - “ Kitchen’s Candles. “ 13th March, 1905. . “ As requested, we wired you this morning that the ‘Imperial Bougie’ was available, and the list price5¼d. In the list, the word ‘ Bougie ‘ only is used. By the same mail we send you two packages obtained from different grocers, and if necessary, there would be very little trouble in getting a box from Kitchen and Sons direct.”

Of the same sort? - Of the same sort.

I would rather like to see this proved conclusively. That is merely an assertion of your agents. Have you yourself satisfactorily connected this packet with a false and misleading label with Kitchen’s. You produce two packets, and you produce two vouchers, memorandums of sale. Kitchen and Sons may say, “ What have we got to do with that?” - What do you suggest we should do. You are giving the Commission to understand that these candles are made by Kitchen and Sons? - I am.

On what evidence? - The mere fact that they were bought in a shop in Brisbane is no evidence that Kitchen is the manufacturer? - But Kitchen has them on their list. That is what the letter states.

We have a list of Kitchen’s - do you identify these as the kind of candle listed by Kitchen as Bougie, 25 in the box? - The Bougie, yes.

There is more evidence in confirmation of that statement. On the 17th September last, the following telegram was published in the Melbourne Age -

Chiltern, Monday. At the last meeting of the Chiltern branch of the Miners’ Association a member asked if there was any possibility of the Pure Food Act being brought to bear on imported candles being used in the mines. He urged that they were injurious to the health of the miners. The president (Mr. Howes) said that the question had been brought up at one conference. He suggested that the men should refuse to use them. Miners stated that there was a thick, black smoke from the candles, which settled in the nostrils and throat of the miner, and the following day his expectoration would be black.

The Chiltern miners were under the impression that the candles to which they objected were imported, but I propose to show from some correspondence between the secretary to the Chiltern Miners’ Association and Mr. Lorimer, that the candles of which they complain were manufactured locally, and falsely represented to be imported. I do not say that all locally-made candles are inferior. It is admitted that some candles of local manufacture are of high quality, though chemical analysis shows that the quality is not so high as some imported candles. Some locally-made candles are sold cheaply. Seeing the paragraph in the Age, to which I have referred; Mr. Lorimer, on the 17 th September last, sent the following letter to the secretary of the Miners’ Association, Chiltern -

Noticing the attached report re Candles in the issue of the Age of even date, and having taken an interest in analytical research in respect to this article for the past twenty years, I should’ be pleased if you would kindly favour me with a sample of the article referred to therein, and, as well, information as to the country of origin, which no doubt you will be able to ascertain from the packages.

On the 22ndof the same month he wrote again to the secretary -

Following on my letter to you of the 17th inst., I had the pleasure of a visit from two of your representatives, at which they informed me the candle of which the members of your association complained as being injurious to their health, was an imported paraffine article, marked on the boxes as of Rangoon manufacture, a small sample of which they were good enough to leave with me. Assuming the facts are as above, of which I have no doubt, in view of the statements of your representatives, I would be obliged for your official confirmation, of same, as also, if you could so favour me with a few candles, as I am desirous of proceeding further in this matter, in what I consider to be the interests of the public in general.

In reply to that, the following letter was received from the secretary of the association -

I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 26th September, and in reply thereto, I have to state that I cannot attempt to procure any further supply of candles as desired by you, inasmuch as the candles are the property of the mining companies. With respect to the piece delivered to you by the President of the Chiltern branch of the Miners’ Association, it is an exact specimen of those in use, and I was fortunate to procure same from a miner who had just left the mine and now migrated to other parts. With respect to these candles, they are called “ Rangoon,” and the boxes in which they are delivered are of long shape, and contain no other imprint, only “ Rangoon.” I have been locallyinformed that they are made by Kitchen and Sons from imported residue.

Mr Mathews:

– Rangoon paraffine wax.

Mr JOHNSON:

– They purported to be Rangoon candles, and the public were misled into the idea that they were buying imported candles -

Whether this is true or otherwise I. cannot say. However, the candles (of which you hold a perfect specimen) are undoubtedly injurious to the health of the miners, and will, if continued in use, produce some disease of a serious character -

The honorable member for Melbourne Ports smiles, but I do not think the subject as one for levity. The miners look on this as a vital question ; and I ask the honorable member, as one who professes to directly represent the interests of labour, to show some sympathy with the men who have to use an inferior article to the detriment of their health - because, notwithstanding the fact that the miners who have been using them are absent from their use for periods of six weeks and two months, still continue to expectorate a black thick micaceous matter off apparently the lungs, and those working continuously spit nothing else when the phlegm is coughed from the lower regions of khe chest. Therefore, it cannot be otherwise assumed than that the candles are producing a most deleterious effect upon the chest organs of those in contact with them, and it seems a most unreasonable toleration to continue to do so, particularly in mining, where the precincts are so confined; but economy is the watchword of the hour, and cheapness has preference to the health of humanity. Those who have and those who have not are on two different planes, and it is very simple to discharge men, as excuses are at all times available.’ Therefore the miners continue to use them.

On the 30th September Mr. Lorimer again wrote to the secretary of the Miners’ Association, as follows -

I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 27th inst., and to thank you for the information you therein supply, which I feel sure will assist me in my endeavours to have the use of paraffine candles in mines discontinued. I can hardly think the article is manufactured “by Messrs. Kitchen and Sons, if the boxes are marked as you inform me, with the word “ Rangoon,” as the agents for the Rangoon-made candles would surely have taken steps to prevent the local manufacturers using this foreign name. However, I will look further into the matter. Again thanking you for the trouble you have taken in this matter, as also your courtesy in favouring mo with information.

This was followed by the following letter from Mr. Lorimer, on the 7th October- -

Adverting to my letter to you of the 30th ultimo, I have pleasure in advising, hairing interviewed the local agents for the imported Rangoon candles, and shown them the sample of the article you kindly left with me, as is being supplied to the miners at yours. They state emphatically that it is not the imported Rangoon candle, but a locally-made article, and that they themselves have taken the matter up, and are endeavouring to purchase an original box, so as they may be in a position to proceed further in the matter, in such manner as the circumstances warrant. Could you oblige me with the name 0/ any one from whom such a purchase could be made?

That letter was written only a couple of -weeks ago, so that I understand the subject is still being dealt with. It is now proposed to impose this heavy increase of duty, amounting to more than double the previous duty, for the purpose of protect- ing firms who, if we are to believe the evidence and the statements made, have been, if they are not at present, guilty of imposing on the public by manufacturing an inferior article and selling it as imported, for the purpose of discrediting the production from abroad, and, at the same time, putting money into their own pockets at the expense of the miners. If the statements contained in these letters are true, the conduct disclosed is the most discreditable of which any firm could be guilty. We have the evidence of the secretary of the Chiltern Miners’ Association, backed up by the statement of the representatives of the Rangoon makers, and we may, therefore, fairly assume that the allegations in these letters are correct. If the statements are untrue, then, of course, the firm chiefly concerned have their remedy in the Courts of the Commonwealth, where they may protect themselves from any aspersion. I have stated the facts to the Committee just as I received them ; and, in my opinion, they constitute an unanswerable argument for refusing to give the degree of protection proposed to local manufacturers. I move -

That after the figures “ 2£d.,” the words “ and on and after 18th October, 1907 (General Tariff), per lb., id.,” be inserted.

– That does not always follow.

Mr GLYNN:

– I do not wish to be led into a dispute which does not touch the issue. I fully appreciate the pregnancy of the honorable member’s interjection, and. although I might make some observations in regard to the rates of the local bodies, I do not wish to trespass too long upon the attention of honorable members. Adhering to my own course, I merely wish to point out that the power of Great Britain to sustain, without any sense of its magnitude, this extraordinary outlay, depends upon the maintenance of an external commerce, which in 1906 reached the extraordinary total of £984,000,000- an external trade which no nation has ever approached. We must remember, in considering the demand to be made in the future upon the mother country, that it is a time of competition for military and naval supremacy and commercial expansion. Germany is particularly active. I do not think I could better illustrate what England may have to face in the sphere of commercial competition, as well as in an attempt by other countries to sustain naval and military supremacy, than by making a’ short Quotation on German naval policy from the last weekly edition of the Times which has reached us. I quote from one of a series of articles recently written in the press of Great Britain with a view to stimulate a greater intelligence and activity on the part of those who are responsible for the defence of the Empire -

England has never in her long history been face to face with such redoubtable rivals as the Germans. Philip of Spain had the ships and men, but not the ports over against our shores. Louis XIV. and Napoleon had the armies, but an insufficient number of ships, and no organized ports in the Channel. The Dutch had the ships and the ports, but not the army. The Germans possess the armies, the ships, and the ports : they possess numbers ; they are a self-contained nation in all that relates to maritime- activity ; and . they can boast, above all and better than all, a spirit of enterprise and of sacrifice, a tenacity of purpose, and a knowledge of the science of war which are unsurpassed. The eventuality of a contest with this mighty Power must never be out of our. thoughts for a single hour.

To show the aggressive activity of Germany - and I use the word “ aggressive “ because in 1891 the policy of increasing its naval power was declared with a view of enabling Germany to become aggressive - I may mention as illustrating the increase in the naval armament of Germany that while in 1891 its outlay in connexion with the Navy was £4,500,000, during the next twelve years its total outlay on construction will be £77,000,000. It has been calculated that between 1906 and 1919 Germany’s total outlay on the navy will be

£1 66,000,000.

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

– The honorable member has no figures as to the annual estimates ?

Mr GLYNN:

– No. I have taken those which I have quoted from the article in the Times to which I. have just referred, and they certainly indicate an arming up. Let us not by our little tinkering policies of commercial preference, which are not required by the mother country, irritate these great countries. At present we are connected with Germany not only by the .blood relationship of the Crowns, but by one of the finest agencies of peace - an increasing commercial intercourse. I would ask honorable members in connexion with the extreme policy of protection to bear in mind the relation of the external commerce of England to that of Germany. The total trade of Germany in 1906 was £372,000,000 as against a total of £984,000,000 in the case of Great Britain. There is an interchange amounting to £.1 09,000,000 .between the United Kingdom and Germany, and such a trade is not one that we should imperil to any extent by our petty little policies of preference which are unsolicited by the mother country. Of course, England is a large distributing country, and sends a good many exports to Germany which are not of local production. But, making a liberal allowance for this fact, there was a total export from thi United Kingdom to Germany in 1906 of £29,500,000 worth of locally-produced goods. I ask honorable members whether we ought to imperil these relations by adopting the’-policy which the Government now ask us to initiate? Of course, their proposals represent only the beginning of a policy of preference which is intended to apply upon both sides. Although we may grant this preference to the mother country now without receiving anything by way of return, we do so with a lively expectation of favours to come. From the querulous complaints which were made in England by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, it would almost appear that the mother country was not doing enough for Australia. What is the trade with which we may interfere - apart from its aggregate value? In 1906, 71 per cent, of the exports Qf the mother country were to foreign countries, and only 28. per cent, to British Possessions. So that, ‘prima facie, it is of greater importance to the old country that its trade relations with foreign nations should remain undisturbed’ than that its trade relations with British Possessions should not be interfered with. The export of British, and Irish produce to foreign countries represents 67 per cent., and to British Possessions only 32 per cent. What might a reversal of the fiscal system of the United Kingdom mean5 Honorable members must recognise that we cannot secure anything by way of return for the preference which we grant to Great Britain, except by a complete reversal of the fiscal policy of that country. Last year we exported to the United Kingdom goods approximately to the ‘ value of £27,000,000, of which only £148,000 worth were subject to duty. Any preference which the mother country might grant to our produce could only ap-. ply to that portion of our trade which is subject to duty, whereas the bulk of our trade with Great Britain is not subject to any Customs imposts. Consequently, we’ cannot get anything substantial by way_ of return for any preference we may grant, except by a complete reversal of the’ fiscal policy of the United Kingdom. What might that mean? In 1905, the total value of the principal imports into the United Kingdom1 was £565,000,000, of which only £45,000,000 was subject to duty. So that whether we take the amount of our exports to the United Kingdom or the proportion of the principal imports which are at present subject to taxation, as the measure of the total protection to be afforded, I say that we cannot possibly ask the mother country, without endangering her fiscal system, to extend a preference to Australian goods. But by adopting this policy, we shall really be strengthening the position of the Conservative Party in England. In a speech delivered by Mr. Balfour in the House of Commons on the 20th February last, he declared that the objective of his party was greater political unity and the widening of the sphere of indirect taxation. I am sure that my friends of the Labour Party, whose interests primarily are identical with those of the great working classes - and by that term I do not necessarily mean manual labourers only, but include any person who by_ mental or physical exertion earns what he or she receives - will not consciously help the Conservatives in the great fight which will be renewed on this question in the near future. Mr. Balfour said -

We want to find .1 plan by which this growth of nationality, this consciousness of a great future which these young countries have in so full a measure, can be combined with that sense of communion in some higher unity with the mother country which gave them birth.

Then, .proceeding to pH.it what he conceives to be the position of the Colonies, he said -

The -suggestion they make is that an attempt should be made to use whatever fiscal system we possess to carry out a scheme of Imperial preference between the different parts of the Empire - that we should make an attempt - and why should not an attempt be made? The lime must come when we must have a broader basis of taxation, and be able to use that broader basis of taxation for increasing our command of foreign markets and for obtaining closer commercial connexion with the colonies.

The only items on which a broader basis of taxation can be initiated - as was mentioned by one speaker - are ‘wine, tobacco, apples and dried fruits, two items of which have already been disposed of in this Tariff. .Mr: Lloyd George, in dealing with this matter at the Imperial Conference on 7th May last, concluded a short speech with a few words which I propose to quote. In that short speech I think he touched the real cause of the poverty and wretchedness which he, in common with ourselves, would like to see abolished, not only in protectionist, but in free-trade, countries. He said -

We, in these old countries, are not so happily circumstanced. Neither free-trade nor protectionist countries can claim that they are immune from dire poverty and distress amongst large masses of their population. We have in every old country of the world multitudes of poor people, who, from the cradle to the grave, are never out of sight or hearing distance of the wolves of hunger.

Passing on, he said -

Free-trade has been a great success as a wealth-creating machine, and all this wretchedness is not so much the sorrow as the shame of Great Britain. Had our colonial friends proposed resolutions calling upon us to use the gigantic resources of this country to put an end for ever to a condition of things which is a blot on the fair fame of the Empire as a whole, then we should have been happy to have assented to their resolution, and to do all in . our power to give it effect. But an alteration in our fiscal system is not going to -achieve this end; the causes are deeper, as they are older, than any existing fiscal system.

Few of us will dispute that. Mr. Lloyd George concluded his’ address with a prayer to the representatives of the Colonies that they would not, through any mistaken notion, seek to interfere with a commercial system which, at all events, gives them an aggregate wealth upon which,, under more enlightened and humanitarian schemes, they may operate, perhaps, to promote a. fairer distribution. He says -

We beseech you then, not to lend countenance to fin v schemes which, however much they might profit” you, would have the effect of increasing bv one” grain of sand the weight ot unendurable poverty now borne by many sons and daughters of this affluent country.

All I can ask my democratic friends is to remember those words, and, by their votes, to give a true answer to them. Our Empire is composed of the most diverse elements. India is most emphatically opposed to any interference with the fiscal system of the United Kingdom which may imperil its position with foreign countriesIn a special memorandum which was presented to the Imperial Conference, it is pointed out that India levies no higher duty upon goods than 5 per cent. Her duties are purely revenue duties. The duty upon cotton is only 3 J per cent., while the local product is subject to an Excise duty; and that upon iron and steel is only 1 per cent, Further, India has several treaties, the chief of which are with Russia and France,, with whom she does a large and increasing trade. Seventy per cent of her exports are to foreign countries. The United Kingdom sends about two-thirds of the imports of India, and only takes, net, about 19 per cent. So that, apparently, India is justified in objecting to any interference with the fiscal system of the’ Empire. Regarding Australia, I can showthat a healthy development is taking place- in our foreign trade. Between 1891 and 1901 there was an increase in our tradewith Germany of 15.80 per cent. That: increase ought to satisfy protectionists.

Mr Sampson:

– It represented wool, chiefly, I suppose?

Mr GLYNN:

– I distinctly say that, when once we start bargaining, good-bye to any links that may bind, either an Empire or a trading community. The visible links that bind the Empire are threefoldlegal, naval, and military - but the strongest link of all is the sentiment of common blood and common race; and when we introduce the spirit of. bargaining, we sow the seeds of future discord within the Empire. The strongest link that can bind an Empire was in evidence at the time of the Boer war, when Australia, in a most selfsacrificing, generous, noble-hearted manner, came to the assistance of the mother land ; and I believe that every portion of the Empire would to-day, or at any other time, come to the assistance of Great Britain in the hour of danger or trial. We have been told that the unity of the Empire is in danger, and that to preserve it preferential trade is necessary. I assert that the unity of the Empire is not in danger - that the links of sentiment are as powerful to-day as at the time of the Boer war. And I further say that any scheme of preference which involves reciprocity is merely low-down bargaining. I admit that the position to-day is somewhat altered, and I am prepared to give substantial preference to the motherland, asking for no reciprocity. The preference I shall vote will be as a free gift; it will not be the miserable preference of the type which we saw last night granted in the case of biscuits, and refused in the case of blue.

Mr Webster:

– That was under pressure.

Mr WILKS:

– Fancy a big question like this being dealt with under pressure ! Let me remind honorable members of what took place last night. In the case of biscuits, the Treasurer said that the reason he agreed to preference was that nearly the whole of the imports were of British manufacture. In the case of blue,it was shown that the whole of the imports were British; and yet,forthat reason, the Treasurer refused preference! We can now see how well defined and earnest are the honorable gentleman’s ideas in regard to preference to the mother land. I do not wish to labour this question, but I should like to read one or two extracts, including the following from a speech delivered by the Earl of Rosebery on the 13th April, 1903.-

Take Australia,. “ The Australians,” it is pointed out, “ will not shrink from any sacrifice of life and treasure in the hour of the nation’s danger, but when the expansion of manufactures, or the life of new industries are threatened, they feel that in self -protection they cannot lower the present duties, though they are ready to impose higher ones on foreign imports.” There is no very material offer there. “ An undoubted desire to be helpful to the mother country exists throughout Australia, yet with this benevolent feeling is mingled a strong determination not to enter into any compact which would not be mutually and equally advantageous.”

That was the opinion of the Earl of Rosebery, when the great fiscal controversy involving preferential trade was first raised, and when the Prime Minister of Australia introduced the question to us. The book before me contains reports of speeches delivered by twelve prominent public men of. Great Britain - six in favour of preferential trade, and six in opposition to it, and on perusing it honorable members will find that the leading politicians of the old country are thoroughly familiar with Australian views upon this question. There is certainly no occasion for any alteration in our trading relationships with the old country in order to indicate ourloyalty to it. Viscount Goschen, who is more of an economist than a politician, says -

I believe Mr. Chamberlain to be absolutely honest in his intention that the 2s. will be final, and that he would be very sorry indeed to see a greater burden than that placed on the working man. But will that “ do the trick” - if I may use the expression - will it satisfy the Colonies ? When they have got a 2s. duty, will they come to us and say, “ It is not quite enough, you cannot point out to us that this 2s. has exactly increased the price of bread, and we think you might give us another1s. or 2s.” And if you cannot agree with the Colonies there will be friction -

That is an important consideration., The man who is prepared to vote for preferential trade without asking for reciprocity is a reasonable individual ; but those who ask for reciprocity are treading on dangerous ground. Viscount Goschen continued - and the Empire might again be in danger. And if “the ‘Empire in danger” has secured 2s. is it not a possibility that “ the Empire still in danger”might secure more? The company which Mr. Chamberlain is keeping now is not entirelypure as regards this matter. There are protectionists who have openly avowed theirdesire for a 5s. duty on corn.

In Englandit was the protectionists who, on behalf of certain industries which they thought were flagging, raised the cry ofpreferential trade, whilst in the Commonwealth protectionists are fighting for preferential trade with Great Britain, but strange to say, are prepared to grant a preference in regard only to goods which we do not import to any extent from the old country. The Government proposal certainly is not a substantial offer to the motherland. We could well afford to offer her a preference without attempting to make any bargain. When the desire to make a bargain permeates our negotiations, the spirit of patriotism is dead. Whenever I can, by my vote, help Great Britain, I shall do so. I shall vote for every item of a preferential character in this Tariff, and what ismore, I shall vote to reduce the duties on food supplies and textiles irrespective of the fact that for the most part we import fromthe United Kingdom. I shall not tie myself down to the preferential trade proposals of the Government; I shall endeavour to secure a reduction of the duties proposed by them. I propose now to read an extract from a speech delivered at Leicester, on 17th November, 1903, by the Earl of Rosebery, who made some interesting references to the two leading public men in Australia, the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition. Honorable members will be surprised to find how well versed the public men of Great Britain are in the every day affairs of Australia. The Earl of Rosebery said -

What is the case as regards Australia, for example? Australia is now going through a general election, and I have anxiously searched the papers to see what indications there are of an offer from Australia to give us a preferential Tariff in her Customs duties. Why, Mr. Deakin, Prime Minister of Australia, speaks freely about it; but he always speaks of it as an offer made by Great Britain, or rather by Mr. Chamberlain, to the Colonies. “ Mr. Chamberlain,” he says, “ with characteristic courage and resource offers a preference.” But that is not an offer from the Colonies. It is very generous of Mr. Chamberlain, but it is not exactly what he has de scribed to us as the state of thetransaction. Mr. Deakin says that these proposalsof Mr. Chamberlain, ifthey were adopted, would make it necessary for Australia to produce vast quantities of wheat and dairyproduce. Well, I don’t know how theBritish farmer will like that. It doesnot strike me as, in any eminent degree, arelief toBritish agriculture, butit shows a very material flaw in this scheme, because a 2s. duty on foreign wheat will affect Canada at her distance from ourselves - whatever itmay be - 3,000 miles -Iwillnotpretend off-hand togive the exact figures - very differently from the effect it will have on Australia,which is thirteen or 14,000 miles away. But Mr. Deakin is, after all - though he takes this unfortunate view of the offer as comingnotfrom them but from us, or rather from Mr. Chamberlain - not the only politician in Australia. There is a very eminent man - oneof the ablest statesmen I have ever come across - Mr. Reid, the leader of the Opposition. Well; you seem to know something ‘about Mr.Reidhere. What does he say? - “When the day arrives that England can only maintain her trade by artificial preferential barriers, on that day England is doomed. England gained her supreme commercial position not by barricades but byproving herself superior in technical skill, in manufacturing ability, in knowledge, and in business enterprise.”

Mr Crouch:

– Quite inaccurate.

Mr.WILKS. -I suppose that thehonorable member regards himself as a greater authority onthis question than is the Earl of Rosebery. I have not yet heard the honorable member defend the preferential trade proposals of the Government ;I certainly have not heard him say that he is preparedto votefor preferential trade without reciprocal treatment. TheEarl of Rosebery went on to say -

I observe also that under thenew Commonwealth Tariff in Australia, Sydney, inNew South Wales, which was a free-trade centre, has been rapidly erecting manufactories. All these manufactories will want to be protected, and I do not see any particular likelihood of an offer from Australia, such as we are assured has already been made, though we cannot discern it. All the news from Australia is excellent, so far as it goes. There is no decrease of loyalty, no decrease in the wish for national co-operation, but as for any trace of this offer, for my life I cannot discern it.

That isthe true position to-day. The Government are only trifling with this question, and the duties under the old Tariff have really been raised even as against Great Britain. I have made these quotations for a twofold purpose. In the first place. I wished to show that public men in England are not to be fooled in regard to thisquestion ; while, in the second place, I desired to emphasize the point that it would be better for us to strikeout the preferential trade proposals than to make a mockery of the whole policy.

Mr.mcdougall. - Did not the honor- ablemember vote last night, as a freetraderfor a duty of 8s. per cwt.on invert sugar?

Mr.WILKS.- The honorable member forLanglast night gave us a scientific dissertation showing that the polarised light fell on the wrong side of this item, and I saidthat I would vote for the proposed impost, since I did not see why the brewers should receive preferential treatment whilst consumers of sugar generallyhadtopay a high duty. I voted to treat the brewers as the protectionist party had treated consumers of sugar generally. It is the duty ofthe Government to explain their position in regard to this matter. In the last Parliament the present Prime Minister made a strong appeal to the House to vote for preferential trade, but so farduring the present session theGovernment have not addressed themselves to the question. I believe that the inclusion of the preferential trade column in this schedule was an afterthought. Some time ago I put to the Minister of Trade and Customs questions relating to a statement that on the morning following the introduction of the Tariff the Rockhampton Bulletin published what purported to be a copy of the schedule, but contained no reference to preference. The explanation given by the Minister was that the preferential trade proposals were sent on after the original Tariff had been handed over to the printer.. I think that proves my contention that these preferential trade proposals were a mere after-thought, and were tacked on to the Tariff schedule without any reasonable consideration.

– A few evenings ago honorable members opposite were complaining that no manufacturer of wire-netting came before the Tariff Commission, thatonly an employé was examined.

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

– The statement which the honorable member has quoted has no foundation in fact.

Mr.COON. - Thesestatements aretrue. The honorable member for Perth will admit that every witness whocame before the Commissionwassubjectedto a strict cross-examination.

Mr Fowler:

– Yes; and some ought to have been prosecuted for perjury.

Mr COON:

– One of those who went before the Commission told me that he would not do so again if he were paid£10 a day.

Mr Reid:

– He got a good shaking up for the first time in his life.

Mr COON:

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

.- To my mind, an Australian monopoly is just as bad as’ any other monopoly. Indeed, in some cases it is worse. The proposed preferential duty of Jd. per lb. iri favour of imports from the United Kingdom is a sham, as can be ascertained by inquiry of the merchants. As a matter of fact, I am informed that candles manufactured in the United Kingdom are practically an unknown quantity in this market. I have here an extract from a letter dated London, 6th August, 1907, from the Price Patent Candle Company, one of the largest makers of candles in the world. This is what they say about the alleged preference to the United Kingdom in respect of candles -

We have seen the reports regarding the new Tariff, and regret to observe that whilst so much is said about preference to the old country the Tariff proposed upon its goods so far as we are concerned amounts to prohibition.

At the last meeting of the Chiltern branch of the Miners’ Association a member asked if there was any possibility of the Pure Food Act being brought to bear on imported candles being used in the mines. He urged that they were injurious to the health of the miners. The president (Mr. Howes) said that the question had been brought up at one conference. He suggested, that the men should refuse to use them. Miners stated that there was a thick, black smoke from the candles, which settled in the nostrils and throat of the miner, and the following day his expectoration would be black.

Why should the Age, which is the mouthpiece of the Australian manufacturer, try to fix the blame on to an imported article when they know very well that the statement was untrue, or, as the honorable member for Capricornia would say, “ absolutely incorrect.” The Age knew very well that the candle referred to was not an imported candle. I have no sympathy whatever with the importation of articles that are of inferior quality. If the Rangoon candle is inferior, I would either prohibit its importation, or not allow it to be used in mines where it” may be injurious to health. Protectionist members from Victoria and other States are very fond of. saying that free-traders are the patrons of the foreign trader. But surely to goodness they must admit that we have some soul. I, for one, do not want to see our people taxed out of their very boots. In my constituency everything that we drink, eat, or wear is imported and taxed. Surely I have some reason for desiring to stop that unreasonable taxation. If it were not for people in constituencies like mine buying their goods from them, how could the manufacturers live? They would have to close up their factories and live, like vermin, upon one another’s bodies. That would not last long. Without the primary industries of Australia, how long would this city of Melbourne last? Every man sitting on the Opposition side has as much humanity in his soul as have men sitting behind the Government or in this corner with me. If there is anything injurious in Rangoon candles, and if the Ministry are game to take prohibitive action, honorable members here and the Opposition will assist them.

Progress reported.

page 4893

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers : -

Audit Acts - Transfers of Amounts approved by the Governor-General in Council - Financial Year 1906-7 (dated nth October, 1907).

Defence Acts - Provisional Regulations - Military Forces - Regulation No. 568 amended - Statutory Rules 1907, No. 104.

House adjourned at xo.53 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 17 October 1907, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1907/19071017_reps_3_40/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives17 October 1907

PETITIONS

QUESTION

PATENT MEDICINES

Mr THOMAS:BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr Thomas:

QUESTION

MILITARY BAYONETS

Mr FAIRBAIRN:FAWKNER, VICTORIA

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

QUESTION

WIRE NETTING

Mr CHANTER:RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Protectionist

QUESTION

POST OFFICE ADMINISTRATION

Mr TUDOR:YARRA, VICTORIA

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

Mr JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MAUGER:

QUESTION

VICTORIAN TELEGRAPHS

Mr MAUGER:Protectionist

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Minister of Trade and Customs · EdenMonaro · Protectionist

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr Reid:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr PAGE:Maranoa

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr PAGE:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr PAGE:

Mr WILKS:Dalley

Mr REID:East Sydney

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr REID:

Mr CROUCH:Corio

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr MAHON:Coolgardie

Mr Wilks:

Mr MAHON:

Mr Thomas:

Mr MAHON:

Mr Deakin:

Mr MAHON:

Mr Wilks:

Mr MAHON:

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

Mr MAHON:

Mr Watson:

Mr MAHON:

Mr Watson:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr MAHON:

Mr Liddell:

Mr MAHON:

Mr Page:

Mr MAHON:

Mr Mcwilliams:

Mr MAHON:

Mr Page:

Mr MAHON:

Mr Mathews:

Mr MAHON:

Mr MATHEWS:Melbourne Ports

Mr Fairbairn:

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr WEBSTER:Gwydir

House of Representatives
17 October 1907

Mr THOMAS:
BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

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

Mr CHANTER:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

Mr TUDOR:
YARRA, VICTORIA

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

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

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

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

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

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

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Minister of Trade and Customs · EdenMonaro · Protectionist

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

Mr REID:
East Sydney

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

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

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

Mr SALMON:
Laanecoorie

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

Mr KNOX:
Kooyong

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

Mr JOHNSON:
Lang

Mr LIDDELL:
Hunter